Click here for an easy and free way to help feed the hungry at The Hunger Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:47:15 09/22/04 Wed
Author: NSF
Subject: Re: Not really
In reply to: FondriestFan 's message, "Not really" on 12:41:49 09/22/04 Wed

I guess the fundamental difference is in a hypothesis or theory to test the nature of existing observable phenomena or a theory or hypothesis about a new system, method or product. A novel theory or hypothesis about a new system, method or product can necessarily only be reduced to practice after the theory or hypothesis has been divined. A theory about the extant nature of something necessarily follows the existence of the observable event or entity. But, I agree, I don't usually think of these pre-existing things as "practices"

>Not at all. Early astronomers saw the movements of
>the planets then sought to develop theories to explain
>them. Ergo, practice before theory. A theory is not
>necessarily an idea. A theory can be an attempt to
>explain logically a behavior or practice that exist a
>priori.
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>I am no doctor, but it boggles the mind how far
>ahead
>>>>the cheaters seem to be ahead of the medical
>>>>profession.
>>>
>>>yes boggling, but then again theory will ALWAYS
>follow
>>>practice.
>>
>>Huh? How can theory ever follow practice? You must
>>come up with ideas before you can act on them.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.