User talk:Dat boi/Draft:Knowledge Generation
More actions
Taking some time to analyse the page.
Section 1
- Applied to penspinning, one would pick a single combo by a renowned spinner and by critically and thoroughly analyzing it, come to appreciate the theories that made this combo happen
Analysis will not reveal the theories that created a combo, as these differ between individuals. It's essentially guesswork.
- One would try to understand why this link has been chosen and not another and form a theory based on it, be it aesthetic or technical
This is not a new way of looking at structure, but it is important to note that this is speculation, not determining how a combo was made.
- Through a series of dialectics, the two sides would be made whole so they are in agreement and not contradictory. Of course sometimes it would lead to one theory being rejected completely
Combining two wrong answers does not necessarily result in a true answer.
- This would then be applied to another combo until a coherent theory of the given spinner has been established. From the theory of the spinner, universal laws would be induced.
Does not follow from the previous statement, the assumption that universal laws will even exist here in PS is dubious as well.
Section 2
- The first being dialectic dialogue, where one person presents an argument, another gives a counterargument, the first instead of fighting the counterargument expands it logically in order to uncover potential flaws, while the second person checks for logical flaws in each others reasoning.
How are you going to uncover flaws or determining what is true in a theoretical system that isn't shown to be objective, and in which there seems to be no outlined way of determining conclusions in the first place?
Final thoughts
Too much is assumed, and there doesn't appear to be any attempt at researching previous investigative methods for examples of what can go right or wrong. Incorrect logic is used such as the assumption that agreement or rejection between two observers validates or invalidates a theory. Proposes that theories attempt to understand what the spinner did to create the combo, but does not ascertain that what the spinner used can be derived out of watching the finished combo, would the information really be retained like that?