Neither is more important, theory and applications are like the roots and branches of a tree. Both are very necessary, both have their unique functions and fulfill their roles when appropriate. They feed each other, support each other, and if you damage the one you damage both. Theory leads to understanding and applications, applications lead to understanding and new theory.

Depends on the definition of importance. If you restrict yourself to pure science, the applicability is primarily without meaning. Your research is important for you and the science.

If you look at the usefullness for the society, eg. a population that gets something to drink and to eat or medical support, the answer is obvious again. The importance serves the survive of your interesting group. So I´m ambiguous and undecided.

Any valuable theory within natural science has applications.

Almost most theories have applications

Applications needs theory to be built. Theory without a ground of application is like to throw seeds on the desert, they need a field of application. So the answer is, without question an equilibirum between pratice and theory.

There are a lot of examples in physics and crystallography when theory had been developed before any appliactions was found. But in my opinion, whether theory has to be application oriented or not depends on applictions. If we consider fundamental laws of physics we must be as accurate as we can. Therefore it's rather difficult precise laws in real life and so we need to simplify the therory to turn it into something applicable.

Neither is more important, theory and applications are like the roots and branches of a tree. Both are very necessary, both have their unique functions and fulfill their roles when appropriate. They feed each other, support each other, and if you damage the one you damage both. Theory leads to understanding and applications, applications lead to understanding and new theory.

Theory and applications work hand in hand, one updates the other as most of us know.

Undeniably, the defining characteristic of any scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. And such predictions a theory can make, of course, thru its application to a given subject matter. So, a theory without applications would not have a predictive content and therefore would be hardly classifiable as scientific.

If by `application oriented theory’ you mean one that is associated with empirical explanatory models (in contrast to a fundamentally based theory, which is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic) then, obviously, everything depends on the context. Some domains of knowledge cannot be formalized, accurately and completely (for example, health sciences); therefore, in these domains application-oriented theories are the only choice.

I support wholeheartedly the way theory-application relationship was explained by Ludwig Combrinck. Similar analogy can be drawn for the objective-subject relationship and subsequently objective conditions and subjective preparations as well. A theoretician tries many a times to explain a multi-variable phenomenon by varying one parameter at a time and assuming other parameters constant (thus a linear reasoning is generated) and afterwards when all these equations are added, it is expected that we get a reasonably good solution (negligible RMS error). Thus, a structure is 'observed' inside an event. This structure is used to raise an appliance which bears 'the essential elements' of the original event. The appliance is a new addition to the pre-existing 'nature' and thereby a changed objectivity. New relationships come up. To explain the new set-up we need to invent new theories. The cycle rolls on and the process is inexhaustible.

Both!

It depends. A researcher should mention the state-of-the-art as well as the-art-of-the-practice based on some related works and a quantitative measurements. However, there is a place for new theory for a creative or novel application or at least to enhance some metrics.

In Romanian there is a saying:

Theory as theory, but the practice is killing you.

I think it is an update of an older discussion.

It is assigned to Kant: "Theory without practice is

empty, practice without theory is blind"

and to Langfeld: "Theory without practice is

for geniuses, practice without theory is for fools

and rogues, but for the majority of educators the

intimate and unbreakable union of both is necessary".

Today we have a more nuanced discussion.

The question for this thread is excellent.

The answer to this question is not simple. Perhaps the best way to go about answering the question is to consider different cases:

1. Empirical science: here the answer is straightforward. A mixture of theory and experimentation are important. Designing an experiment requires good sense and a clear view of what is needed. Interpreting the results of each experiment requires good grounding in the underlying theory for an experiment. Example: knowing relativity theory, devise an experiment to test whether light travelling through space is influenced by the gravitational pull of planetary systems.

2. Theoretical mathematics: The results (theorems) in theoretical mathematics require proofs, not experiments.

3. Applied mathematics: Both theory and practice are needed.

4. Poetry: A poet who never writes a poem is still a poet but a poet who writes a memorable poem relies on both theory (knowledge of a language) and practice (derived from experience). A poem, by definition, expresses a world view (practice part) and a philosophy about the world.

5. Music: Here the answer is not so straightforward. There are accomplished musicians who cannot read music and who do not know musical theory and yet can produce first class music either instrumentally or vocally. My father, for example, could use the piano to play any melody that he heard and he could use the piano to improvise in a pleasing way. On the other hand, professional musicians typically require a thorough knowledge of musical theory and lots of practice.

I think neither of them is as important as their proper blend.

I mean proper application of a excellent theory bring out what is marvelous. That is more important. A good theory without application is useless. Application of a unripe theory has drastic effect.

Theory and practice are inseparable quasi-twins of science and scientific research. When there is an application found for a scientific theory, then it is the culmination to the truth and validity of that theory and therefore the theory precedes the application. But sometimes from practical things, phenomena we observe, we write a scientific theory to a phenomena that describes that phenomenon and therefore the real model is a precursor for the theory to be written. But in this case rechecking is part of the process of validation. In general, a scientific theory is an engine, a scientific establishment of what is possible via imagination and higher order thinking, even if there is no real model and application at a moment. Theoretical establishments are guides of the human society to the unknown but better and possible futures. In mathematics we believe somehow what Lobachevsky said: " No part of mathematics however abstract it may be that some day will not be applied to real world " .

The education you get is more important than where you get that education. You can easily find examples of people who did and didn’t go to school who went on to great success. You can equally find examples of people who did and didn’t go to school who ended up as great failures.

There is a theoretical side and a application side to knowledge and both are valuable. The true masters of any craft or discipline understand both ends of the spectrum. They put in the hours to get the theoretical knowledge while also putting in the time to understand how those techniques fit into a larger context and tradition and why they work.

Whether or not you go to school or jump directly into the workforce is a personal decision that’s based on a variety of factors. Do you need to start earning a living right away? How do you best learn? Will you be able to pick up the theory and context on your own? Do you need more time gaining the practical experience?

Only you can answer those questions and only you can determine which is the better path to start out on. However, I think focusing only on one side while ignoring the other will limit you in ways you may never even realize.

Dear Hemanta, good day

In a simple words, Both of them important, but i think that without application we cannot prove or validates the theory

A new information, the leading heads of string theory are waiting impatiently for the new experiment at LHC to develop their theory by matching them to the new hopefully found particles! In this case experiment seems to be inducing and therefore very important.

Actually, it is not perfectly correct. The string theory is a striking example of an abstractly (mathematically) driven theory and such its development does not really dependent upon observations and experiments. Moreover, almost all of its predictions cannot be accessible at the modern (and probably near future) level of experimental capabilities.

What’ more, chances are that even if we someday convinced ourselves that string theory contained candidate vacua (i.e. choice of compactification manifold, auxiliary information such as bundles, branes and fluxes, and choice of vacuum expectation values of the fields), which could describe our universe, we would never be able to explicitly characterize them.

What came firrst: a hen or an egg? Or what of these two is more important?You'll get no hen in other way than from an egg, neither get you an egg without a hen (feathered by a cock, of course). No offence meant, but the main question under discussion (about comparative importance of theory and applications) is of this kind. As to the supplementary question: "Should theory be application oriented?" my answer would be unqualified NO. Theory is a conceptual model of natural, psychological, socio-economic, poilitical and other realities (even if it can be a secondary model of models!) and it should be oriented only at understanding them better and still better. Applications may and will come very soon, later on, or even never. When a scientist says that the theory he proposes to develope is directly application-oriented, it is either not a theory strictly speaking or a confidence trick useful for getting funds.

@Boris. INOGDA VSE PROSTO. Rehbinder Effect is known since 1928, Reduction of strength of SOLID BODIES by wetting the surface with surfactants solution. But effect did not have theory. I fought with the problem for 45 years, was very lucky to come with the solution 2 years ago. No one paid me anything, as I am, basically, retired. But, for sure, theory has the applications. Applications preceeded theory for 85 years.

for me Eugen Diaconescu has given the best answer

Dear Subrata, do you really agree that "Theory without practice is for geniuses, practice without theory is for fools and rogues...."? The first sentence is very doubtful, the second one - insulting long generations of our forbears (moreover, our contemporaries in primitive societies) who practised agriculture, cattle breeding, metallurgy and so on without any theory or with its false substitute - a myth. Were they fools or rogues?

We humans can not live without interpreting wright or wrong our living experiences. Those interpretations are expressed in some language to dialogue with ourselves or with people around that share our language in some way. Some theories are learned from our ancestors, other from formal education, others from trial and error implicit in many experiences, decisions and actions. When I was a kid mother took me to two diferent homes; in each one there was a boy with the name "Richard" and both of them stroke and mistreated me, so I concluded for my safety "all Richards are dangerous", and when I was taken to visit other families I asked : Is there any Richard there? Later I learned that I was wrong but it helped me to judge safety ant to prevent repeating the experience. So Richards of the whole world, please excuse me for such a biassed theory. Theory -scientific or not- is just an effort to interpret experimental data-memories and observations, using some language, some logical rules,some traits of particular culture, and some intuitions and inertias to build them, apply them and assume their risks.They are useful in many cases, but not infalible. A theory needs always a situated observer in his/her context, with memory, imagination, some logics attitudes, and the wish of undertanding the world around: Theories may be wrong, may be temporal, may help life or may hurt it. But behind theories there are always humans, so we must be responsible when adopting and applying them. Just look at events like Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.Thanks, emilio