Robert Spooner wrote:
Wasn't it James Thurber who said, "When someone says 'theoretically,' he
means 'not actually.'"?

73
Bob AD3K

When I use 'theory' or 'theoretically', I'm using it in the engineering
context of Physics and Mathematics. Meaning the mathematical solution
of the LAWs of Physics are applicable.

There are other understandings of theory: such as the district
attorney's theory behind a crime; or, in science terms the next step
beyond 'hypothesis'; or, the step below 'law of nature'.

The theory is understanding 'WHY' things are actually, to quote your
word above. Knowledge, in engineering and science, is incomplete without
the THEORY of operation or Physics.

So, I reject your hypothesis regarding Thurber's statement. It is
inconsistent with science/engineering/physics.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 15:02:45 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Robert Spooner wrote:
Wasn't it James Thurber who said, "When someone says 'theoretically,' he
means 'not actually.'"?

73
Bob AD3K

When I use 'theory' or 'theoretically', I'm using it in the engineering
context of Physics and Mathematics. Meaning the mathematical solution
of the LAWs of Physics are applicable.

Hi Dave,

This is a catch-all application of "theory." The solutions are
always applicable and the casual employment of the phrase "in theory"
is thus rendered gratuitous (or rhetorical chaff) - hence the
attachment of Thurber's observation that is a sardonic reference to
the lack of any actuality. You have confirmed that his artistic prose
has as much validity as Physics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC