No one claimed this either.
Yeah, you claimed I put them in separate categories - and I didn't.
You simply do not understand what a theory is and that is intellectual sloppiness.A scientific theory is based on the premise that everything is connected and thus one observation is tied to all it's neighbors. A change in one area creates a ripple effect in surrounding observations. A theory needs to either include all known observations or be adjusted/discarded if it cannot. A theory that stood the test of time have been continuously supported by new observations and continue to predict new experiments before they taken place.
A theory can be many things handled in many different ways. You may have your own standards for what a theory should be - but you certainly don't follow them yourself.
The role of the academia is covering an as wide range of observations of possible, including making others aware of observations a single person have missed.
Again, there are many roles - and there are many practical concerns entering the picture. Unfortunately, the ideal is very far from reality - and these days, it's as much about getting people through as fast as possible so they can go get a job. The funding for educational systems is based on people getting a job - not some idealised version of a super knowledge center. But I understand why you'd want to paint that picture.
When you equalize your own personal explanations to this you go beyond most people who are fine with "I do not know". You want to be able to explain the world based on your own observations but you aren't willing to attempt to maximize your observations.
I'm doing everything I can to maximise what I know, but I do it in a very pragmatic way. One of the things I've learned over the years of studying human beings - is that we have a limited capacity for understanding. Our resources don't allow us to act like a giant harddisk that can just be loaded endlessly with information - in the hopes we'll be smarter. Far from it.
No, we have to filter the information and we have to accept our own limitations and focus on the vital and most reliable information - so as to get closer to a practical application.
Just studying and researching endlessly will have us go in circles of misinformation and a fundamental lacking capacity to deal with the big picture.
But, I understand that you think it's possible to get "smarter" in your way. I won't try to change that, that's your own choice. But there's no doubt you'll be able to quote a lot more references and probably add a lot of theories to your knowledge center. If you think that's valuable - then I understand your efforts.
That said, if I were in your position - I'd probably try to focus more and spend less time trying to fill my head with as much information as I could. That's not very efficient.
What we see is what we perceive. Perception isn't a video-recorder, it's a computation of data done by the brain. We see what we are prepared to see based on past experiences. The scientific method was invented to bypass this problem.
You really expect this to be news to anyone? We're going in circles now.
I made a distinction between ethics (which is the point with science) and behavior (which is your objection). This relationship was a key to understanding the relationship. If you aren't "interested" we have no discussion.
I'm not interested in irrelevant information, no. I didn't know there had to be a discussion.
People who are interested do not. They do not expect to be served, they seek out their own information.
Would it surprise you to learn that a lot of people who study aren't really interested in everything they're taught? That's why it's so dangerous to misinform as a teacher.
You are a postmodernist. That have not changed.
Another category?
The upside is that it brings fruit.
If fruit is an overexposure to information resulting in equal or less understanding, then sure. Naturally, for people able to filter and apply that information - it's different - but they could have exposed themselves to knowledge in all kinds of places.
You want to be able to explain the world based on your own observations but you aren't willing to attempt to maximize your observations.
All we have are our own observations. What other people observe can't be transmitted. We can only observe what they say, write or do and interpret.
I'm maximising the efficiency of my observations as best I can. You don't do that by filling your head with information. You do it by following your observations and testing them constantly - until you're reasonably certain. Then you make room for other observations - but you never stop getting back and re-testing them. That's how I do it - but such is the way in which we differ.
I absorb all the information I possibly can about any specific observation - but I don't go beyond what's relevant. That would only diffuse my efforts and water everything down until I forgot what I really wanted to understand.