Many experimentalists seem to have the idea that theory = sophisticated data analysis + some computational modeling. Most do not appreciate the role of conceptual analysis and philosophy more broadly construed in interrogating the frameworks within which we undertake 1/n

scientific investigations. I am speaking primarily from the perspective of neuroscience and psychology, since other fields like physics have been wedded to theory from the beginning and appear to seamlessly integrate it into empirical work. This is understandable due to the 2/n

funding structure within neuro and psych, but it ultimately creates many difficulties for theorists. Since I first got started in neuroscience I have been a theorist but have always taken positions in experimental labs so that I can learn the language experimentalists use and 3/n

ensure that I don’t become too divorced from real parts and processes. But I’m beginning to realize that more often than not, this leads to tension between the work that interests me personally and the work that is valued by experimentalists. Attempts to integrate the two 4/n

are not always well received by experimentalists. Theoretical work often requires more foundational learning, but an experimentalist PI will usually be less inclined to say “sure, take a couple weeks to learn some more graph theory” which can make finding the time to 5/n

do the learning needed to try a new conceptual framework more challenging for younger theorists. I’ll end with a question for “purist” experimentalists: what would convince you of the value of theory in your daily work, especially philosophical and rigorous math approaches? 6/6