> Luckily, so very little human knowledge is understood by "theoretical
> projects," whether successful or unsuccessful, that we shouldn't have to
> worry that the quantity and quality of our knowledge will be harmed for a
> lack of a theory.
>
> What should be critiqued is the need, the desire, to name intellectual
> projects "theories". The fear is that if a project is not "theoretical"
> then there is no knowledge.
But our accumulated scientific knowledge is a collection of theories! Granted, good scientific theories are empirically verified, but the core of scientific knowledge is the theories that we have created, not just some unorganized pile of "facts". --Even further: the use of every scientific measurement tool is predicated on one or more auxiliary measurement theories, so scientific knowledge is impossible without theories.
I think this hinges on different definitions of "theory". Put most simply, a theory explains the observed relationships among two or more variables. I suspect Jerry is working with a different definition.
Miles