Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Anybody got a theory?
I see no reason for the move to "theory". A theory is an explanation. The present article provides no explanation, and hardly even any examples. So I moved it back. Maybe unprotecting it will help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I see no reason for the move to "theory". A theory is an explanation. The present article provides no explanation, and hardly even any examples. So I moved it back. Maybe unprotecting it will help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is, in absense of the disclaimer "theory", we are embracing a doctrine here, which is impossible to articulate. As a theory, the student is free to accept or reject the underlying premises of the theory without swallowing what really is an unstated or ever-changing doctrine. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is, in absense of the disclaimer "theory", we are embracing a doctrine here, which is impossible to articulate. As a theory, the student is free to accept or reject the underlying premises of the theory without swallowing what really is an unstated or ever-changing doctrine. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::My point, and possibly Schlesinger's as well, is that the terms are not well-defined. I agree that the "model" is inarticulate. Reminds me of the climate models used to justify [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. You can't test a model which is not based on a theory, so there's no way to [[falsify]] it, and it is therefore [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)