[MD] The Relativist's journey

[MarshaV]

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 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> 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 an 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.
> 
> Finally, to end I will briefly present a current state of the theory
> of evolution.  For many years it was theorized that our phenotypic
> (physical) expression was a result of a rigid DNA which we had no
> choice but to pass along to our children.  Since the vogue of the day
> is to claim that our behavior is a result of genetics, our own
> behavior is determined by this rigid DNA.  The only areas of possible
> DNA modification were through random mutation.  This of course evoked
> the laws of chance, which were (and still are) popular.  It was
> assumed that the mixing of genes during the shuffling of genotypes
> following fertilization, was a predictable pattern if we had enough
> information.  This is classically illustrated by Mendel's experiments
> with peas.
> 
> However, more recently the theory of Epigenetics has found resurgence.
> This theory proposes that what happens to us in this particular life
> can be passed along to our children.  Data can be used to support this
> theory.  In this way, our children can 'learn", at a cellular level,
> from what we do, provided what we do happens before they are born (in
> my opinion, such cellular learning can happen even after, but I will
> not get into that).  This implies that our current actions have
> importance in terms of the biology of evolution as expressed through
> DNA.  Now, you can probably see how this notion of "personal
> responsibility" may fly in the face of classical evolution.  But, I
> will leave that for you to ponder.
> 
> I hope I have not lost you with all this rigorous posting.  I am open
> to questions if they are well intended.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
>