One argument that I am annoyed by immensely is the argument - "X may be true in theory, but is not true in practice."
Let me pose this question - if it does not work in practice, then why? There must be reasons for this.
These reasons are either: A. Unrelated to X; therefore it still works in theory and can work in practice - it's a correlation issue in this case. B. An inherent flaw in X - in this case there is something wrong with the theory.
That's like saying "I've never flown a plane before, so I can only judge based off of a car's controls."
Personally, I believe there are some inherent flaws in an-com that are present both in theory and in practice. But this is not the thread to debate that. Anyway, you can start your own thread on that, if you want.
i've only read a few posts.... when everything turned commy i just kind of quit reading... only b/c it doesn't really do anything for my thought i'm going to present to you now.
Co-precipitation... is the phenomena i will now discuss. its a chemistry term. basically the theory says you have two similar ions in solution... just say Calcium and Magnesium... due to precipitation constants and just the way things work it should be possible to add in... say sodium hydroxid, NaOH, and be able to precipitate out 99.99% of one of the ions w/o precipitating out any of the other ion. this is a normal separation technique used to filter out one from the other and greatly purify both.
co-precipitation is the phenomena of said X not always working correctly. even tho everything may be set up properly.... environmental conditions in order... the one that's supposed to stay in solution also precipitates out before its time and your left with impure products on both ends. I've had a PhD chemist explain it as... "there's just no explaining it... the only thing you can do is start over... its happened to me several times..." it was even in my analytical chemistry text book w/ similar terminology...albeit more proper terminology... but similar nonetheless.
Like, Communism in theory is good, but in practice not so. Why? Because it's implemented wrongly.
Erm....wait....so why am I arguing....
So, does it not work in practice because of its implementation?
The question asked: X may be true in theory, but is not true in practice." Let me pose this question - if it does not work in practice, then why? There must be reasons for this.
I think the issues stem from the practicer. Not that the theory or the actual practice is incorrect. The flaws lie within us. The saying, "Political reality trumps political theory," makes me ask, why? I say because our political realities are not like the political theories. We mold and change them as we see fit. So, maybe politics is not the best example to look towards for an answer.
Maybe we should look towards science. I see Sonatavarius is going in that direction, but I really don't understand his point.
But hold can we tell whether it can or cannot work in practice?
Of course it should be tested, but I'm asking why things fail in practice that seem plausible in theory? I think it has to do with the agent practicing them, not the theory itself.
Of course it should be tested, but I'm asking why things fail in practice that seem plausible in theory? I think it has to do with the agent practicing them, not the theory itself.
Well....not all science experiments go to plan even though they look perfect :/
That's where I think this discussion should go. More towards science. Why doesn't a seemingly perfect theory work in practice? What would be an example?
Why doesn't a seemingly perfect theory work in practice?
Well, I was working on a bone-growth agent on Medaka fish last year. The theory was that it would increase bone growth substantially in fish. Yet it didn't work much. I don't really think thats a good example.
This is not a stab at your abilities or intelligence, but there could have been something missing from the theory, not the practice. My thoughts are more on a seemingly perfect theory working in practice should be successful. If it is not, I blame the agent.
But all I need is one good example to prove me wrong.
That further proves my point. Those theories were not correct in the first place. If you have a correct theory and flawed agent putting the theory into action, then I (until someone shows me an example to prove MY theory incorrect) feel it's not the theory to practice relation that is skewed, it's the agent.
But I suppose I'm nitpicking the semantics of the OP.
