Re: Explaining explain

[SCIAMANDA@edinboro.edu]

Mark Sylvester wrote:

> > Bob Sciamanda writes:
> > I would also drop the word "theory" in favor of the word "model".  The word
> > theory connotes a candidate for some absolute, objective "truth"; whereas a
> > model is used to convey useful information without the pretense of being
> > unique, complete or ultimate - in physics it is a useful way of describing
> > reality in human terms.  This is the burden of paper of mine in Nov/Dec 1996
> > Quantum.  It is reproduced @ http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/prelude.html
> >
> > -Bob

> I must say I experience the opposite problem with the word "theory". People
> tend to use it to mean "opposed to the facts", as in "That's all very well
> in theory, but..." This is reinforced when they hear that the "Theory of
> Relativity" proposes all sorts of uncommonsensical ideas about time and
> space. What else would one expect of a theory?
>
> Mark.

Good point, Mark.  However this disparaging use of the word "theory" 
as in "it's ONLY a theory"  emphasizes that a theory is a candidate 
for some absolute and objective truth, but argues that this particular 
one doesn't (as yet, perhaps) cut it.  It implies that there exists, and 
we are searching for, the "true" theory, rather than for more useful models.  
I am concerned with the question of what we claim to be searching for.

-Bob  
Bob Sciamanda           sciamanda@edinboro.edu
Dept of Physics         trebor@velocity.net
Edinboro Univ of PA     http://www.edinboro.edu/~sciamanda/home.html