Hi Mark, Not to worry: theories come and go...
Marsha Sent from my iPad On Dec 9, 2011, at 5:53 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 and 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. >>> >>> Snip... 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
