> At 11:48 AM 5/30/2008, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> >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."
>
>
> I'm not sure this is even wrong. Critical theory distinguished
> itself in the first place through critique of scientific positivism.
>
> I will not evaluate Critical Theory, here, but yes, what I said above even
applies to Critical Theory. The critique of scientific positivism in many
cases concluded that science itself, in as much at it is "theoretical" is
not positivistic. I would agree with this observation made by the mavens of
"critique" using the methodology of what is called "Critical Theory". In
other words they took on an aspect of "science" by critiquing the simplistic
claims of certain philosophers of science and claiming that the practice of
"theory" is simply something that was their own.
I don't care what you call it. I am really not stuck on the word. Call the very thin, but deep, non-experiential theories like QM something else, like Theory-Prime and distinguish the kind of very limited knowledge they produce from what you like to call "theory". Also it would be very nice to make a distinction between bullshit and theory. I know this is difficult to do but it would actually be nice to try to make distinctions.
Jerry