> Glen, doesn't every theory imply a practice, demand it?
Hi Steve,
I selected this question...mainly because I am tired and it is one that I
feel I can continue a dialogue on at the moment...will reread your email
in more detail at a better time for me.
I will use an example in biochemistry to elucidate what I mean by the
difference between theory and practise. And by the way, I love theory.
In your aforementioned question there is an assumption that theory, or
intellectual knowledge and pursuit, transitions into an applied domain.
The example I will use is that of research findings in biochem that never
make it into the mainstream usage. I use this because these discoveries
could be, if applied, about improving the human condition by either
treating disease primarily or by maintaining health. For example
angiogenisis inhibitors, protein compounds that block cancerous cells from
growing and actually kill the host cells, has been in the literature for
many years. They were discovered over 20 years ago. It has only been in
the past 3 years that human trials have even begun.
The moving the initial research, theory, along is what I mean by applied.
The initial research sat for many years. Even though it was "known" of
their benifit. The application process will move along as of the direct
action to make such substances available to people. There are however...
hundreds of such research findings that sit on shelves of librarys that
never get put into action. What value do they have if not put into action?
What value is there in understanding a theory inside and out without
putting it into an actual applied process?
I see a major difference in creating, understanding, and elaborating on
theories and the applying the knowledge into a set of strategies that are
implimented, maintained, and developed into expert levels of skill.
Glen
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>