In a message dated 3/23/2016 4:25:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I came to 'theory-ladenness' laden with the wrong theory.
Never mind. "Ladenness" can be a trick, and you've now corrected your wrong
theory. As we see from the earlier post, 'theory-laden' has been applied
variously, so indeed there is a theory behind theory-ladenness and as long
as you've come to it, your theory could not be THAT wrong.
Why do I say 'theory-laden' has been applied as 'adjectivising' different
stuff? Well, I should consult with M. Aragona, but...
In 1886, The Medical & Surgical Reporter" applies "theory-laden" to 'tome':
i. It is in strong and favourable contrast to the ponderous, theory-laden
tomes of Ziemmsen's Cyclopœdia.
Surely we can reduce that to some reference to 'theory-laden' as applied to
observation, but I would not know if Ziemmsen would agree!
Hanson himself does not apply 'theory-laden' to 'observation'.
In 1958, N. R. Hanson in "Patterns of Discovery" he writes:
ii. "There is a sense [or way as I'd prefer -- Speranza] in which seeing is
a 'theory-laden' undertaking. Observation of x is shaped by prior
knowledge of x."
There are two sentences here:
iia. There is a [way] in which seeing [can be seen] as a 'theory-laden'
undertaking.
iib. Observation of x is shaped by prior knowledge of x.
In any case, he applies it to 'undertaking', and the subject of his claim
is just ONE verb, 'seeing' (one of Grice's favourite verbs, as in "Macbeth
saw Banquo" -- "to think that there is a disimplicature here, since Banquo
wasn't there to be seen is a commonplace of Shakespearian scholars.")
In 2000, Economy & Philosophy, vol. 16 has 'theory-laden' applied to
'observation reports', not 'observation' simpliciter and per se. A world of
difference.
iii. It is nowadays fashionable to claim that observation reports in
science are no less 'theory-laden' than high level explanations.
Note that iritatingly, "Economy and Philosophy" are still being _scared_ as
Hanson (understandably) was back in the day -- having never read, most
likely, Ziemmsen's Cyclopœdia.
In 2008, M. Glantz & J. Mun in, "The Banker's Handbook on Credit Risk",
make fun of 'theory-laden' as applied, if not to 'tomes', as the "Medical and
Surgical Report" had done, to plain books (excluding their own handbook):
iv. There are a plethora of mathematical modeling and theory-laden books
without any real hands-on applicability."
No wonder Putnam was fascinated by the concept!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
