Re: Simple Question

[bobbie silk <bsilk@keller.clarke.edu>]

All right....one last word or two on science and theory....

I like reading about new twists in certain kinds of theory because they
offer possibilities for better understanding and better pratice.  However,
the most rewarding theoretical articles I've read are those that apply a
theory to something in order to understand the something better. 

The least rewarding theoretical articles I've read are those that apply a
theory in order to validate or prove the theory.  I think theoretical
articles about literature or composition studies go wrong when they try to
be "scientific"--to prove the theory instead of using it as a lens.  The
theory should prove itself in its self-effacement and in its usefulness. 

I don't think the distinction between theory as lens and theory as
self-reflecting mirror is as subtle as it may seem.  Some of our
frustration with theory is the frustration of living with Narcissus. 

  --Bobbie
    bsilk@keller.clarke.edu

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 gillespiep@vmsb.csd.mu.edu wrote:

> C, as you know, your question is not simple.  
> 
> I come at definitions of theory with sort of an attitude.  That's because 
> I got my first real sense of theory as an undergraduate science major.  
> In the sciences, theory is the next thing in certainty to law, several 
> steps away from hypothesis, attained only after rigorous testing.  
> 
> It really shocked me when I was introduced to "theory" in my literary
> studies.  People used the term theory to describe all of the activities
> you describe below, and to this day it still seems like a very inaccurate
> umbrella term.  Now be assured, I like umbrellas, and I enjoy theory, find
> it vital to good practice, but I think that as a discipline, we could be
> very useful to our field if we would be specific about what we mean by
> theory, what we mean it to do, how we mean to use it, and how it 
> functions.  I think that our fuzziness on the term comes directly from 
> the inaccurate use of the term literary theory.  
> 
> However, I have fought this battle with good friends of mine who disagree 
> with me, and I always lose.  But maybe my extreme position will encourage 
> some good dialogue on the topic.  
> 
> Paula
> 
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, CH wrote:
> 
> > Lady and Lord Centaurs who engaged in the exchanges on theory, 
> > heuristics and tagmemics:
> > 
> > Now that all of the sound and fury of discussion has ceased,
> > lend me your ears....well not literally; I have two rather handsome 
> > ones.  I prefer you attend me as young Pip asked Magwich to do as Magwich
> > was shaking the livin' daylights out of him. ...or was that some other 
> > Dickens' character hiding in the marsh that night, and did I spell 
> > Magwich correctly?....Before you ponder all of this, I ask for your 
> > attention to another small detail.
> > 
> > Several days ago, I posed a simple question without fanfare, without
> > an attention grabbing introduction, without any humour....Just a simple
> > question to those of you engaged in the discussion of theory, practice,
> > and tagmemics. Alas, no one responded.  I thought of engaging in a bit
> > of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but I need these old teeth.  So, I
> > sipped a bit of pure malt and threw darts at the dart board.
> > 
> > I asked that one or all of you engaged in the discussions to define 
> > your use of the word "theory."  As I read the discussion, I discovered 
> > that perhaps the term was being used in a variety of ways.  I was sincere 
> > in my question. I wanted to know how *you* define "theory."  Can any 
> > or all of you who participated in the discussion write a simple, or even a 
> > complex, definition of "theory" as you are using the term?  (Those who
> > did not participate in the discussion are not invited to define unless
> > you would like to define the word as you perceived it being used. This
> > might be interesting.)  
> > 
> > So, how is the word "theory" used in these discussions?
> > 
> > It is a premise offered to be proven or disproven?  
> > Is it something advocated or practiced?  
> > Is it a principle (or principles) accepted as a way to 
> >   explain a particular phenomenon?
> > Is is merely your hypothesis created for the sake of argument?
> > Is it an investigation of facts and their relationship to one another?
> > 
> > Is my request that you who engaged in this lofty discussion 
> > define "theory" too simple to be answered?  Or is it that none of you
> > know how to define the term?
> > 
>