Introduction
To gain a sound understanding of what a theorist is, let us take a look at different interpretations of the meaning of the word:
- According to a general search on Google using the terms “What is a theorist?”, the definition rendered was stated as follows: “A person concerned with the theoretical aspects of a subject; a theoretician.”
- According to Madscitech.org, a theorist is defined as “a scientist who specializes in finding patterns in experimental or observation data and then making predictions assuming those patterns to be reality.”
- According to campaign-for-learning.org.uk, “Theorists adapt and integrate observations into complex and logically sound theories.
There are certainly many, many different ways in which to describe what a theorist is, but from these three we may assume that a theorist is a person that is concerned with theoretical aspects and specializes in using observation and experimentation to develop, adapt and integrate logically sound theories from what they assume to be reality. So what kinds of theorists and theories exist? Do, and should, theories ever become more than theories? What sort of theories exist today?
What Kinds of Theorists Exist?
Advancement in humanity has been a driving point for eons; theorists exist in all fields of study including education, the sciences (political, mathematical, social, behavioral, physical, etc…) and your odds-and-ends such as conspiracy theorists.
What Sort of Theories Exist?
Just as there are theorists for most every aspect of life, so there are theories to coincide. In education and the sciences, theories exist in almost every subject and are quite capable of escaping into the territory of law and principle. However, theories such as those titled as conspiracies rarely achieve more than this negatively connoted mentioning. Every considerable scientific law was first birthed as a theory before it was given the prestige of law or principle which brings us to yet another inquiry.
Should Theories Become More than Theories?
The answer to this question is rather elusive because each theory is different; with each theory there is a different set of questions necessary to validate its becoming more than a theory. In fact, there are questions necessary to determine whether a theory is logically valid (which determine whether it can even be considered a theory or simple nonsense). The greatest pitfall for determining the validity of a theory is in its wording; language, especially the English language, is dynamic which can prove aggravating when attempting to argue your point. Now we are left to consider whether a theory written, or spoken, in a particular way is beyond the reaches of subjectivity: hardly. So if a theory, written or spoken in a particular manner is not beyond the reaches of subjectivity (we must not travel to Abilene here) then what constitutes it becoming a law or principle? According to BusinessDictionary.com, a scientific law, for example, is defined as the following:
“An independently and sufficiently verified description of a direct link between cause and effect of a phenomenon, deduced from experiments and/or observations. Scientific laws are considered established and universally applicable (to certain class of things or phenomenon under appropriate conditions) but not necessarily definitive. Also called laws of science.”
Now consider the second-to-last sentence in this definition: “Scientific laws are considered established and universally applicable (to certain class of things or phenomenon under appropriate conditions) but not necessarily definitive.” A law, of all things, that is considered universally applicable should not, then, be confined to only a “certain class of things or phenomenon under appropriate conditions” and should most certainly be definitive. This definition of a law, scientific law to be more specific, merely defines a far more applicable theory when the contradiction of universal and “to certain” is vindicated. So, to re-inquire on whether theories should become more than just theories, the answer is no they should not lest the definition of a law becomes more indicative of a theory with wider application.
Search for Truth 