Armchair theorizing

[Seteleechete]

Definition: armchair theorizing, armchair philosophizing, or armchair scholarship is an approach to providing new developments in a field that does not involve the collection of new information but, rather, a careful analysis or synthesis of existent scholarship.

I personally favour this approach to reasoning and have a hard time seeing how it is negative when done right, you don't need all the data or proof to arrive at a correct conclusion. If you are good enough at analysing what you got, proof and heavy knowledge is often unnecessary.

Besides proof/data in political, economical and philosophical topics is often quite subjective in and of itself and as such of limited use, reasoning is a much better tool here.

And while existing data in science should be covered by proof(if possible), to find new theories one would need to exercise this approach. Sticking only to what can be proven limits ones thinking in finding new solutions.

Granted you need some base from where to start but you can extrapolate a lot from very little, even without knowing the more advanced theories surrounding a situation. Besides such theories can often be simplified and then you can use the simplification to arrive at a conclusion(I believe things are often overcomplicated).

The only real issue is that you can sometimes miss a crucial piece of information which invalidates your conclusions. This however is easily rectified once someone points that piece out.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Yellow]

First, I appreciate the definition because the term has been thrown around a lot lately, and I figured it was too late to ask what it meant. In essence, you've described what most people call "bullshitting".

I agree for the most part, and think bullshitting is the somewhat unavoidable result of processing the information we've learned into something personally meaningful.

I'd say it's perfectly acceptable as a pasttime, as long as people are able understand that their conjecture holds only a subjective value, and they are open to actual facts as they appear. It becomes a problem, however, when armchairsts are either delusional or grandiose with their "correctness".

 

[Seteleechete]

First, I appreciate the definition because the term has been thrown around a lot lately, and I figured it was too late to ask what it meant. In essence, you've described what most people call "bullshitting".

I agree for the most part, and think bullshitting is the somewhat unavoidable result of processing the information we've learned into something personally meaningful.

I'd say it's perfectly acceptable as a pasttime, as long as people are able understand that their conjecture holds only a subjective value, and they are open to actual facts as they appear. It becomes a problem, however, when armchairsts are either delusional or grandiose with their "correctness".

Bullshitting is making things up from nothing, armchair theorizing(at least how I do it and how it is done according to the provided definition) is coming to conclusions/theorizing possibilities based on logical reasoning/analysis from what information you have. Though I admit the two concepts seem to be easy to confuse.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

The key points are "new developments" and "information you have".

The source of the information you have and accepting new ideas as new developments usually are subjective and very isolated/biased. And it's not a matter of who does this, everyone is biased and it's precisely this assumption that can be very easily contrasted with proper empirical research methods.

If something doesn't involve collecting new information (feedback) then it's synonymous to speculating.
Any creative idea needs to be tested rigorously and applied to be accepted as a development to the existing knowledge. But then it's not a creation, it's a discovery.

A very popular example of this is many-worlds interpretation, it's an impossible to falsify thought experiment based on a limited knowledge about physics.

Having ideas about potential research directions is different from having ideas about the whole piece of development.

 

[Seteleechete]

The key point is "new developments" and "information you have".

The source of the information you have and accepting new ideas as new developments usually are subjective and very isolated/biased. And it's not a matter of who does this, everyone is biased and it's precisely this assumption that can be very easily contrasted with proper empirical research methods.

If something doesn't involve collecting new information then it's synonymous to speculating.
Any creative idea needs to be tested rigorously and applied to be accepted as a development to the existing knowledge.

A very popular example of this is many-worlds interpretation, it's an impossible to falsify thought experiment based on a limited knowledge about physics.

It is often possible to reason what information is biased and once you do you should keep this in mind with any analysis you make. For example, the beheadings of heretics in Islamic nations is bad from a socially libertarian perspective but good from a radical Islamist theological perspective.

There are of course exceptions but that will often be found out sooner or later at which point the analysis turns invalid and a new one has to be made. (basically facts come first)

Proper empirical research is better but it has its flaws, take the transgender topic, the dilemma there is as much about definitions of statements as it is about research. One study can show they have a mental disease based on their definition while another shows the contrary based on theirs as such a purely scientific answer cannot answer the question because there is a philosophical question about definitions.

If you claim a fact based on armchair theorizing it should be based on other facts otherwise you should claim it to be speculation/theory(if pressed on the matter). The theory you mentioned is impossible to falsify but also impossible to prove as such it falls firmly into the area of speculation.

On the same note the fields of economics/politics/philosophy(other than science)/large parts of psychology could be written off as speculation

 

[Grayman]

Proper empirical research is better but it has its flaws, take the transgender topic, the dilemma there is as much about definitions of statements as it is about research. One study can show they have a mental disease based on their definition while another shows the contrary based on theirs as such a purely scientific answer cannot answer the question because there is a philosophical question about definitions.

I could be wrong here but I think the issue was not about people getting the right definition or the right science to support their theories but the issue with the 'armchair theorizing' was that no one tried to get any personal experience in the matter. Did you talk to a transgender and try to understand their experience and how it affects the perceptions, emotions and views of themselves and life? Did you try to see the world through their eyes and compare it to yours to see how you might understand them? I do think all the scientific discussion was interesting but it was near all unproven conjecture easily disregarded if it didn't already fit with what you expected or wanted to find. The only thing you can prove, scientifically about this, is that you know nothing for certain and therefore the experience fo transgender individuals are the most important and valid evidence we have in understanding what transgender really is.

 

[Yellow]

I could be wrong here but I think the issue was not about people getting the right definition or the right science to support their theories but the issue with the 'armchair theorizing' was that no one tried to get any personal experience in the matter. Did you talk to a transgender and try to understand their experience and how it affects the perceptions, emotions and views of themselves and life? Did you try to see the world through their eyes and compare it to yours to see how you might understand them? I do think all the scientific discussion was interesting but it was near all unproven conjecture easily disregarded if it didn't already fit with what you expected or wanted to find. The only thing you can prove, scientifically about this, is that you know nothing for certain and therefore the experience fo transgender individuals are the most important and valid evidence we have in understanding what transgender really is.

You have a good point there. I've developed an increasing tendency to invoke first and second-hand experience to supplement empirical data and statistics, for illustrative purposes. It almost makes the information more meaningful (something I wouldn't have cared about 10 years ago.) I think I'm getting soft.

But in this case, haven't most people of at least average "worldliness" had a at least one close/candid interaction with a transgendered person? I believe they're found on every continent at this point.

 

[Hadoblado]

Topic that was in dire need of discussion. I'll try and weigh in later since I'm at work now. The term is getting thrown around like confetti but as far as I'm concerned it's healthy up to a point, and anything beyond that point is probably better labelled something else.

 

[TheAdditional1]

Thanks for this term - I've been using "ruminating" all over my posts. I've had a recent spat with someone who thought that whenever I spelled out all my thoughts, I was dictating why I was right. She's INFJ and it just...didn't go over well. I'm not going to lie, I don't think I like J's.


Anyway. Armchair theorizing. I think if you're insightful enough, open minded enough, and diverse enough in your theories, it's a great thing to do. Especially if you lay out your train of thought and relevant factors/points and leave the open to criticism. If A = B, B= C, C= D and D is my conclusion, then if everyone finds A, B and C true, then should D not be true as well?


Also, if you're doing it right, at the end of the day, nothing should be "subjective". Nothing that is stated as truth should be in danger of subjectivity. I would prefer the term "situational".

----

Finally there's this slippery nuance in debating or armchair theorizing - when you're talking about the way things ARE because that's how people subjectively react to it, thus creating a real, factual thing.

For example: If someone makes a statement where the intended meaning is A, but it gets interpreted as B. When people interpret and react to that statement as meaning B, then B becomes the reality.

Sometimes however, if this interpretation is the reason for an issue and you're trying to come up with a solution, you'll state that B is the reality, and try to form a solution from there. But everyone you're speaking to (usually defenders of the original statement) seem to be stuck on "A", and are somehow incapable of realizing - or empathizing - the fact that, as far as it matters, B is the reality. They'll say that the B interpretation is subjective, without realizing that that very subjectivity is what is making situation B a reality.

This gap in rationale tends to make "Armchair Theorizing" very very difficult, because it only works in objective, "real" reasoning, and not everyone is capable of that.






Does any of this make sense or am I kind of nuts here?

 

[JimJambones]

Armchairs are also good for movies, video games, sleeping, and lurking on internet forums.