Caro Colleagues - Etymology is always a useful exercise - theory and theatre come from the same root 'to see' and science from the root 'to know'. "The word theoria θεωρία, meant 'a looking at, viewing, beholding', and referring to contemplation or speculation (wikipedia article on theory)." Now most often we say to see is to believe or know. This translate into the idea that theory helps us to believe or to know or to do science. But Marshall McLuhan said I did not see it until I believed it. In other words to believe or know is a necessary condition to be able to see which translates into the idea that we need science to make a theory. Science is a way of organizing theories and theories are a way of organizing science. The relation of science and theory is a chicken and egg problem. It is a question of emergence. The relation of science and theory is one of non-linear dynamics. One needs science to make a theory and a theory or theories to make science. As is the case with emergent phenomena one cannot predict what theories will emerge from science or what science will emerge from theories. This is my theory of science and my science of theories.
I hope you enjoyed my playful take on the relation of science and theory which I offer as a serious resolution to the challenges raised in this thread. I also hope you will comment. with kind regards - Bob Logan On 2012-01-11, at 2:42 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote: > Dear QTQ and FIS Colleagues, > > I am afraid we had not define the terms ‘theory” and “science” but start > discussion. > Let firstly clear what they means and after that to make conclusions. > > It is clear the theories are part of the science but the science is something > more. > > In our area - the Information Science is quite more than any theory for > information. > > Of course, “What is information?” is the basic question, but after it follow > the questions “How it is used by live organisms?” and “Why it is needed for > social structures?”, “Why one and the same reflection is information for one > but not for another subject?” and “Can the information be totally destroyed > or not, i.e. is the information depended with physical (material) world or > not?”, etc. > > --- > > About the journals: > > I have more than 35 year experience in editing and publishing scientific > collections and journals. > My personal position is: “The Variety and Independence cause Development!” > > Every journal has its own politic and there is no sense to discus its rules. > My personal position is presented in the name of my firs Int. Journal: > “Information Theories and Applications”. > Yes – Theories. > > Some scientists prefer to be protected from “spam” papers by the reviewers, > but this has simple decision – “Do not read papers at all !” > > The science needs new ideas. > Sometimes the proper way is not in the fat books but in the thin papers. > We have long history of development but are we sure that all in it > (especially for information) is absolutely correct ant may be accepted > without doubt? > > --- > > Happy New 2012 Year! > Friendly regards > > Krassimir > > > > > From: Pedro C. Marijuan > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:48 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es > Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ > > > > -------- Mensaje original -------- > Asunto: THEORY AND SCIENCE > Fecha: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:49:58 +0800 > De: whhbs...@sina.com > Responder a: whhbs...@sina.com > Para: Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, mjs > mailto:m...@aiu.ac.jp, Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch, fislist > mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es > > > Dear Pedro, Dear Marcin, Dear Joseph, Dear FIS Colleagues, > Theory is important and necessary, but theory is different from science, > theory is a growing view or hypothesis. We should remember Russell's paradox > and the third number of Math Crisis, we should remember Aristotle and > Galileo, and we shouldn't forget the article about MDMA by Jan Hendrik Schön > in 2002. Let us remember history that go on record according to gubernatorial > volition usually. Furthermore, lie is not science, for example Hwang's > cloning experiments in stem-cell research. > Newton's mechanics is science, computer science is true, and however there is > no information science. The sole criterion for truth or science is practice. > Of course, after the Hwang affair, Science（journal）gets its wrist slapped for > publishing a fraudulent stem-cell paper. Instead, the committee recommends > that papers received by the journal should be divided into uncontroversial > and controversial, and the latter gone over with a fine comb of new check. > This is a way to arrive at science, too. > Best wishes > > QTQ > > > -------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ______________________ Robert K. Logan Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
