Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 318.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu
[1] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk> (30)
Subject: criteria for "theory"
[2] From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk> (11)
Subject: theory and practice
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:09:23 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: criteria for "theory"
Thanks to Han Baltussen for asking the now obvious and non-trivial
question, which is productive of others: what criteria might we hold up for
a concept of theory in the humanities? Being from a practically orientated
field, I'd say ones that define a concept which actually helps us in our
work. Allow me to propose the following:
(1) the concept identifies a set of behaviours and what they produce, and
distinguishes both from others;
(2) it explains the role of this intellectual product in our work;
(3) it allows us to distinguish good from bad (or strong from weak, etc) kinds.
Since we already have the relatively tractable idea of modelling (which is
what computers do), and we know models by definition to be fictional,
manipulatory devices, the space left over for theory would seem to make it
declarative and purposefully truth-tending. Ray Siemens proposed recently
in conversation that theory is that which tells us what to look for by
other means. Northrop Frye used to suggest that the prime criterion for
literary critical theory was intellectual fruitfulness. I'd suppose that
"theory" necessarily means a statement or set of statements in language.
But, given that we are talking about the humanities, the prior sentence
should not be taken to imply parsimony. Indeed we should allow that a
theory could comprise a narrative, should we not? But what kind?
Some time ago, in a private exchange, John Burrows suggested the idea of an
"anatomy", as in Frye's Anatomy of Criticism. Would that be a better term
for the job?
Comments?
Yours,
WM
Dr Willard McCarty | Senior Lecturer | Centre for Computing in the
Humanities | King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS || +44 (0)20
7848-2784 fax: -2980 || willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:09:45 +0100
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: theory and practice
"As Freeman Dyson has pointed out, computers only really took off when they
built them small and fast, shortening the iteration of design. In part this
is because the underlying problem is not one of theory, but of practice.
There was a theory of flight, but it did not help the Wright brothers build
an airplane. Nor were bicycles designed by theory, but by trial and error;
indeed, theory still cannot really explain why they work as they
do." Thomas Baker, "Languages for Dublin Core", D-Lib Magazine, 12/98.
Dr Willard McCarty | Senior Lecturer | Centre for Computing in the
Humanities | King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS || +44 (0)20
7848-2784 fax: -2980 || willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 04:36:17 EDT