Definitions

As boring as they may seem, definitions are the foundations of what we build our message upon. It is essential that I provide explanations for the terms I am going to be using. Part of the reason for this kind of approach is to understand the respective meaning and the context that I am using the term in. Though, my discipline is Communication, when studying politicoscientific controversies, the scientific methodology needs to be addressed in addition to the Social Science's perspective.

Ironically, every single class that I am taking this quarter, has at some point in the term provided a definition for “theory,” thus suggesting its importance to research and academia. Following is how each class provided an insight to the dynamics of Theory:

Sci 316U - Astronomy II- A theory--"the framework of ideas and assumptions used to explain some set of observations and make predictions about the real world--must be continually tested" (Chaisson & McMillan, 2005).

Furthermore, these theories have important defining characteristics (Chaisson & McMillan, 2005) [Following points have been taken verbatim out of Chaisson & McMillan’s book; Astronomy Today]:

• They must be testable—that is, they must admit the possibility that their underlying assumptions and their predictions can, in principle, be exposed to experimental verification. This feature separates science from, for example, religion, since, ultimately, divine revelations or scriptures cannot be challenged within a religious framework—we can’t design an experiment to “verify the mind of God.” Testability also distinguishes science from pseudoscience such as astrology, whose underlying assumptions and predictions have been repeatedly tested and never verified, with no apparent impact on the views of those who continue to believe in it!
• They must continually be tested, and their consequences tested, too.
• They should be simple. Simplicity is less a requirement than a practical outcome of centuries of scientific experience—the most successful theories tend to be the simplest ones that fit the facts. This viewpoint is often encapsulated in a principle known as Occam’s razor: If two competing theories both explain the facts and make the same predictions, then the simpler one is better. Put another way—“Keep it simple!” A good theory should contain no more complexity than is absolutely necessary.
• Finally, most scientists have the additional bias that a theory should in some sense be elegant. When a clearly stated simple principle naturally ties together and explains several phenomena previously thought to be completely distinct, this is widely regarded as a strong point in favor of the new theory.

More to come soon...