Kosso's reading

“Reading’s/theory’s ability (alone) to explain a phenomenon is not necessarily indicative of its truth”

I see theorists as trying to demonstrate a theory so intently that they put it into a human made formula so they can begin to untangle and start to explain the phenomena they call a theory.  Now to answer the question above pulled from the article- perhaps the equation that the human comes up with is not the accurate formula, but it fits the criteria. Should a theory have one solid answer? The text specifically states that we are never given an answer key. It seems that schematics and explanations are a structured format to provide tangible evidence for those of us who need this translation of idea into fact. The process of identifying and explaining a theory is what justifies the claim that it is built upon, as the text proves this remark it also suggests that this is a process worthy of appreciation and beauty. There is this consistency that after trial and error in trying to justify a theory we search for a mutual acquaintance in the theories relationship to that which it is trying to explain.  If it is still simply unexplainable we always have observation, which leads us back to redefining the schematic.

Should theories be simplified or does complexity add a dimension that allows for exquisite interpretation. Are theories delicate and then become complex because we have a human need for truth or are theories oversimplified?

Kosso has been more enjoyable for me to read, I especially like his list of ways in defining theories. I love that theories are a result from an observation and once repetition has proven itself in the lab the theory has survived its infancy and is brought into the world for critique.