For this week's theme we delved into the world of theory and research. I appreciated the step away from philosophy, into the more empiric world of research. Although I thought I had a pretty good idea of how theory was defined before this week’s theme begun, I would learn that this wasn't the case. Theory, like philosophy as it turns out, is multifaceted and up to discussion. The borderland between the different types of theories is something I haven’t really considered earlier. I always thought of theory as strict scientific theory with solid proof and tangible conclusions. After partaking in this week’s theme I have come to terms with theory as a non-tangible entity that sometimes is required in order to reach more solid results. This can be related to how philosophy sometimes needed to go back to more theocentric viewpoints to get the best of both worlds.
The seminar mainly revolved around the theory type “prediction”. I think it was confusing to learn about the duality that comes with defining different theory types. Prediction has to be a strong proposal or has to have a good basis in order to be a solid prediction. This basis was described during the seminar as something related to explanation about the circumstances of the prediction. If that is the case, how can we separate it from EP theory? Many different scenarios were described during the seminar and most of them were regarded as being strictly analytic. I think it is difficult to determine which theory belongs in which “box”. Dahlberg made some good arguments regarding the detail and categories presented in the different scenarios; eg. How did the researches account for demographic, location or gender specification? I agree that in order to specify the type of theory we must first analyze the details of the preparation for the research.
During the seminar we were divided into smaller groups and set to discuss our respective texts. I like the small group concept but also think that the balance of the seminar was a little off as half the groups didn't have time to present their discussions in the end. I prefer a more structured layout starting with a well-thought briefing of the topic, a short recap of the lecture, in case someone missed it or didn't understand it. After the briefing we should be divided in groups. Merely wishing and counting on all us students to bring the context and definitions into the seminar, I think, will leave many questions unanswered in the end.
The seminar mainly revolved around the theory type “prediction”. I think it was confusing to learn about the duality that comes with defining different theory types. Prediction has to be a strong proposal or has to have a good basis in order to be a solid prediction. This basis was described during the seminar as something related to explanation about the circumstances of the prediction. If that is the case, how can we separate it from EP theory? Many different scenarios were described during the seminar and most of them were regarded as being strictly analytic. I think it is difficult to determine which theory belongs in which “box”. Dahlberg made some good arguments regarding the detail and categories presented in the different scenarios; eg. How did the researches account for demographic, location or gender specification? I agree that in order to specify the type of theory we must first analyze the details of the preparation for the research.
During the seminar we were divided into smaller groups and set to discuss our respective texts. I like the small group concept but also think that the balance of the seminar was a little off as half the groups didn't have time to present their discussions in the end. I prefer a more structured layout starting with a well-thought briefing of the topic, a short recap of the lecture, in case someone missed it or didn't understand it. After the briefing we should be divided in groups. Merely wishing and counting on all us students to bring the context and definitions into the seminar, I think, will leave many questions unanswered in the end.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaIt is an interesting resume you have there.
I agree with you that theory can be strong or weak depend on the time the theory was proposed. For the example the theory of geocentric and heliocentric. In the past (before 16th Century) all people accepted geocentric as a model of the solar system, but after several decades the astronomer, Nicolaus Copernicus, gives a new theory about heliocentric as a model of the solar system.
Overall, I agree with you that the theory is non-tangible object and sometimes it need to test again in order to check if it is still relevant to our needs.
Thank you for your comment! Yes I think that it is foolish, naive and sometimes dangerous to take the knowledge we have today for proof. Conservatism is seldom good when it comes to technological advancement!
SvaraRaderaConservatism can be one factor that holds scientific evolution back. and since man is generaly afraid of changes and the unknown, this is something that we, as engineers and users of science have to take in notion while working. That people will always question our path and why we are doing things, since they don´t know themselves.
SvaraRaderaDeep and inspiring comment. I also think of it as our duty to see logic and reason as a way to strive for, but at the same time, we must be ready to accept different paths. Everything isn't explainable yet and some explanation may seem foreign to us. I think it is remarkable that the knowledge has managed to be passed down for generations, even though our thousands of years ago brains were identical in structure ( or has that evolved significantly as well in such a short time?)
SvaraRadera