I think when you're learning an instrument you are restricted because much of it is the noise of individual theory and your ability to play the instrument.

I worked hard learning harmony and theory when I was growing up in Chicago in the 1920s.

Agricultural practice served Darwin as the material basis for the elaboration of his theory of Evolution which explained the natural causation of the adaptation we see in the structure of the organic world. That was a great advance in the knowledge of living nature.

Probability is expectation founded upon partial knowledge. A perfect acquaintance with all the circumstances affecting the occurrence of an event would change expectation into certainty and leave nether room nor demand for a theory of probabilities.

Radical constructivism thus is radical because it breaks with convention and develops a theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect an 'objective' ontological reality.

The monopoly of science in the realm of knowledge explains why evolutionary biologists do not find it meaningful to address the question whether the Darwinian theory is true.

I think my knowledge of music theory is rooted in jazz theory and a lot of the writers of standards - Rodgers and Hart and Gershwin.

The implications of these considerations justify the statement that all empirically verifiable knowledge even the commonsense knowledge of everyday life - involves implicitly if not explicitly systematic theory in this sense.

It is probably safe to say that all the changes of factual knowledge which have led to the relativity theory resulting in a very great theoretical development are completely trivial from any point of view except their relevance to the structure of a theoretical system.

But the scientific importance of a change in knowledge of fact consists precisely in j its having consequences for a system of theory.