After this week’s seminar discussion I got
more interested in how “theory” should be defined and what could be called
theory. After some discussion during the seminar, it seemed problematic to come
up with one simple and assenting description of what theory really is.
One definition that was written on KTH
Social was “When a theory is accepted by
a majority of people, it can be regarded as fact”. I think it’s difficult to
use the word fact in this sense. A whole discussion can take place just to
argue about what fact is. It’s also vague to say “a majority of people”. How many people would it take? What type of
people (experts, amateurs, etc.) does this majority consist of and are expert
opinions valued higher than amateur opinions?
Take the evolution theory as one example. It’s certainly
regarded as a theory and maybe also as a fact. But it’s hard to know if a
majority of people believe in it. There are many religious views on the
heritage of life that does not approve evolution. I believe theories differ,
similar as opinions and ways of thinking do, depending on our culture and
beliefs. Theories are only applicable in specific areas, which could be of
different reach depending on the subject area and the universal view of it. As
written in http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/theory.html, the origin of theory “stresses
the fact that all theories are mental models of the perceived reality”. These
mental models of perceived reality may be different depending on your stance,
culture or scientific background.
Another part I found interesting was that
Gregor clearly states that no one, of the five theory types, necessarily is more
valuable, or of “higher” theory, than another. Gregor also mentions that all
types of theory consist of the analysis-theory, which makes me believe that the
other theory types are analysis-theory complemented with deeper information.
Therefore, I see them as improved and more detailed theory types, and thus in
most cases also better. Gregor tells us that each type of theory “provide important and valuable information”,
which can be true, but I don’t agree with him that no one can be of higher
quality than another. All types of theory are good to implement in a paper, but
I have a hard time believing that explanation & prediction theory wouldn’t
be better, and more descriptive, than explanation or prediction theory
separately.
Despite the discussion about the term "statement of fact" during the first seminar with Dahlberg, I also find the term quite problematic to use in this context. Indeed, one could spend many hours only on defining the term "fact". I also agree that the formulation "a majority of people" is rather vague. However, I guess it is true that when a majority of people of special importance within a research field accept a theory, the theory could be described as a good framework.
SvaraRadera