BUS603: Managing People

Many ingredients make up human inquiry. We've established that theories rank among the most important. Several others, however, are part of the landscape and need to be differentiated from theories.

First of all, theories are not laws. Laws specify uniform cause-and-effect relationships which hold true under limited, defined circumstances. Unlike theories, which are broader, they do not claim to explain why the relationships exist. Consider Newton's First Law of Motion, for instance: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it". The theory of gravity, in contrast, more broadly states that any two or more objects exert a force of attraction on one another.

Second, theories are not claims. Claims are contentions based on belief or opinion. They do not necessarily rely on empirical evidence - i.e., evidence acquired through conventional sense perceptions and assessed through scientific processes. Individuals and groups may continue to maintain their claims without regard to investigations and discoveries which counter their beliefs. Theories, in contrast, are developed - and modified, if contrary evidence arises - by careful, systematic observation and testing among members of a community.

Finally, theories are not arguments. In everyday language, an argument is simply a reason someone offers for accepting or stating a particular claim. More formally, a logician would say that an argument comprises a premise and a conclusion. A premise might be "We all know that gray clouds sometimes produce rain. I see gray clouds in the sky". This would be followed with a conclusion, such as "There's a possibility that it's going to rain". A theory about weather, beyond its relevance to specific conditions in the sky at a particular time, encompasses all sorts of meteorological phenomena and is meant to apply universally.