Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:09:02 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject: Re: Theory

[gabriel 921214 21:46]

I love 'em. And although I masquerade as a mathematician, much of what
I do might be engineering. I think every engineer I know will have
enormous recognition reflexes about this, also all the good teachers,
managers, and leaders of all kinds. Perhaps the other two of the
gang of 3 will risk their mgrs' wrath and post them on bulletin
boards (the paper kind). No use posting at Argonne. The worst
place of all to preach is among those who (mistakenly) believe
they are converted.

Marian - do you want to expound on the Hugh Dingle stages of
development of a scientific theory - from bird watching to taxonomy
to Newton, F=ma and Einstein?? Look in my .mailrc for the csgnet
alias if you do.

A small mathematician/logician's nitpick. Besides deduction, there
is induction. Both are actually predictive - Kepler's Laws
demonstrate a central acceleration proportional to the inverse
square distance with a universal constant of proportionality for
the planets observed. That's deduction. The induction is the
Gedanken experiment of putting a hypothetical planet in place
and remarking that it may be any material object.

Would you say that inferring Pythagoras' Theorem from some
simpler propositions was predictive. Moot point. Was it true
all along before anybody even mentioned the topic. Hence
Diodorus, and the stone at the bottom of the ocean that is
not, has not, and never will be seen. Or the tree in the
forest. But probably not the sound of one hand clapping.

Actually I have real trouble distinguishing between deductive
and inductive reasoning, just as I do between forward and
backward reasoning - probably one of those blind spots we all
have.

So. Bottom line. I am a bit uncomfortable about your N/A entries.
But otherwise absolutely delighted.

>(From Dag Forssell (921214))

>Here is a slide from a presentation I am planning. I want to highlight
>the common (I perceive) bias aganist theory.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------

>                   What does "THEORY" mean to you?


>           APPROACH                   LEVEL OF        TYPE OF
>           TO THEORY                  SCIENCE         KNOWLEDGE

>Type 1     Hunch, expectation         Common sense /  What works
>           based on experience.       Statistical     (sometimes)
>           Intuitive / Formal         research

>Type 2     Explanation,               Engineering     Why it works
>           prediction, test.          science         (all the time)


>Type 3     Logical reasoning.         Abstract        Abstraction
>                                      science

>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Continued to the right.

>      METHOD OF            TIME TO          PREDICTION      RESULTS
>      LEARNING             LEARN            CAPABILITY

>..1   Trial & error /      Long             Poor            Spotty
>      data collection


>..2   Create theory,       Short            Excellent       Confident
>      test theory


>..3   Deduction            Short            N/A             N/A

>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>The idea here is to help the audience realize that when they say: "Don't
>bore us with theory, show us what to do," what they object to is what
>seems like useless abstractions. By contrast, a good engineering type
>theory is very useful.

>QUESTION:

>Do you think that a mixed audience will relate to these "definitions" of
>theory and level of science? Any suggestions on rewording, ever so small,
>which will help will be appreciated.

>Thanks, Dag
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU