This week I have been reflecting upon
the question about what theory is, and what it is not. I cannot say
that I have come to a full conclusion about what theory is though,
despite my (and all the others attending the seminar) best efforts.
This is because that theory is and means different things for
different people. On one hand it can be said about theory that it is
built on information; that theory has to be confirmed or established
by observations or experiments. This could all be well and true of
course, but there is another side to the coin. Several in fact. The
word theory is tossed around so much, both in the world of
researchers and everyday life. Everyone has used the phrase “I have
a theory” more than one time. And in the scientific world some
theories cannot in fact be confirmed or established by observations
or experiments (like the vortex-theory discussed at the seminar).
Still these “special” theories are called theories, which adds to
the confusion. Suddenly the line between theory and hypothesis is
becoming quite blurry. That lack of consensus and clarity is
confusing, not only for me as a inexperienced student, but I suppose
for the scientific community at large. And it's unclear if the
situation is going to improve. The question about what theory is and
isn't has been discussed back and forth ad nauseam, to no avail. It
still stands unanswered. So I have taken on a different approach.
Maybe we do not need a singular term for all that theory could be.
Maybe it's better to have different groups of sub-theory? Would that
be preferable? Maybe a whole new word for it? Or some of it? With
those questions, I leave this topic, hoping that everyone has time to
finish theme 3! :)
There is a lack of consensus and I am pretty sure there will always be this confusion of what theory actually is! The concepts "knowledge" and "theory" have been debated for a long, long time. It actually seems that we get more perspectives and more openness over time. But, maybe this is also a good thing? If everyone had the same view on theory our ways of understanding the world would probably be quite limited? Maybe Gregor's attempt to describe different types of theory, which could certainly be extended and revised, could help us get a better understanding of different theory types?
SvaraRaderaI believe you have something going here! To much time is spent trying to reach consensus regarding theory, when maybe that is not what we need at all. I think that Gregor's attempt probably is a good way to go about this conundrum, and reach some kind of greater understanding about theory and it's subgroups.
SvaraRadera