Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Theoretical definition
open-in-new
<h2 id="in-different-fields">In different fields</h2> <h3>Sciences</h3> <p>The term <a href="/facts/Scientific_theory/moMsLrUn">scientific theory</a> is reserved for concepts that are widely accepted. A <a href="/facts/Scientific_law/aVtc4wpk">scientific law</a> often refers to regularities that can be expressed by a mathematical statement. However, there is no consensus about the distinction between these terms.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:5" href="#fn:5"><sup>5</sup></a> Every scientific concept must have an <a href="/facts/Operational_definition/CDnIenDo">operational definition</a>, however the operational definition can use both direct observations and <a href="/facts/Latent_variables/ohg99BnW">latent variables</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:6" href="#fn:6"><sup>6</sup></a> </p> <h4>Natural sciences</h4> <p>In the natural sciences, a concept is an abstract conclusion drawn from observations.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:7" href="#fn:7"><sup>7</sup></a> </p> <h4>Social and health sciences</h4> <p>Social and health sciences interact with non-empirical fields and use both observation based and pre-existing concepts such as intelligence, race, and gender. </p> <ul><li>In psychology the term "conceptual definition" is used for a concept variable.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:8" href="#fn:8"><sup>8</sup></a></li></ul> <h3>Interdisciplinary</h3> <p>Most <a href="/facts/Interdisciplinary/HP0uaNUs">interdisciplinary</a> fields are designed to address specific real world concerns and the status of theoretical definitions in interdisciplinary fields is still evolving.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:9" href="#fn:9"><sup>9</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="examples">Examples</h2> <table><tbody><tr><td>Theoretical or Conceptual definition</td><td><a href="/facts/Operational_definition/CDnIenDo">Operational definition</a></td></tr><tr><td>Weight: a measurement of gravitational force acting on an object</td><td>a result of measurement of an object on a <a href="/facts/Newton_(unit)/Ral9XgNl">Newton</a> <a href="/facts/Spring_scale/J0wAqsX2">spring scale</a></td></tr></tbody></table> <h3>In natural science</h3> <p>The definitions of substances as various configurations of atoms are theoretical definitions, as are definitions of <a href="/facts/Color/XDvW7ESP">colors</a> as specific <a href="/facts/Wavelength/kcJU0ymz">wavelengths</a> of reflected light. </p> <h4>Physics</h4> <p>The first <a href="/facts/Postulate/mLjP14Mc">postulate</a> of <a href="/facts/Special_relativity/vsFFc63E">special relativity</a> theory that the <a href="/facts/Speed_of_light/sKSQwdNx">speed of light</a> in vacuum is the same to all inertial observers (i.e. it is a constant, and therefore a good measure of length). Of interest, this theoretical concept is the basis of an <a href="/facts/Operational_definition/CDnIenDo">operational definition</a> for the length of a <a href="/facts/Metre/hPhzc1CV">metre</a> is <i>"the distance traveled by <a href="/facts/Light/jeofpMn4">light</a> in a <a href="/facts/Vacuum/BTk3goyV">vacuum</a> during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a <a href="/facts/Second/jtFxnJXx">second</a>"</i>. Thus we have defined 'metre' according to other ideas contained in modern scientific theory. Rejection of the theory underlying a theoretical definition leaves the definition invalid for use in argument with those who reject it — neither side will advance its position by using terms the others do not accept . </p><p><a href="/facts/Heat/FjDGssCs">Heat</a> explains a collection of various laws of nature and that predict certain results.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10"><sup>10</sup></a> </p> <h3>In Medicine</h3> <h3>In social science</h3> <h4>Union</h4> <p>In psychology, the concept of intelligence is meant to explain correlations in performance on certain cognitive tasks.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:11" href="#fn:11"><sup>11</sup></a> Recent models suggest several cognitive processes may be involved in tasks that have been associated with intelligence.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12"><sup>12</sup></a> However, overall the <a href="/facts/General_intelligence_factor/1Bp8fFHr">"g" or general intelligence factor</a> is relatively supported by research, though there are <a href="/facts/G_factor_(psychometrics)/1Bp8fFHr">challenges</a>. </p> <h3>Philosophy</h3> <p>Differing theoretical definitions of "thinking" have caused conflict amongst <a href="/facts/Philosophy_of_artificial_intelligence/wlxbtGjL">artificial intelligence philosophers</a>, illustrated for example by the different responses to the <a href="/facts/Chinese_room/YeKegsxS">Chinese room</a> experiment. Some philosophers might call "thought" merely <i>"having the ability to convince another person that you can think"</i>. An <a href="/facts/Operational_definition/CDnIenDo">operational definition</a> corresponding to this theoretical definition could be a simple conversation test (e.g. <a href="/facts/Turing_test/wEvf9DIr">Turing test</a>). Others believe that better theoretical and operational definitions are required. </p> <h2 id="see-also">See also</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Construct_(philosophy)/pAPpvcRu">Construct (philosophy)</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/General_Conference_on_Weights_and_Measures/a1FPjTtr">General Conference on Weights and Measures</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/International_Committee_for_Weights_and_Measures/a1FPjTtr">International Committee for Weights and Measures</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Latent_variable/ohg99BnW">Latent variable</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Operational_definition/CDnIenDo">Operational definition</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Stipulative_definitions/JQ5QmsNV">Stipulative definitions</a></li></ul> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>About.com, Logical Arguments, "Theoretical Definitions" <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/def_theoretical.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/def_theoretical.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley. 2007. Cengage learning. Entry on "Theoretical Definitions" may even be available through google books[full citation needed] <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include" target="_blank">/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>(6 January 2009). Theory and Observation in Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 5 December 2016. <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation" target="_blank">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>About.com, Logical Arguments, "Theoretical Definitions" <a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/def_theoretical.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/def_theoretical.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Scientific Laws And Theories. Retrieved 5 December 2016. <a href="http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html" target="_blank">http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>Watt, James H.; van den Berg, Sjef (2002). Philosophy of Science, Empiricism, and the Scientific Method. p. 11. Retrieved 24 March 2015. <a href="http://www.cios.org/readbook/rmcs/rmcs.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cios.org/readbook/rmcs/rmcs.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Watt, James H.; van den Berg, Sjef (2002). Philosophy of Science, Empiricism, and the Scientific Method. p. 11. Retrieved 24 March 2015. <a href="http://www.cios.org/readbook/rmcs/rmcs.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cios.org/readbook/rmcs/rmcs.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Hypotheses. Retrieved on 5 December 2016. <a href="http://www.rit.edu/cla/gssp400/lectures/l5.html" target="_blank">http://www.rit.edu/cla/gssp400/lectures/l5.html</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>Defining Interdisciplinary Studies. Retrieved on 5 December 2016. <a href="http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43242_1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43242_1.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick J. Hurley. 2007. Cengage learning. Entry on "Theoretical Definitions" may even be available through google books[full citation needed] <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include" target="_blank">/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:11"><p>"Intelligent intelligence testing". American Psychological Association. Retrieved 24 March 2015. <a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:12"><p>Conway, Andrew R.A; Cowan, Nelson; Bunting, Michael F; Therriault, David J; Minkoff, Scott R.B (1999). "A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence". Intelligence. 30 (2): 163–183. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00096-4. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>