When I was writing my thesis, my reader pointed out that I never seemed to want to come to a conclusion. He also pointed out that I was working from evidence to theory rather than from theory to evidence. Interestingly, my introduction proposes one theory and my conclusion addresses an entirely different theory. Horribly inconsistent, but great fun.
It struck me recently that a blog may be a good way to do that. It's particularly interesting in the context of those group blogs where people can feed off of each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Y'all asked for it. . .
http://motelnoir.blogspot.com/
Your approach sounds consistent with American pragmatist philosophy. Pragmatism is a system where methods that work are retained, and methods that don't are discarded. This adaptive method eschews narrow obedience to strict methods such as "induction" or "deduction." I recall that when I was studying archaeology there was a big push to employ only deductive methods--i.e. test theories that were already formed against the data-set of the real world. This was somehow seen as more scientific than induction--where you work from data to theory. Now for some reason the inductive method seems more logical. . .
Post a Comment