Dear Keith,

Thanks for your response!

I think it helps to illustrate the variety of what theory
testing can involve.  What it takes to test a theory has much
to do with the shape and form of the theory and the people
involved.

One further remark on what you write: right and wrong don't
seem to me to be useful notions here, in theory testing.  I'm
taking right and wrong to be normative opposites.  For
theories I think it is more useful to talk of adequate and
inadequate, or satisfactory or unsatisfactory, or supported by
known evidence or unsupported by some or all known evidence,
or favoured by some and not by others.

In practice, if enough contradictory evidence piles up we will
tend to discard a theory, but evidence is not truth.  Evidence
too may be found to be weak or inadequate to stand against a
theory.

Often the history of some theory is presented in a rather
cleaned up way, which, in turn, can give the impression of the
game being quite clean and decisive.  It may be so in some
researcher areas.  I would not want to say it's not or can't
be.  But in design research, and for theories of designing, I
think much debate, discussion, argument, struggle, doubt, and
personal points of view are usual and needed aspects and
qualities of the business of theory development and testing.

What I think should drive things, and form the principle basis
of evaluation is the practical usefulness of the theory, its
development, and it's testing.  As I read your response, I
think you see it the same way.

Best regards,

Tim

================================================

On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:01 , Keith Russell wrote:

> Dear Tim,
> 
> the questions you raise are very worthy ones indeed.
> 
> In my own case I mapped my own theory against an alterative account that could be seen as a limiting case, by which I mean, a case that could be seen as a polar opposite (though in truth in the area of my theory (literary affects) there are no polar opposites but there are significantly different positions that some might see as being radically different).
> 
> Being able to use my theory map in predictive ways in this alterative terrain showed at least how to apply my theory (procedures) as well as confirming the potential for my theory to elegantly include within its compass, existing accounts that might, on first glance, have seemed to be disconfirming.
> 
> One of my external examiners attempted to "prove" my theory wrong by asserting my theory didn't suit his theory  of theories which was that all theory is wrong because no theory can account for everything.
> 
> Could one prove my theory to be wrong? Certainly! The same data might be accounted for differently.
> 
> At a minimum, my theory could be shown to be faulty which means it is open to alteration, development, revision etc.
> 
> I am happy to treat my theory in pragmatic ways. Does it offer more useful accounts of existing data than other available accounts? If yes, then it would seem useful.
> 
> I am still finding new uses for my theory and I am still open to more serious neurological testing to provide more concrete evidence of my key assertions. Perhaps one day I will meet up with someone who can set up the tests.
> 
> hope this helps
> 
> keith
> 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------