All practice is enacted based on some theory. It may be formal public theories or private theories but you can't make a move to teach that isn't based on some theory. What is more important in working with teachers then is to help them understand the theories that they already have and help them understand how their personal practical theories of teaching interface with public theories. 

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories. Stories of teachers. School stories. Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30.

Craig, C. J. (2008). Joseph Schwab, self-study of teaching and teacher education practices proponent? A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1993-2001.

All practice is enacted based on some theory. It may be formal public theories or private theories but you can't make a move to teach that isn't based on some theory. What is more important in working with teachers then is to help them understand the theories that they already have and help them understand how their personal practical theories of teaching interface with public theories. 

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories. Stories of teachers. School stories. Stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24-30.

Craig, C. J. (2008). Joseph Schwab, self-study of teaching and teacher education practices proponent? A personal perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1993-2001.

You can ask 20 students what they think about observed phenomenon Z, whatever the students'  education backgrounds. They will all have an opinion about what they observed. The opinion will overlap more or less with the unexposed opinion of the teacher.

The interesting question is: why do people differ in opinion?

If I were to argue against direct application I would suggest instead indirect application.

I must say with some embarrassment that I don't get the humour of the quote about direct application. Maybe it's because I'm not a teacher. As for me, I love theory.  Can't get enough of it. But I don't directly apply theory in practice as if there was a one to one correspondence between them. Rather, I incorporate my understanding of a theory to expand existing practice. Theory often articulates a framework for what I was already doing and allows me to be more flexible because acting from a framework I can apply the practice in previously unimagined ways. Other times theory suggests previously unimagined ways of doing. There is often a delicate tension between theory and practice, or between theory informed practice and theory informed by practice. Practice uniformed by theory is unnecessarily limited and theory uninformed by practice is academic.  Have I managed to blindly touch on the grain of truth behind the humour without getting the humour, or am I rambling again?

Hi Gordon, you're not alone with not understanding the humor of that quote. There is a much better one: Theory is, when you know everything about it, but nothing works (like all the experiments our physics teachers wanted to show us in our freshman year at university), and practice is, when everything works, but nobody knows why. I believe, that theory and practice have to go hand in hand. If you only concentrate on practice, how can you further develop your work? You need to understand, why something is working in a special way. But only concentrating on theory, you miss instances where in practice there are other factors that influence your theoretical framework.

Hey, why did I get a down vote on my answer?!?  It's logical, brief, direct, and to the point.  In any given situation, given two options if one doesn't work, try the other.  What else would you do?  Jibber Jabber about it with more theory hoping enough words will magically make the unworkable option work?  Spend more research money and time on the unworkable approach?

Fetal stem cell research has rendered no viable, workable contributions.  Adult stem cell research has provided dozens of infallible scientific/medical advances.  Which one should be continued?  The only answer, the logical answer, like my answer above is the one that works, not the one that doesn't work.

Thanks for the further insight about practice and theory Beate. John, there are lots of people on this site more interested in articulating fine distinctions and exploring different shades of meaning than shaving with Occam's Razor. Don't take the vote down personally!

I think we should separate between humanities and hard science. Most of the time, humanities are built on fashionable theories with a life span of two or three decades and then a new theory emerges or an older one. In hard science the concept of theory is different. Practice and theory are intertwined and I may even say that  they are the same. To explain this idea I would like to give some examples from history. Faraday, theorized about magnetic energy and only fifteen years later did Plank demonstrate that this great mathematician was right . Similarly, Einstein theorized that light curves in a magnetic field. Only in the sixties after an eclipse and seeing a star that was normally hidden by the sun did scientists demonstrate without a shred of doubt that Einstein was right. 

However, practice also can lead to theory. The bizarre duality of the particle ( both a mass and a wave) was seen by many physicists such as Schrodinger and de Broglie. Only in the late twenties did Heisenberg create his uncertainty principle following the oddity of the behavior of particles at the micro-level.

To sum up, there is no epistemological problem of theory versus practice in what we call hard science but in humanities the answer is a big Yes since any practical experiment is subjective by essence and therefore liable to be replaced by another shiny or fashionable one.

I agree the concept of theory differs between the humanities and hard sciences. Yet another concept of theory is needed for a range of soft sciences that can be called practical disciplines insofar as their central purpose is to cultivate particular fields of social or professional practice. These fields have a technical side, and also a critical and philosophical side concerned with normative questions. Classical disciplines like politics and rhetoric are of this kind. The modern discipline of communication can be understood in this way, as can fields like education, management, public relations, etc. The concept of theory in these disciplines is contested and needs development. Normative and empirical aspects are both important. The relation of theory to practice is complex, not so much a matter of directly translating theory into practice as it is of cultivating informed reflection on practice-- what Aristotle called practical wisdom or what the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey called intelligence. I've been writing about this problem for decades and some of these publication are listed on this site, including some (not all, as of yet) of the following:

Craig, R. T. (1989). Communication as a practical discipline. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O'Keefe & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication; Volume 1: Paradigm issues (pp. 97-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Craig, R. T. (1996). Practical theory: A reply to Sandelands. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 65-79.

Craig, R. T. (1996). Practical-theoretical argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 461-474.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119-161. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

Craig, R. T. (1999). Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 21-29.

Craig, R. T. (2001). Dewey and Gadamer on practical reflection: Toward a methodology for the practical disciplines. In D. K. Perry (Ed.), American pragmatism and communication research (pp. 131-148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Craig, R. T. (2005). How we talk about how we talk: Communication theory in the public interest. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 659-667.

Craig, R. T. (2006). Communication as a practice. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as …: Perspectives on theory (pp. 38-47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Craig, R. T. (2008). Communication in the conversation of disciplines. Russian Journal of Communication, 1(1), 7-23. doi: 10.1080/19409419.2008.10756693

Craig, R. T. (2013). Communication theory and social change. Communication & Social Change, 1(1), 5-18. doi: 10.4471/csc.2013.01

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5, 248-272.

Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (Eds.). (2014). Special Issue: Building Grounded Practical Theory in Applied Communication Research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42(3), pp. 229-343. (http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjac20/42/3#.U3TwV4FdV8E)

Good point Robert- thank you for this interesting response

Hello Parviz,

I would argue that every day we, as educators directly put theory to practice by definition. How? Every day we walk into our classrooms and begin to teach we are putting two theories directly into practice, theories of epistemologies and theories of learning. There is no escape from this. We may use different methodologies but methodologies are theories as well. So three theories are put into direct practice every day that learning occures and knew knowledge's are born.

Now to the hard and soft sciences. Dear Mr. Bouali you state that " I think we should separate between humanities and hard science. Most of the time, humanities are built on fashionable theories with a life span of two or three decades and then a new theory emerges or an older one". May I remind you of Kuhn's (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions expressly regarding Kuhn's concern over hard sciences "changed scientific theories, especially in the competition between fundamentally different theoretical perspectives or paradigms" was not as logical empiricists claimed "by the accumulation of disconfirming evidence but rather irrational resistance to new theories by the part of researchers who had a vested interest in the given theories of 'normal science'". Therefore, "norms and 'normal science' provide a very limited and misleading picture because they could not explain the nature of qualitatively new knowledge of revolutionary science" (Morrow & Brown, 1994, pp. 74-75). By critically examining why scientific theories change Lakatos claimed by either rationally (e.g. new auxiliary hypotheses ) and therefore being progressive or irrationally (semantic or linguist tricks) hence degenerative became "what we appraise is a series of theories changes rather than isolated theories. (Lakatos, 1970, p.118). These changes could not be explained by empiricist terms as signs of increasing truth "nor can we assume that that science is rational because of this increasing correspondence to truth (reality)" But for my soft sciences postempiricist view the connecting of "knowledge to truth was problematic". Laudan (1977) however, argued scientific theories changes was a "parasitic on rational, problem-solving choices. This he claimed gave hermeneutical and empirical sciences "both having criteria for assessing the adequacy of solutions to problems... this point has been obscured, however, by the simplistic identification of scientific rationality with experimental control and quantitative precision (Laudan, 1977, p. 91) in (Morrow & Brown, 1994 pp. 84-86). In the end of the day thus overcoming positivism and our hermeneutical science became accepted as being just as valid and those so called hard sciences who change their fashionable theories for a new one every couple of decades or so.

In the sperit of good debate

Douglas

.

Thanks, Gordon!!  Most of the time I tend to be a bit wordy--far too many words.  I'm trying to train myself to be more to the point in order not to bore RG colleagues.  Interesting discussion here, by the way.

Dear Douglas,

What you said is half the truth or watered truth as my late father used to say. The watered truth metaphor was always used my dad because he refers to my mum's frugal way of life.We were a big family and my mum would add water to milk for example so that one liter of real milk becomes 1.5 etc...

I do not need to resort to some theorists who clearly do not fully understand science-again my dad always said we resort to philosophy when we are out of answers!! Sorry I had a great Dad and he died not fully happy with me so I am trying to give him some  credit ...

The point is very clear and simple. I m not speaking about positivism or experiment ism- .I m just describing a blatant fact. Science is built up on earlier science and no scientific truth is completely revoked but rather further solidified until it reaches its saturation point. Example the theorem of Pythagoras is irrevocable truth etc..

To give an example of the pyramid notion of science let us see the most famous equation in the world: E =mc2

Energy was discovered by Faraday, mass was discovered by Lavoisier and c2 by Planck. Then came Einstein and put everything together.In other words, without these three men Einstein would not be Einstein.

Just give me one example from humanities like this my dear Douglas. Give me just a solid irrevocable truth in humanities  and I will take off my hat.

Dear Mr. Bouali,

I am confused as to your response. If in anything I wrote you have an issue with I will be more than happy to discuss it. To start: I am sorry that your father passed away, and I am sure he was a great man. It is obvious he meant a great deal to you. However, what does that fact have to do with what I wrote?  Every claim I made is backed up by the references I provided in what I posted. The majority of which are direct quotes. The historical accuracy of what I wrote cannot be denied or the rise of interpretive science to gain wide acceptance also cannot not be denied. What "half truths" are you referring to? "half truths" let us look into that matter.

First, you claim in response two, "The point is very clear and simple. I m not speaking about positivism or experiment sm-..I m just describing a blatant fact". ...... "Energy was discovered by Faraday, mass was discovered by Lavoisier and c2 by Planck" and Einstein put is all together into E=mc2". The phrase I would like to draw your attention to is the second sentence which starts out "I am not" Three issues come to the fore front. 1) Positivism and experiment ism- Mr. Bouali are you sure this is what you meant to say? Now remember you claimed I wrote "half truths". May I ask are these your words, "Similarly, Einstein theorized that light curves in a magnetic field. Only in the sixties after an eclipse and seeing a star that was normally hidden by the sun did scientists demonstrate without a shred of doubt that Einstein was right". I do not know what you may call that; but I would argue that most people would call that an experiment, and the "without a shred of doubt" is empirical evidence, hence Mr. Bouali= positivism.

2) Now then let me draw your attention to the sentence "Energy Faraday...... E=mc2. a) Faraday did not discover energy he discovered electromagnetism induction. How might someone ask, by experiments and empirical evidence =positivism. b) Lavoisier did not discover mass, he discovered the law of conversion. The first reference to mass not were the words of Anaxagoras, that the Greeks were wrong "aught begins or cesears to be, for nothing comes into being or is destroyed" around 450BC. How did Lavoisier discover the conversion law, Lavoisier was able to assembled experiments, all done in closed vessels. = positivism. Planck= positivism. 3) As to "scientific truth" and "rebuking of that truth" that my dear Brahim is dependant and subjective. There is no scientific truth that is timeless. Just as a geocentric universe was "scientific truth" for almost 2,000 and our heliocentric universe is roughly 400. The one you mentioned however, has lasted over 2,500 years.

Last point, "one truth irrevocable truth like that in the humanities" (please place your hat on), as a matter of fact I am pouring myself a single malt scotch over 100 years old.

1) It is the social sciences that discovered fundamental truth of all science, "Man [human] is the only animal whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve and cannot escape from" Erick Fromm, 1947 An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics

2) The history of human kind is a history seen through the eyes, interpreted, and written through the ideology of patriarchy.

3) It always has been the science of the humanities that has explained the human need to be governed.

4) The social sciences and our methods is the only science that can be used to understand the truth of the subjection of others. The" hard sciences" and its scientific method and claim of objectivity used by Linnaeus in his 1767 Systema Naturae through John Hunter-Benjamin Rush-Georges Cuvier-Hegel-Laughlin and Grant tried to prove the hypothesis of biological different species/races of humans until the early 20th century as the science of EUGENICS.

I am very sorry for the loss of your father, I have answered all of your accusations, and have given you 4 axioms (theroms) that match both E=mn2 and the Pythagoren therom and in time social sciences axiom #1 may indeed be a more powerful truth than Pythagarus could have ever dreamed of.

In science,

Douglas 

Dear Douglas,

I do not think you are confused.You are a smart man and you know that the introduction you made is just rhetoric.

First, what you said is perfectly right: "Faraday did not discover energy he discovered electromagnetism induction. How might someone ask, by experiments and empirical evidence =positivism. b) Lavoisier did not discover mass, he discovered the law of conversion. The first reference to mass not were the words of Anaxagoras, that the Greeks were wrong "aught begins or cesears to be, for nothing comes into being or is destroyed" around 450BC. How did Lavoisier discover the conversion law, Lavoisier was able to assembled experiments, all done in closed vessels. = positivism. Planck= positivism. "

I just did not want to enter into detail but this corroborates my idea of the pyramid notion of science.

Second, you said:

"1) It is the social sciences that discovered fundamental truth of all science, "Man [human] is the only animal whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve and cannot escape from" Erick Fromm, 1947 An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics "

Are you serious? the discovery you mentioned is a homo sapiens' curse..It started with us from the very moment we started to think . when our ancestors, for instance,  started to draw animal figures in their caves etc. It is not an invention-read king Solomon proverbs :"nothing new under the sun"

2)" The history of human kind is a history seen through the eyes, interpreted, and written through the ideology of patriarchy."

Is this your irrevocable truth? What about matrimonial societies? My point is very simple: an irrevocable truth has to be irrevocable all the time. 

3)"It always has been the science of the humanities that has explained the human need to be governed. "

Again i can refute this by the example of anarchism that still exist today among some of the best gifted minds. Marxism too was based on this idea of complete absence of governance when the so-called proletariat achieve the supremacy needed. Of course Marxists failed but the idea is that not all humans feel the need to be governed. In other words this is not an irrevocable truth

4)" The social sciences and our methods is the only science that can be used to understand the truth of the subjection of others. The" hard sciences" and its scientific method and claim of objectivity used by Linnaeus in his 1767 Systema Naturae through John Hunter-Benjamin Rush-Georges Cuvier-Hegel-Laughlin and Grant tried to prove the hypothesis of biological different species/races of humans until the early 20th century as the science of EUGENICS."

Instead of commenting on this obviously biased remark I want to remind you of Plato's notion of Episteme and Doxa.  hard Science deals with epistemes or justified true beliefs and in this endeavor it may  produce doxas or common truth or opinion.  To my mind, Humanities deals with Doxas but in their endeavor they may produce some revocable epistemes. By the way this is my opinion and you will not find it in any book and I would be highly pleased to read about your personal thoughts.

In science,

Brahim

Dear colleague,

the generalization of a practice becomes Theory and the application of a theory becomes Practice. we call them  inductive and deductive methods. Theory and Practice, both are equally important.. A practice without a theory to sustain it is vague and a theory without its application is quite meaningless.

Dear Brahim, (I am sorry for the delay but flying and family matters)

I am saddened that you feel my acknowledging the importance of your father was rhetoric for it was sincere. I had a grandfather who was as important to me as you articulated in your post. Just because we have a very fundamental difference in epistemology does not mean we lose our humanity towards others, don't you agree?

You requested I articulate my personal belief as it pertains to what is knowledge. I shall honor that request.

In my personal belief on epistemology I do not connect knowledge to truth in the same sense as I believe you do by mentioning Episteme and Doxa. If I did there would be no knowledge possible. Even your valiant claim of Pythagoras' theorem falls short of the standards for truth as laid out in Port Royal Logic (which I assume you are familiar with) make any truth unknowable (1662, Part 4 chapter XIII pg. 345). As most do however this rule is only applied to the humanities and not the natural sciences.

It is from this axiom I start to share. Given the above; epistemology is a descriptor of a phenomena, or the results of an object interacting with another, two phenomena's interacting.....! Knowledge/Language is both the descriptor and that which limits the description. Knowledge is nothing without language and language is nothing without knowledge. Even the most abstract concepts such a quantum mechanics could not be a knowledge unless communicated hence a language is a necessary condition for knowledge. To even contemplate what is beyond the event horizon of a black hole, or on the other side of a black holes "singularity", or the immense distances between galaxies must be brought into the domain of "sensus communis". In other words all knowledge is for me Doxa or Epsteme linguistic because to have knowledge X, knowledge of X must be communicated hence language.

Therefore, I believe knowledge/language contains two "worlds" and can best be imagined as a venn Diagram. One "world" being the natural or physical and the second the social or abstract. I use the venn Diagram as my example because the area of intersections is where the history of epistemological differences is located. Meaning that for one branch of science, the so called hard sciences epistemological claims are based in a method of hypothesis + experimentation + empirical data + repeatability, therefore positivism = objectiveness (to some and I again firmly disagree) and finally= knowledge/language. I have no issue with this argument in the natural or physical world. Geology has dated the age of the planet, astronomy has placed the sun at the center of our solar system, gravity has described the orbits of the planets, biology has explained photosynthesis, and medical science has made us healthier and extended life. I have no issue with this branch of science. The history of this science in the description of and the explaining how, and the discovery of physical laws merits such.

The social world however is not governed by physical laws, has no rocks to date, no gravity (other than on the physical body) to explain volition, no physics to explain choice, for the social world is not the physical world. The social sciences epistemological claims using their method of observation +theory + historical data + interpretation = subjectivity and finally knowledge/language and I have no issue with this argument in the social world. Social sciences knowledge of racism has graduation rates, hiring patterns, wealth gaps, pay differences, history, and treatment of individuals by others to lay epistemological claim of racism. Which to me in the social world has as much validity as do the  natural sciences in the physical. The issue therefore to me it seems is located in the intersection of the venn Diagram and is an issue with the hard sciences, not with the social sciences.

In the intersection is the traditional battle ground were on one side positivists argue objective knowledge is the only knowledge and therefore claim, as you have, the social sciences or more precise what the humanities "produce" does not rise to a justified truth (Episteme) but a common belief (Doxa).  

The laws of nature are physical laws (so far anyway) but the laws of the social world are ideological (so far anyway) laws. To understand or make sense of the physical world the scientific method appears to date to be the best way. This however does not mean that the scientific method is a universal, just as Descartes radical doubt is not a universal. If we were to use your claim as a universal then theoretical physics, quantum mechanics, learning concepts, concept formation, and certain branches of mathematics, would all be philosophy not science as it pertains to epistemology. Just as ideology, racism, sexism, homophobia, and patriarchy are unseen so too is dark matter, black holes, time, and dark energy. I do not think you would argue that the latter list is Doxa, just as I would not argue the former is Episteme. They are different "laws" or governing rules but not in a hierarchical order just different in the "worlds" they reside in. Just as E=mc2 is a physical law so too is morality as a social law. Just as the Pythagorean theorem is a mathematical law so too is domination a law in the social. The quadratic formula is used as a tool in the physical so too is the ideologocal tool of racism used in the social.

Therefore, I have concluded a long time ago that knowledge/language is in the truest sense of the words "separate but equal". Separate in the worlds they reside in but equal in the power of explanation, description, and path building toward accuracy.

In concluding, my personal belief is that both the Natural and the Social sciences appeal to and reside in sensus comminis and therefore; both are limited knowledge's limited by language. Both worlds have concrete situations, descriptions of those concrete situations, explanations of the effects of these concrete situations in their respective worlds. One method is powerful in one world, the other in the other world. The one major difference is however, in the imagination. I contend knowledge is and can be drawn from the imagination, the hard sciences by defination elimenate this potential.

The real problem as I see it  is not the sciences that create the knowledge/language but some of the scientists who are in one camp. That my friend Brahim, is the social laws of ideology, hierarchy, and domination in praxis just as surely as the law of gravity has kept me in my seat as I typed this response in the physical world.

P.S. I wish you all who celebrate at this time of year a peaceful and happy new year. We and humanity deserve better and I pray all our work is all to that end.

Douglas

Dear Douglas,

What If I can create the language/knowledge you think is so different. What If I have the right mathematical equations and tools to create a cyborg that thinks, speaks and rationalizes like you?.Will you continue to persist that science and social science belong to two different worlds. The point is that everything is a mathematical equation even if we still do not know-very simple. Right now for example i am developing a new math that destroys Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I do believe like Einstein that causality and the  principle of natural harmony is valid but the problem is that we do not have the right mathematical tools. A tool that explains notions such as entanglement ,superposition etc..

Moreover, consider it as a fact that creating a machine that thinks, feels and talks like humans is perfectly feasible and very possible in the future.Let me give you a glimpse: a feeling is just a virus that attacks the neutrality of our system. It pushes our system either toward the positive axes (love ,sympathy..) or towards the negative axes ( hate, anger..)

In other words , philosophy's epidemiological role is shrinking because science is simply invading all its classical fields. The same for art ,literature etc...In the next decades we will be able to create a Hemingway for example by reproducing his stylo-genetics etc. Lastly, Disorder does not mean chaos or separation between fields of knowledge, it only means we still do not know.

Brahim

It might be helpful to think of theory as the models we have of the world, and practice as what we do in response to those models.  So as an educator, I am committed to a theory of education where learning happens through guided activity at the edge of students' ability (in their Zone of Proximal Development).  Thus in my practice involves scaffolded activity where I (and peers) help learners gain skills.  And also as a behavioral scientist, I am committed to a theory of human agency, and so I collect data and use methods that account for participants' choices, their own articualtions of intent, and that are naturalistic and empirical--that is, I avoid artificial lab settings that produce invalid data, and eschew reductionist collection of data on parts (e.g. pieces of persons).

Dear Brahim,

I am correct in my ubderstanding that for you everthing that or can be considered knowledge is based in the language of math? Meaning if the sign = is not balanced then no knowledge?

Second, the cyborg in my "world" be just that a cyborg. It would be the difference between an actual live preformence of say Edda James and a recording of Edda James. A difference.

Third, I may have not made myself clear, I am not saying that natural science and social science are "in" two different worlds they do however describe two different "worlds". One being physical and one being social. They both work well in there domains and are valid in there description of there domains.

Forth, I think it proposturs to claim that we can put, limit, even ascribe human emotionality as a graph as a way to visualize the complexity of emotionality. IN this light I also find the very idea of controling variables in quantitative science to be quite wrong indeed. How can one "control" for homophobia, whiteness, genderisum? 

Fifth, I agree with you in the "currently" aspect of your post. Meaning as of this moment, but I do not agree with you conclusion in time.......! I also would add that even in today's modernity inferring, inferences, probabilities, and inductive logic are used in the sciences. The notion of objectivity is a falisey i am afraid to say.

Last and most importantly, to claim that "science" is invading or shrinking art, literature, and philosophy is nihilism. To think that the smile of Mona Lisa can ever be "created" from science is a mountain I believe even the most staunch positivist would not climb.

My friend Brahim, about a month ago there was a thread regarding mathematics as nothing more than a simple discriptive language. This claim was made by theoretical physics, I take it you would oppose this definition. On what grounds would you argue? 

Douglas

Dear Douglas,

Mathematics is indeed a descriptive language. But it is the only fully systematic language we possess..All languages have exceptions and their counter intuitive generalizations. Example we say child but not childs in plural etc..

Tell your theoretical physicist to stop using the Schrodinger or Einstein's equation and develop another language since it is only descriptive. Without math, theoretical physics is just philosophy. Without math, theoretical physicists will dry out like a raisin under the sun. The metaphor is borrowed from a famous American poet that I forgot his name. He speaks about deferred dreams or something like that..

Dear Brahim,

I will!!!

Have a great night, I need to fly back tomorrow early.

I look forward to continuing, but I leave you with a question.

In your framing of knowledge how do you account for imagination and inspiration?

Douglas

Dear Douglas,

have a nice trip and a good night...

Dear Douglas,

You asked me last time about imagination and inspiration.

To my mind , math can go to the farthest limit of our imaginative potential. To corroborate this fact I would like to speak about the famous Hilbert space. As a thought experiment , Hilbert asks us to imagine an infinitely large hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Now imagine that an infinite number of guests came to this Grand Hotel in order to be accommodated. To make the matter worse, the infinitely large hotel is full and there is no spare room. Of course our Kantian sensibility will push to say that there is no solution to this problem since there are no vacant rooms.

Well, Hilbert, the mathematician, finds a clever way to solve this problem. The solution is very simple indeed. Change  the guest  of room one to room two and the guest in room two to Room 3 and so on indefinitely and you will have an infinite number of vacant rooms.

I guess I do not need to say anything more in order to show how math is so deeply imaginative.

As to inspiration i think it is a positive mutation in our neutral system. It can happen due to lots of work, thinking, extra corporal experiences ,dreams etc...People whose genes have a potential to mutate positively in an almost undetected way are what we call inspired men and women such as poets , artists, scientists ,philosophers etc..

Theoretically, we can create a robot that is inspired millions of times more than humans. It will depend upon the frequency and intensity of the electromagnetic waves ( all variables spoken about earlier transferred into waves) that targets the robots state of perfect mechanical equilibrium.

Dear Brahim,

I am sorry for the delay in my reply (some family issues) but I would like to ask you about your last paragraph. Let us assume we have achieved the building of a "robot in a state of perfect mechanical equilibrium". Is it you contention that Jr. is capable of knowledge creation?

Hope the new year has begun well

Douglas 

When you practice teaching directly, there are theories behind it and if you do it indirectly there is a theory behind it, namely, the eclectic theory. So, in effect, any practice of teaching is based on a theory.