CNN) – Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck apologized Friday after appearing to mo

[jillio]

"They" is simple as explained before.

Sociologists/Criminologists disagree on what has led to the decline. Do you disagree with that statement?

"I disagree" simple again

I don't agree that Kelling's work is the sole reason for the decline.....said that many times too

"Theory" simple

There are many.....easy to find too. As I said before I don't believe in any particular theory. I think it is likely that a combination of efforts provided this result. And that the exact combination is unclear.

If you don't believe in any particular theory, chances are great that you do not have enough information regarding any theory to use it as an applied explanation. That would certainly explain why you are having such difficulty with the question.

If you can't explain it with an accepted theory, as you don't subscribe to any particular theoretical stance, how about using your own theory to explain the success rate seen. You cannot state that Kelling's theory is not responsible unless you can explain it through another applied theoretical stance.

Surely you know what your own perspective is on life. Take that as a starting point, and find a theory that is in agreement. Then use it to explain.

It really is a very simple task. Just requires a bit of initiative.

 

[TXgolfer]

Not saying anything of the kind. However, it is pretty clear that you are hedging. Your example is fallicious. Has virtually nothing to do with theory application. In order to state that Kelling's Theory is not applicable to the success seen, you must attribute that success to another theory that explains the success.

Are you having trouble with the application?

Perhaps you didn't.....but someone did.

No hedging at all.....My position is clear.......Many factors contributed and it is unclear which were most effective. I have not stated that one theory is responsible for the decline (as some have). Nor have I stated that some of Kelling's concepts did not contribute to that decline.

 

[jillio]

Perhaps you didn't.....but someone did.

No hedging at all.....My position is clear.......Many factors contributed and it is unclear which were most effective. I have not stated that one theory is responsible for the decline (as some have). Nor have I stated that some of Kelling's concepts did not contribute to that decline.

But, variables have absolutely nothing to do with applied theory. Theory is an explanation for what occurred from a particular perspective. It can be applied to any variable. Theory isn't responsible....theory is an explanation for what occurred.

 

[TXgolfer]

If you don't believe in any particular theory, chances are great that you do not have enough information regarding any theory to use it as an applied explanation. That would certainly explain why you are having such difficulty with the question.

If you can't explain it with an accepted theory, as you don't subscribe to any particular theoretical stance, how about using your own theory to explain the success rate seen. You cannot state that Kelling's theory is not responsible unless you can explain it through another applied theoretical stance.

Surely you know what your own perspective is on life. Take that as a starting point, and find a theory that is in agreement. Then use it to explain.

It really is a very simple task. Just requires a bit of initiative.

You are free to believe this as well......

 

[kokonut]

I have a theory about this debate. But I can't say it.

Darn it.

*kicks a pebble*

 

[kokonut]

Some people just try too hard.

 

[jillio]

You are free to believe this as well......

Thank you for your permission.:P But it isn't a belief.

 

[Beowulf]

But, variables have absolutely nothing to do with applied theory. Theory is an explanation for what occurred from a particular perspective. It can be applied to any variable. Theory isn't responsible....theory is an explanation for what occurred.

Thank goodness I can theorize all I want but not be held responsible for the state of the world, lol.

 

[jillio]

Some people just try too hard.

And some just continually add pokes and jabs without contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion because they are incapable of contributing anything requiring independent thought.

 

[TXgolfer]

But, variables have absolutely nothing to do with applied theory. Theory is an explanation for what occurred from a particular perspective. It can be applied to any variable. Theory isn't responsible....theory is an explanation for what occurred.

See, I would say this

Theory is an attempt to explain what occurred from a particular perspective. . Theory isn't responsible....theory attempts to explain what occurred

That's where variables come in. Just because a theory is applied and success gained does not necessarily mean that the application of the theory was successful. It really depends on all other approaches being ruled out. This was not a debate over which theory is best.......but whether the application conflict theory is solely responsible for the decline in crime rate.

 

[naisho]

Theories are used to find the best representation of the situation possible. That is why there can be more than one theory on how a certain issue occurred. I don't think anyone is denouncing that there are more than a single theory involved in the issues presented.

What I think they're asking you, are: Which theories are you using to reinforce your stipulation(s) over the issue. Just saying "nope" "nah" "zip" isn't doing much to get the discussion rolling.

Theories are formed by extensive research, debating (to an extent) in the first place to be able to be formed. Without pooling constructive thoughts, ideas and presentations many theories would never exist.

Theories are the principles that fuel Biology, Chemistry, Sociology and Psychology for some of the main disciplines involved.

 

[TXgolfer]

Theories are used to find the best representation of the situation possible. That is why there can be more than one theory on how a certain issue occurred. I don't think anyone is denouncing that there are more than a single theory involved in the issues presented.What I think they're asking you, are: Which theories are you using to reinforce your stipulation(s) over the issue. Just saying "nope" "nah" "zip" isn't doing much to get the discussion rolling.

Theories are formed by extensive research, debating (to an extent) in the first place to be able to be formed. Without pooling constructive thoughts, ideas and presentations many theories would never exist.

Theories are the principles that fuel Biology, Chemistry, Sociology and Psychology for some of the main disciplines involved.

Many experts? I'm sure they have other theories to explain but the fact still remains that only one expert's theory was used and it worked.

NYC (specifically - NYC Transit Authority) hired one expert with one theory - George L. Kelling to fix the subway crimes. Following his advice and expertise to the letter... the result was amazing. LAPD and Boston PD hired him as well. Later - Kelling's role expanded... serving as NYPD Commissioner Bratton's mentor to fix NYC problem in conjunction with Mayor Giuliani. It worked.

What you see today is the result of one expert with one theory. not many experts or many theories. and that's the fact... not my opinion.

Oh and BTW.....Thx for the lesson in theories.....

My theory.....don't have one. Theories I believe led to the decline..... I think it's unclear what led to the decrease.

My belief......more than just conflict theory contributed to the decrease. Since the above poster made his claim of fact rather than belief the onus is on him to prove, not on me to disprove. As I showed with the softball example....results do not necessarily prove the theory. You would have to disprove other variables had an influence. In this case you would have to explain why many other cities and countries also saw a decline in crime during that time. You would also have to prove that other approaches applied during the same time did not contribute to the decrease. While perhaps no other sociological approach was attempted....that does not negate that police often change their strategies. You would have to prove outside forces (say media) did not contribute to the decline. Until you do that all you have is theory which is open to opinion. Not fact. And that is what this debate has been about.

 

[kokonut]

Watch out for TXgolfer's deadly line drive.

 

[naisho]

Oh and BTW.....Thx for the lesson in theories.....

My theory.....don't have one. Theories I believe led to the decline..... I think it's unclear what led to the decrease.

My belief......more than just conflict theory contributed to the decrease. Since the above poster made his claim of fact rather than belief the onus is on him to prove, not on me to disprove. As I showed with the softball example....results do not necessarily prove the theory. You would have to disprove other variables had an influence. In this case you would have to explain why many other cities and countries also saw a decline in crime during that time. You would also have to prove that other approaches applied during the same time did not contribute to the decrease. While perhaps no other sociological approach was attempted....that does not negate that police often change their strategies. You would have to prove outside forces (say media) did not contribute to the decline. Until you do that all you have is theory which is open to opinion. Not fact. And that is what this debate has been about.

I think Jiro's post was directed towards the issues with the subway crimes and the eventual outcome of it.

That isn't what I'm talking about.

I believe we are discussing all crimes in/out of NYC here?

 

[naisho]

If you don't have any theories to share nor contribute, better stay out of it because it's just simply opinion and doesn't contribute to anything else than personal anecdote. In other words, talking out of your own mouth, no contribution whatsoever.

I'm stating this towards a particular individual who seems to have nothing better to do than ignore questions..

 

[TXgolfer]

Watch out for TXgolfer's deadly line drive.

Oh....to borrow a phrase from obama......I kick ass! I am pretty sure it was me....all me in winning those tournaments........ My teammates sucked. I was the straw that stirs the drink! But that is my theory....I can't prove it as fact.

 

[kokonut]

Naisho, isn't this supposed to be a Beck thread and not about theories? If it's really that critical to talk about these "theories" then create a thread just for that.

 

[naisho]

Oh....to borrow a phrase from obama......I kick ass! I am pretty sure it was me....all me in winning those tournaments........ My teammates sucked. I was the straw that stirs the drink! But that is my theory....I can't prove it as fact.

Your what? good one.. lol. I am not sure what's going on in all the blatant sarcasm, but it sure is ludicrous.

 

[kokonut]

Oh....to borrow a phrase from obama......I kick ass! I am pretty sure it was me....all me in winning those tournaments........ My teammates sucked. I was the straw that stirs the drink! But that is my theory....I can't prove it as fact.

You remind of Beck.

 

[saywhatkid]

Naisho, isn't this supposed to be a Beck thread and not about theories? If it's really that critical to talk about these "theories" then create a thread just for that.

There is a "Sports" category here also; maybe move all the golf references there. Just a thought.