Introduction
Griffin defines a theory as an explanation for an aspect of the natural world that comprises facts. These theories assist us in solving and comprehending the current condition of affairs in our society. So, how do we weigh these arguments about time? Theories, I believe, should be able to support facts and predictions. Consider a policy situation in which an individual makes an argument and there is no foundation to judge his or her idea. Confusion is likely to result. Therefore, how can we determine whether theories are correct or incorrect?
Evaluating Theories
Griffin's writing taught me that it is critical to assess theories. The standard criteria for evaluation of ideas would depend on the type of communication theory. I believed that a real objective theory should be able to predict the future based on probabilities of the occurrence of future events. For example, a good theory should predict how eating habits will change over time. Similarly, a good theory explains data used in coming up with the theory and consequently, good explanations create better understanding of the underlying theory.
Simplicity and Practicality
I understood that simplicity should be the main aim of scientific theories. Given two theories that lead to the same result, I would rather choose the simple one than the complex one. Good ideas should possess practical aspects that users can apply in their daily lives. I would also prefer a theory whose impact is measured using numerical numbers. A good interpretive theory, on the other hand, should explain the reasons for people's actions. It should appeal to the readers by being organized and incorporating metaphors and illustrations. Further after extensive analysis, it should be able to build a community agreement and bring change to society.
Conclusion
I enjoyed reading Griffin's article on weighing words. It provided more insights on theories and their classifications as to whether they are bad or good theories.
