Theory

[robinturner]

Am I the only person to be irritated by the blanket use of the word "theory" in the humanities? In the past there were various types of theory: political theory, literary theory (which was lit crit with a chip on its shoulder), critical theory (as though other theories were uncritical), fatal theory (which never really caught on because no one could understand what Baudrillard was going on about) and of course that ultimate exercise in academic silliness, queer theory. Now, increasingly, there is just Theory.

As far as I can tell, Theory just means speculating about some subject that happens to interest you and (the difficult part) getting your speculations published. To do that, you need a lot of citations from someone who did exactly the same thing about something that interested him or her, but is more famous than you. Let's say I went to see the latest Star Wars film and enjoyed it, but at the same time felt vaguely uncomfortable about some of the implicit politics. Now I could just write a n online review of the film saying "George Lucas may think he's being critical of America's slide into authoritarian rule, but the whole Jedi mythology is elitist and Jar Jar should be shot" (which is more-or-less what David Brin said years ago). A lot of people might read it, but it wouldn't be Theory, and it wouldn't get published in any academic journals. On the other hand, if I were to find a few papers on related subjects by people like Zizek, Lacan or Baudrillard and relate them to my own reactions to the film, then that would be Theory.

Somehow I think it's all a case of physics-envy.

Comments

you have a point, there :]

[dualistic.livejournal.com]

*chuckles*

[grrrlishgrin.livejournal.com]

i *heart* this entry

[vret.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. I was about to say roughly the same thing.

[trochee.livejournal.com]

Somehow I think it's all a case of physics-envy.

And this particular flavor of misunderstanding is perpetuated by the linguists, I'm embarrassed to say. The entire post-Chomsky debate is riddled with discussion of Theory in much the way that you describe, except that we add diagrams -- often with little more improvement. Now we have speculation with pictures and that's supposed to be an improvement.

BTW, I happen to agree with your perspective on Sith, except that I think Lucas isn't even that deep.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was bullshitting about Sith, since I haven't seen it yet. Lucas stated in an interview that the first three episodes were meant to be about the erosion of democracy in America post-Vietnam. I think he is deep to the extent that he stands on the shoulders of giants (to mix a metaphor). The first film was pure Joseph Campbell, and the others drew on every cinematic tradition imaginable. You could call it plagiarism, but a more charitable view would be (ahem) intertextuality. Whatever, he's fun to analyse (I once wrote a rather tongue in cheek mythological analysis of Episode I (http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/starwars.html))

[vret.livejournal.com]

You don't need to see it to have an opinion on it. That's what critics are for.

[cf.livejournal.com]

actually, your opinion of it will be better if you don't see it...

[solri.livejournal.com]

And it's not just diagrams, we also use bars and arrows and Greek letters, so we must be really scientific!

[xaosenkosmos.livejournal.com]

Now we have speculation with pictures and that's supposed to be an improvement

Call me when the nested list representation of a binary tree is more legible than the diagram version. Alternately, you can throw out the tree idea, iff you come up with a syntax processing argument that maintains compositionality without requiring a tree ;^P

(And don't be hatin' the notation, we're just math and physics nerds who followed the cute girls into the social sciences and then got lost. We come in peace.)

[trochee.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with the diagram representation of a binary tree.

But I contest the assertion that a binary tree is an optimal or somehow underlying structure of human language. Insisting that the trees must be binary ("for learnability reasons") is very popular in theoretical syntax. I suppose I'm contesting the relevance of binary trees for linguistics. Yes, any tree can be represented as binary -- just as any data structure can be approximated with a series of bits -- if you're sufficiently clever. But that doesn't mean that real world data structures really are a series of bits -- that's just a convenient way to model them. Clevernesses like linked-lists, trees etcetera reflect years of thinking about better ways to model real-world phenomena in bit sequences. But that doesn't affect the phenomenon, only the model.

The same people who insist on binary trees also build this crazy "movement" apparatus on top of it in order to make it all work. Except (1) it doesn't work as a model anyway and (2) insisting that it be modelable on a blackboard is a bit suspicious. We're talking about a brain function here; there's no reason to insist that it be something that can be modeled on a piece of paper.

I just wish that more linguists would test their models with the detail and thoroughness that computers allow.

[cf.livejournal.com]

out of curiosity what is the motivation of the binomial tree?

(and what the hell would a 'binary' tree be?)

is it stochastic? reincombant? do tell...

lol. it would be interesting to see a linguistic doing simulation modeling.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I second that.

There was a good thread on the cogling list entitled "Funny Math" which dealt with a similar subject.

[soliss.livejournal.com]

I've just been complaining about the cruelty of being forced to do physics with paper and pencil. Take the one thing I'm terrible at, not making sign errors and typos, and force me to do it several thousand times.

Still, someday they'll accept that I can't think without technology. Dangerous, sure, but will I really be doing all that much trig after the apocalypse anyway? Coconuts can plot their own damn trajectories at that point.

[driftersonline.livejournal.com]

My head hurts.
I have theorizin' myself against the wall.
Why?
Because I am a big show off.
I should of stayed with the Circus.

Theory as path to empirical

[ripope.livejournal.com]

I think Theory has become this one-word catch-all because it is generally used negatively, as in "you're just having fun with Theory, not being serious and empirical".

For my part (http://www.cprobes.com), I believe the path to truly understanding empirical events is through Theory, which for me (http://www.cprobes.com) is Lacanian psychoanalysis.

And let's not forget, Zizek considers himself a materialist.

Re: Theory as path to empirical

[solri.livejournal.com]

I believe the path to truly understanding empirical events is through Theory, which for me is Lacanian psychoanalysis.

Fair enough, but why would that be superior to, say, Qabalah?

Re: Theory as path to empirical

[ripope.livejournal.com]

Well a good theory is one that has the ability to transform the future. Lacanian analysis, and the understandings it enables, allows for this.

Kabbalah, well, it's just a supplement, a way to feel good, a warm blanket. What Truth does it reach, or enable?

Religion and theory shouldn't be con-fused.

Re: Theory as path to empirical

[solri.livejournal.com]

What Truth does it reach, or enable?

I could ask the same question about analysis. Both systems work by applying a mythical framework to experience, and produce results accordingly.

[ripope.livejournal.com]

No, I don't agree (http://www.cprobes.com). There is nothing mythical about psychoanalysis. Though each case is singular, there is a universal technique in psychoanalysis, and one that works. It gets to the Truth of the patient's psychic structure via the symptom, and the patient h/imself speaks the Truth of h/is situation (`the talking cure').

[solri.livejournal.com]

there is a universal technique in psychoanalysis, and one that works

The same could be said for acupuncture, but that doesn't make the theory of acupuncture scientific. Psychoanalysis is based on a theory of mind which is no more scientific than Qabalah.

[soliss.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't know about "psychoanalysis". If you're talking about the Freudian kinds, then sure, whatever. Behavioral psychology can be very scientific, though. DBT, for example, makes actual sense, as far as I know.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was talking specifically about Freudian kinds.

I hadn't come across DBT before, but it looks similar to other cognitive therapies, such as REBT, of which I heartily approve.