Francois:
You do cause a person to think! Thank you.
I hope you (and others) won't mind if I post my response to your off-list
questions. They were good ones and maybe will encourage such grounded dialog
among list members until some consensus about theory might emerge. Thank you
for being so specific in your questions.
On 5/15/05 8:29 PM, "Francois-Xavier Nsenga (fme)"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> When you have time, would you please go on and share more of
> your insights on the following three issues:
>
> 1. how to fend against potential biases resulting out of malicious
> or just wrong intentions and interpretations of situations? and how
> to prevent institutionalization of those idiosyncratic or
> limited "assumptions" and "goal criteria"?
In my view, Reflective thought (knowledge and its intelligent application)
by the thinker and those concerned with what an intention is about, provides
the best defense against harmful intentions and dogmatic goals regarding a
situation. However, culturally acquired knowledge (beliefs, traditions,
practices, etc.) can bias intentions and their interpretations in ways that
can have good or bad consequences in a given situation (or communication
about it) and therefore must be carefully evaluated.
>
> 2. on which grounds, prior to formulating theories, one (who?) would
> arbiter among various conflicting idiosynratic assumptions, as it
> obviously is expected since every human, everywhere and any tine, can
> elaborate her/his theory on any given situation concerning self and
> others; especially in contemporary days when consensus is harder to
> establish with self and others?
The central issue here, it seems to me, is the lack of a common framework -
a common language like structure of reference - for discourse about a
situation - (such as the one I proposed). We need to find common ground, and
develop it through an open-source like collaborative effort, even knowing
that there will be divergent branches. (As in the recent divergence between
the open-source community and Apple regarding Safari open-source software.)
>
> 3. in a highly pluralistic social context like the one we are living
> in now, wouldn't be appropriate to always state beforehand one's
> assumptions underlying any stated theory? So every body would know
> from which stance one is talking? This may perhaps help in not
> continuing going around...(re. your warning at the end of the initial
> post)
I believe that it is important to first objectify the situation (to make it
recognizable to others) and to define the stance taken regarding it (to
declare the point of view shaping its interpretation) before stating
assumptions. I don't think an instrumental theory needs to be (or can be)
stated before assumptions are made regarding the situation it seeks to
represent or address. Once established with its assumptions as explicit as
possible, a well stated theory provides a recognizable object of reference.
But must people do not clearly state their interpretive stance when
critiquing a theory and most do not seek to refine it. (Communication
usually fails without an adequate frame of reference, knowledge of the focal
situation and its context, and an appreciation of the intention behind its
interpretation. (See Daniel Dennett's philosophical work on intentional
stances.)
>
Thanks again. We can continue off-list if you want to.
Chuck
>
>> Dear Francois,
>>
>> Answering your question well would take a bigger chunk of space
> than an
>> e-mail but here is a brief outline of the rationale on which my
> proposal is
>> based.
>>
>> It rests on the assumption that what a theory is about is essential
> to its
>> definition, interpretation and application. Most assumptions will
> arise when
>> the situation is interpreted in order to simplify and focus issues
> of
>> interest.
>>
>> Since a theory must be about something it is intentional by
> definition (See
>> Searle on intentionality). Intentionality implies the existence of a
>> situation needing resolution. The existence of a focal situation
> implies the
>> presence of information that can be recognized, referred to and
> abstractly
>> defined. Abstractly identifiable elements implies that a situation
> has or
>> could be conceived to have structure; a focal situation abstractly
> defined
>> in terms of its elements and stucture allows the situation to be
>> reinterpreted to satisfy an intention. However to be realized an
>> instrumental formulation must be established and procedurally
> executed if
>> the situation is to be changed. The result of this action must be
> assessed
>> against goal criteria if an information is to be achieved.
> Finally,the
>> satisfaction of an intention regarding a particular experience must
> be
>> reflected upon to learn from it and assimilate its lessons for
> future
>> application. There is much more to all of this but this outline
> will have to
>> do for now.
>>
>> Another set of assumption underlying this rationale is that all
> humans have
>> similar cognitive capacities which each individual applies
> differently as a
>> result of their genetic background and how it has been nurtured,
> culturally
>> professionally and otherwise. The rationale for the distinctions
> just given
>> is much longer, situated and highly interpretive.
>>
>> I hope this will serve for now.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> On 5/15/05 10:13 AM, "Francois-Xavier Nsenga (fme)"
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps what is missing, or not stressed enough, or not explicitly
>>> stated in most theory discussions, it is the ASSUMPTIONS on which
>>> rest ALL theoretical frameworks, propositions, and... discussions
>>> like this one!
>>>
>>> Would you - or anyone else - please elaborate on this?
>>
>>>> On 5/15/05 5:49 AM, "Michael A R Biggs" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Different disciplines approach the business of facts and
> evidence
>>>>> from different points of view. What is a fact or evidence in one
>>>>> discipline may not be a fact or evidence in another.>
>>>
>>>> I agree and think it is worth restating what consitutes good
> theory
>>>> about any subject or situation in any discipline. I take the view
>>>> that an effective theory is one whose purpose is clear, defines
> and
>>>> relates its elements in ways that are relevant to the situation
> it
>>>> addresses, communicates situations clearly, supports the actions
>>>> necessary to realize its intentions, provides evidence of its own
>>>> effectiveness and generates useful knowledge. Please note that
> this
>>>> involves intentional, referential, relational, formulative,
>>>> procedural, evaluative and reflective thought as suggested in the
>>>> metatheoretical framework that was posted earlier in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> If something is being missed here, I would appreciate specific
>>>> critical suggestions. Without them we will continue to walk
> around
>>>> them and never get around to driving one.>
>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>
>
>
|