Marsha, Well thanks. I decided to reread what I had written, and I noticed that I seemed to change my mind in midsentence of what I was typing at times. So, bear with me on that. My brain is faster than my fingers. Too much coffee I guess. Mark
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:30 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > Rigorous posting? :-) Well, I have to confess, that in some strange way I > am impressed. It would be unfair not to admit it. > > > Marsha > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 8, 2011, at 12:13 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> As I understand your question, you are asking me to provide my >> personal understanding of what is meant by theory. I Let me know if I >> misunderstood. I will deal with scientific theory since this is what >> I am most familiar with. If instead you are asking me to provide my >> understanding of understanding then this cannot be done in simple >> terms. >> >> My post, from where your question came from, was questioning the value >> of the theory of evolution. I believe I made my case clear there, so, >> on to my "theory of theory". >> >> A theory is a reification (to use your vocabulary) of a system under >> which data can be explained. The theory of evolution (for example) is >> a reification of how we got here, what controls our here, and what we >> can expect beyond the here. As with any theory, this reification >> provides a conceptual framework from which meaning can be provided to >> observations are used to provide meaning. For a theory to be >> accepted, the observations must be fit within its structure. In this >> way, the observations (or data) are analyzed in terms of the >> reification. >> >> The data is neutral and can be used to fit into any theory available. >> That is, the theory will manipulate the data so as to conform to its >> reification. In this way, the data does not "prove" the theory, >> rather the data set is structured so as to give some depth to the >> theory, and allow for predictability. I will illustrate this by means >> of analogy. >> >> A book is a collection of words and phrases (data). To get meaning >> from a book, the words and phrases are reified as we deem appropriate. >> If such book allows multiple meanings (a sacred text of some sort, >> for example), then such reification becomes influenced by personal >> history and the "wiring" of the individual. We fully accept that the >> meaning provided to the individual by such a book can vary depending >> on the individual. Scientific theory is no different, and the data >> presented can be analyzed with input from personal history. The >> educational process "wires" us to view scientific theory in the way we >> are taught, and in this way, such theory is propagated within a >> culture. We are taught that the theory of evolution (for example) is >> the correct way to interpret the data, and that we should see the >> reality of our existence within that reification. >> >> The theory of evolution was a product of its time. I do not want to >> get into the history of it, but suffice it to say that Darwin did not >> come to his reification out of the blue. There were social and >> intellectual pressures which provided him his reification. I could >> also say that there were both life and inorganic level influences as >> well since the levels cannot be isolated as inherent (again using your >> vocabulary). By claiming that such a theory was a product of its >> time, the validity of the "rightness" of this theory comes into >> question, and one can then put the theory of evolution, as it >> currently stands, as a personal choice on what to believe about one's >> own personal reality. If the theory of evolution matches your >> experience in the world, then it is useful to you. >> >> Theories come an go, and the value of a theory lies in the personal. >> If one chooses to view existence as one which necessarily includes the >> "struggle for life", or as an impersonal world where "what is" is >> governed by the "laws" of chance, then the theory of evolution will >> indeed have high value. In my opinion (of course) It puts one within >> a framework where he/she becomes a victim of circumstances, and where >> one has little control over one's overall actions. >> >> Finally, to end I will briefly present a current state of the theory >> of evolution. For many years it was theorized that our phenotypic >> (physical) expression was a result of a rigid DNA which we had no >> choice but to pass along to our children. Since the vogue of the day >> is to claim that our behavior is a result of genetics, our own >> behavior is determined by this rigid DNA. The only areas of possible >> DNA modification were through random mutation. This of course evoked >> the laws of chance, which were (and still are) popular. It was >> assumed that the mixing of genes during the shuffling of genotypes >> following fertilization, was a predictable pattern if we had enough >> information. This is classically illustrated by Mendel's experiments >> with peas. >> >> However, more recently the theory of Epigenetics has found resurgence. >> This theory proposes that what happens to us in this particular life >> can be passed along to our children. Data can be used to support this >> theory. In this way, our children can 'learn", at a cellular level, >> from what we do, provided what we do happens before they are born (in >> my opinion, such cellular learning can happen even after, but I will >> not get into that). This implies that our current actions have >> importance in terms of the biology of evolution as expressed through >> DNA. Now, you can probably see how this notion of "personal >> responsibility" may fly in the face of classical evolution. But, I >> will leave that for you to ponder. >> >> I hope I have not lost you with all this rigorous posting. I am open >> to questions if they are well intended. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark >> >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
