@ Luis Enrique (and a bit @ Thomas): A conception of what political philosophy does might be something like: attempts to systematize political structures, in order both to provide as
coherent an explanation as possible of our current intuitions, and extrapolate from them to prescriptions for how they might be improved / made more consistent.
You face a simple choice - either be silent, or provide
a coherent explanation as what your point / evidence / argument is.
Not exact matches
A theory, in the scientific sense, is «a
coherent group of general propositions used
as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena» [Random House American College Dictionary].
A theory used in the scientific sense is «a
coherent group of general propositions used
as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena.»
The difference between a metaphor and a model can be expressed in a number of ways, but most simply, a model is a metaphor with «staying power,» that is, a model is a metaphor that has gained sufficient stability and scope so
as to present a pattern for relatively comprehensive and
coherent explanation.15 The metaphor of God the father is an excellent example of this.
A
coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded
as correct, that can be used
as principles of
explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Theory - a
coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded
as correct, that can be used
as principles of
explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.
An actual entity can now be described under the aspect of emerging [werdenden] coherence: insofar
as such an entity is an emergence of a unified connectedness of
coherent factors from incoherent elements, it is the emergence of a totality of meaning whose inner factors have significance only within this whole: «An entity is actual, when it has significance for itself» (PR 38: 21st Category of
Explanation).
«a
coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded
as correct, that can be used
as principles of
explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
You listen to anyone who has played CB or coached defenders and they will give a
coherent and reasoned
explanation as to how CB chemistry
as a pair is nearly always more important than individual attributes.
c) Hypotheses get more consistent and
coherent, and in this case tend to do away with «climate has changed naturally for millenia before the industrial revolution»
as a sole
explanation.
Much
as I would welcome a cogent
explanation for the widespread, but only spottily
coherent, multi-decadal variations, Wyatt's «stadium wave» conjecture doesn't provide such.