We might have to move this to quieter forum just so we can keep from having to scroll:
***I would like to ask you to rethink that so that you can see the problem. You see, what you call a theory is an abstract entity, it is not an Object, and therefore can't be Experienced. What I call a Theory is an object which can be Experienced. That reduces Theories to the manner in which we encounter them, which is through symbols. And symbols are Objects.***
Are you referring to conceptual schemes that have been communicated via language? For example, in 1905 Einstein certainly had a conceptual scheme in mind when he wrote the paper on Special Theory of Relativity, but he only provided a small glipse of that scheme when he jotted down on paper SR.
***Can we use Conceptual Scheme instead of theories so that we don't get confused? When I talk about Theories, I'm referring to my definition. What I'm trying to discuss is the role that Theories (symbols) play in our attempts to build Conceptual Schemes.***
Sure, just confirm that my understanding of your definition is correct.
***if symbols are Objects, it's perfectly possible to treat many Objects as symbols.***
And we do. e.g., The Cross.
***What I have discovered is that such conflicts are more trivial than they seem, as they can't possibly exist in Reality and therefore only betray deficiencies in our Theories.***
I don't know that to be the case. It sounds reasonable, but I don't know it to be the case.
***In essence all problems boil down to the fact that some Languages (not all!) allow particular kinds of statements to be made.***
Can you think of any examples?
Let's move to another sub-forum. What do ya say?
Warm regards, Harv