>>Which theories that we've discussed here can't be validated, verified?
>>
>>Entropy? Linear vs global thinking? Learning styles? Hierarchical vs non
>>hierarchical organiztion?
>>
>>How would we find out if, say, the theory of "entropy" as usefully
>>explaining phenomena of human organizations can be tested in practice, in
>>the world in which we live?
>
>Steve, I think you are being covert here. I think for you it's not
>"entropy" for example, but entropy specifically.
Rick, if I'm being "covert," why am I being covert? Is it possible that
the "rules" that you have imposed make it difficult or impossible to
criticize a theory "overtly"?
I have tried to criticize "entropy" overtly several times, without rancor
or personal attack or obscenity: you have used your power and your rules
to refuse to publish.
But to answer your question: no, it is not entropy specifically in this
case. I am interested more in the notion that all of us in LO's should be
helped to recognize the difference between prophesy and visions...and
theories.
>At's off in the desert and is not here to answer. Your question is very
>ligitimate... We have theories; how do we test them?
>
>Do you want an answer? or are you just repeating your (negative) point?
>We do understand from your prior messages that you don't buy At's entropy
>theories and don't like his exposition.
My question of you and others is this: am I correct in asserting that At's
exposition of entropy is not cast in theory-practice form? If so,
"entropy" is not a theory that can be tested in the field of human
organization. It becomes an explanation that explains everything, and thus
nothing.
>Steve, are you also being covert about your judgments about the whole
>field of organizational learning? Your writing makes me wonder.
Oh, no. We live in organizations, which are patterned forms of
institutions. Unless we can help our organizations learn we are doomed.
That is why it is so important to be able to get beyond endless Bohmian
dialog that never is able to contribute to organizational learning.
>Scepticism is welcome here. Cynicism, especially veiled cynicism is
>not.
If I were you, Rick, I would not be quick to distinguish between skeptics
and cynics: was Jonathan Swift a skeptic or a cynic.
And a suggestion: if you want less "veiling" you have to learn to be open
to forms of communication other than those with which you are now
comfortable.
I don't think I, for one, wear veils. Unless I am forced to by "rules."
>The difference? One is open to learning and contributes to learning, the
>other not.
Amen. I hope we are both open to learning, which means both open to
changing our theories, and changing our practice.
Including the practice of this LO list.
Be well.
Steve
--Steve Eskow <dreskow@corp.webb.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>