I can see how that looks more like a definition of model, but what kind of theory wouldn't also allow for something like that? TBF I don't know if I could say the difference between 'theory' and 'model'. Perhaps 'model' is used for something more specific & particular?
-
-
Replying to @aeronlaffere
OK yea I think I agree. But I would say you could still sit down and think through a theory to make predictions about something that hasn't happened yet. They'll just be less precise predictions.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @aeronlaffere @neurograce
Agreed. Would you also distinguish between ‘theory’ and ‘theoretical franework’? I tend to think in terms of this progression of specificity: theoretical framework —> theory —> model.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Can’t we view the arrows as interactions? Paradigm <—> theory <—> model <—> observation <— reality; in that sense a theory can only interact with observations through models. (I’m not sure whether I should include theoretical framework here since it might overlap with paradigm.)
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
In my experience, I need theoretical framework sometimes to refer to something in between paradigm and theory. For instance, what would one call something like ‘predictive processing’ or ‘Bayesian brain’? Paradigm seems too broad and theory too specific.
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @aeronlaffere and
Cognitive architectures are good candidates, examples, for why "theoretical framework" is useful. E.g., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT-R
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes
BTW it's useful terms of discribing how (lsome of us)l do sci, not in terms of actually doing sci. It's not required to have a coherent framework to do good sci, but the existence of 1 isn't a func of if the scientist knows about it. You're prob working in one without knowing! 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.