>
> On Fri, 30 May 2008, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> >> Well as a theory of how to win a guerrilla war, it's pretty good.
> >>
> > To be pedantic again, I would like to ask in what sense is Maoist thought
> on
> > guerrilla war "a theory"
>
> In the same way that Doug's book on the financial markets offers an
> alternative account of their dynamics. To take one example out of a
> million.
>
> An alternative account of reality and causality is a theory. And if it's
> better than the mainstream account, it's a better theory, a more
> intelligent theory, something that represents an advance in thought, which
> was the original question.
Well even by your own standard the program Mao offered is not theoretical but rather a way of thinking through certain kind of political situations.
It is no different for instance, than the way Tiberius Gracchus, from what we can surmise "valued" the world, or Machiavelli. You can call them "theories" if you wish also, but they don't seem to me to have the explanatory power of Quantum Mechanics or evolutionary biology.
Most so called scientific theories are not 'theories' in this sense either.
Like you I don't wish to argue over the word itself. I just would like to make a harder distintion between different kinds of phenomena. "An alternative account of reality and causality" seems to me to be too loose of a definition for theory in the more structural sense. I don't think that "astrology" is "theoretical" though it does fit your definition. Neither do I think that the assumptions behind most prescriptions and observations are theoretical. I don't even think that Kepler or Galileo developed deep explanatory theories, but rather developed pre-theoretical observations.
There is room for argument here on where to put the "line" but basically I look at the proliferation of the application of the word "theory" as simply a way to sell observations, systems, methodologies by assuming the patina of "science."
Another note. Sometimes I think that people such as shag misunderstand what I am saying her. I make these observations on theory not only to defend "science" but also to devalue it a bit. Scientific theories are very deep but are also very thin, and eliminate most of what we think of as knowledge from consideration. They eliminate most of human experience by necessity. Practically all of human knowledge is simply experiential and is not, and probably will never be encompassed by "theory." This is true of all of what we gain from story-telling and the beauty of words and pictures, etc.
Jerry
>
> If you want to use the word differently, be my guest.
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/