Theories Definition Essay Example for Free

Theories Definition Essay This essay discusses theory in a general perspective and some related concepts underpinning it. Kuhn is also presented as an example of an alternative theorist. Theories, according to Littlejohn (1992) are abstractions or frameworks for speculating, interpreting, guessing, understanding, evaluating, rationalizing, explaining or predicting complexity of phenomena, events, ideas, mathematical or logical discussions, human relations, and communication through observation and critical thinking. The basic elements of theories are (1) concepts, which are usually categorized, and (2) explanation, which identifies patterns in the relationships among variables and can be casual or practical. Theory, in a traditional perspective, is based on the premise of â€Å"knowledge as discovery†. It is modeled on the experimental natural sciences through hypothetico-deductive method that includes four processes: (1) developing questions, (2) forming hypotheses, (3) testing the hypotheses, and (4) formulating theory. This method can be done through variable analysis and it is based on the concepts of hypothesis, operationism, control and manipulation, covering laws, and prediction. Littlejohn cites Robyn Penman in describing alternative paradigm through the following five tenets: (1) Action is voluntary. (2) Knowledge is created socially. (3) Theories are historical. (4) Theories affect the reality they are covering. (5) Theories are value laden. The concept of metatheory is used in discussing the criticisms of the work of Kuhn because it describes and explains the similarities and differences among theories. The critics of Kuhn have also their own set of ideas or theories in explaining why Kuhn’s ideas are not accepted. Metatheory issues are grouped into three Major themes – epistemology (questions of knowledge), ontology (questions of existence), and axiology (questions of value). Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1992-1996), an American natural scientist and contemporary philosopher who contributed in the evolution of science principles, has contributed much in the history of and issues on science, culture, and policy in the academic, political, and business fields. Kuhn’s SSR provides his antithetical views in the philosophy of science in which, like Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, Kuhn emphasized the role and nature of â€Å"rationality† in the processes of science. Kuhn contends that â€Å"science operates as a social structure rather than as an impersonal entity advancing toward epistemological commitment† (Mackie, 1998, p. 25). He contradicts the concept of logical positivism which states that scientists choose between competing theories in a purely rational fashion (Philosophy of Science, 2004). Like William Whewell, Kuhn denies the overly systematic approach to science or the scientific method as the framework for inquiry (Prosise, Miller, Mills, 1996; Mackie, 1998; Roberts, 2000; Nickles, 2003). In SSR, Kuhn presented issues on the nature of and the role of community in scientific development. Thus, paradigm depends on the community to which a practitioner belongs (Roberts, 2000). He interprets the history of science based on the development of â€Å"paradigms,† which are not just simple theories but also â€Å"accepted examples of actual scientific practice [that] provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research† (Kuhn 1970, 4, 10). Paradigms provide new information about the world and people’s behavior (Swirski, 1996; Mackie, 1998; Roberts, 2000). Kuhn argues that scientific thought advances through intellectually violent revolutions (Copulos, 2001). This asserts Kuhn’s statement the evolution of science is characterized by alternating periods of â€Å"normal† and â€Å"revolutionary† scientific activity, with the periods of normal science being far more common (Mackie, 1998, p. 27). For instance, a paradigm shift can be seen in the practice of medicine since alternative medicine has been discovered to be also a promising way of treating diseases but it remains a controversy (Copulos, 2001). It appears that the paradigm cannot be fully developed and evaluated solely in a rational manner based on the verification of facts. This approach impacts on the philosophy of science since it is accepted that a paradigm becomes a prerequisite to â€Å"understanding why revolutionary science occurs and why periods of normal science persist† (Mackie, 1998, p. 28). Kuhn is criticized in his vision of scientific revolution which was seen as maligned for its seemingly inconclusive historical perspective; his description of normal science because it implicitly redefined scientific activity; and his ambiguous usage of the term â€Å"paradigm† in different ways (Mackie, 1998). Specifically, Israel Scheffler (1967) argued that Kuhn is a radical irrationalist, subjectivist, irrealist, and relativist because he denies that science provides the basis for objective truth about reality at the perceptual-phenomenal level. Nickles (2003) adds that: â€Å"†¦Kuhn as a principal source of postmodern relativism and of culture-theoretical treatments of science generally†¦Other critics view Kuhn as intellectually conservative in important ways. ..Kuhn differed rather little from the logical positivists on crucial issues, especially assumptions about language and meaning. †¦Kuhns work is also politically conservative and elitist, so much so that, owing to its great influence, it has destroyed any attempt to develop a more democratic science policy for the foreseeable future† (p. 3). Despite the criticisms he received, Kuhn was able to defend his theories by defining his terms more carefully. His second edition of SSR (1970) made amendments and used â€Å"disciplinary matrix† to substitute for â€Å"paradigm† (Mackie, 1998). In the third edition of SSR, Kuhn denied the accusation of relativism and he further clarified his views to avoid misinterpretation (Dyson, 1999). The changes made by Kuhn in SSR shows development from ambiguity to a clearer explanation. As Littlejohn (1992) notes, theories are constantly evolving and they need to be mastered. As an alternative-paradigm theorist, Kuhn did the process of â€Å"fine-tuning interpretive framework for understanding the flow of events† (p. 25). Although Kuhn was criticized for his theories in his SSR, it is undeniable that his theories played significant role in describing, although not accurately, the development of science principles. Kuhn’s theory focused on rational assessment of ideas and it suits disciplines outside normal science because it is irrelevant to philosophy of science but is significant in the analysis of human behavior. References â€Å"Philosophy of Science.† (2004). The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th edition. New York: Columbia University Press. Dyson, F. (1999). The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet: Tools of Scientific Revolutions. Oxford University Press, Inc.. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Littlejohn, S. (1992). Chapter 2: Theory in the process of inquiry, Theories of Human Communication. Wadsworth Publishing Co, 25. Mackie, C. D. (1998). Canonizing Economic Theory: How Theories and Ideas Are Selected in Economics. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Milton R. Copulos, (November 12, 2001). A Shift in Thinking about Medicine. Insight on the News 17(42), 46. Nickles, T. (ed.) (2003). Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Prosise, T. O., Miller, Greg R., Mills, Jordan P. (1996). Argument Fields as Arenas of Discursive Struggle: Argument Fields and Pierre Bourdieus Theory of Social Practice. Argumentation and Advocacy 32(3), 111+. Roberts, L. J. (2000). Thomas Kuhns the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics, 57(1), 59. Swirski, P. (1996). Game Theory in the Third Pentagon: A Study in Strategy and Rationality. Criticism 38(2), 303+.