Dear Chuck,
Thanks for your reply. I'm still unclear though - please be patient
with my lack of perception.
Ok, I think see the problem. There appears to be an internal
presumption in your definition that I don't assume automatically.
In fact its the bit I need clarity on before the rest makes any sense.
You say 'An effective theory is one whose purpose is clear, defines and relates its
elements in ways that are relevant to the situations it addresses... '
The 'theory' is described by the 'one' which refers to a something, not
defined in the overarching definition, on which your overall definition depends.
I feel that that ambiguous and presumed 'one', which if defined would
describes exactly what the meaning of the term theory is that you are really
presuming and using, is the key. As it stands, your definition appears
tautological and, reasoning through it, seems to include many things that are
not usually thought of as theory.
I applied the usual test of substituting other terms for the 'one'.
Some that I tried are 'hope', 'direction', 'decision', 'literary structure',
'feeling', 'banana', 'transport system', 'sewage'.... there
are very many possibilities that make legitimate sense, some silly, and all
that fit your definition. Which suggests that you ahve a hidden agenda or presumption
about a 'special' meaning of 'theory' that isn't included in your definition.
Or, whoa, I hadn't thought of this till now perhaps you are suggesting all and
anything that could be substituted for the 'one' should be regarded as a theory?
Still puzzled,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette
Sent: 3/12/2005 1:42 AM
To: Terence Love
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Design -- Short Response to Klaus
On 12/2/05 10:43 AM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Help! I'm unclear. Why is it a theory? Or rather which bits comprise the
> theory? Also I 'm not sure I understand the 'theory in practice' bit.
> Puzzled and interested,
Take another look at my definition of theory.
"An effective theory is one whose purpose is clear, defines and relates its
elements in ways that are relevant to the situations it addresses,
communicates these situations clearly, supports the
actions necessary to realize its purposes, provides evidence of its own
effectiveness and generates useful knowledge."
The crossing the street illustration qualifies as a theory "in practice"
because it implements all of these operational components in a situated act.
(The practice part.) My point is that we operate through intentionally
generated "theories" at many levels and they should have just such an
aspectual structure at any level. The same components are usually presented
in any scientific disclosure worthy of the name. For example, 1. the
research problem and related goals are stated, 2. the major factors of
concern and the critical variables are identified, 3. the conceptual
approach or model and its rationale are described, 4. the circumstances of
the experiment or situation to be studied is presented, 5. the methodology
and its application is documented, 6. the results obtained or anticipated
are given and 7. finally, what is significant or useful about the findings
are discussed. In my view, all theory, regardless of its level or scope,
should encompass these considerations. Theory in practice is simply the
situated (concrete) application of a theory whether that theory is just
purposeful thought or a more formal (abstract, rule based) structure.
I hope this clarifies for you what I had written.
Chuck
|