> Current scientific testing tries to remove the person from the process. I
> don't think that's possible. Validation will depend on the people using
> the theory. This leads to limitations in the theory's use.
I agree. I am not suggesting removing the person from the process in
any way. I am suggesting distinguishing the process of formulation of a
theory from its testing.
> > Does it produce better results
> > than its alternatives?
> I'm not sure if this is the crux of the matter.
It is the crux of the matter for me. I also find it the crux of the
matter for executives and managers that I work with. Is the it the
crux of the matter for scientists? The story of Einsteins "discovery
by the world" suggests even there it is the crux.
Why I argue the point is that I am interested in returning theory
(maybe even science) to the ordinary person. I am claiming theory
for the people. There is still plenty of hard work to do but its the
work that people at work (and in their daily lives) can do.
> In a nutshell, I think the differences in uses of theories by different
> groups drives the synthesis of new theories.
And this is the beauty of the matter.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk