Theme 1: Theory of Science
To Zahra A
Hej Zahra!
You did a great job in describing the difference between propositions and
statement of facts. The example you used could easily illustrate both notions.
In that way, I could better understand that propositions mainly hold beliefs
and doubts whereas statements holds facts as value. With your help I really
could improve my knowledge, although I'm still questioning what
"knowledge" actually is ;) This leads to your last point where you
cited that "knowledge will always be a belief". I totally agree with
you, and I want to add another notion that Russell mentioned: the 'probable
opinion'. He meant with that the following: When we cannot tell, whether our
belief is true or not, we can consider it as 'probable opinion' which is the
greater part of what would commonly pass as knowledge. Check out my blogpost to
that:
http://philosoraptorsdiary.blogspot.se/2013/11/1-theory-of-science-pre-reflection.html
To Lucy Armelin
Hej Lucy, I
really liked how you described Russell’s idea of the sense-data. It was very
clear and easy to understand, you did a great job on this. At the end of your
paragraph you pointed out a question, which is really interesting I think: “Can
there even be a real object if the object in question is different in
everybody's own realities, since it is true for them?”
Since we
are confident about our perception and the feelings we have, we wouldn’t even
think about doubting our so called sense-data, how Russell describes what we
immediately sense when we look at things. But we actually can doubt the physical
existence of an object we see, because our sense-data differs. By using
Descartes method of systematic doubt, we wouldn’t believe anything that we
cannot see quite clearly and distinctly to be true. In that way, we have to
admit – since we are unaware of what we see – we cannot be sure about the
physical existence of objects. The only thing that Descartes doesn’t question
is his own existence, which makes me feel better at least ;) And when we go
further it seems quite obvious: When we wouldn’t even exist, how come that we
have experiences (or sense-data)? According to Descartes, we must exist when we
doubt all those things. “I think, therefore I am”. With this sentence he showed
us, that the most certain things to us are subjective things. Our reality is
therefore subjective. I hope you are at least certain about your own existence
after starting to doubt everything :D
To Axel
Hej Axel,
when I was reading through your blog posting, I could see that you had a clear
understanding of Russell’s thoughts. The examples you used were easy to
understand and showed that you grasp the topic pretty well. In your last
paragraph you mentioned that we trust our sense-data and explained it with the
sound of the hooves telling us that a horse is riding by. I was wondering, when
the hooves wouldn’t make the actual sound that we hear, which is of course
personal due to Russell and of course everyone would hear a different sound.
But what, if we instead hear a dog belling every time a horse is riding by? I
think we would still believe our sense-data, in that way that a dog bell (which
we then might not perceive as a dog bell) is the actual sound of hooves. In
this light, it seems that our perception can easily be manipulated and that the
blind trust in our sense-data could cause a massive confusion or the breakdown
of our reality. I don’t want to think further since this idea really horrifies
me.
To Edvard
Hej Edvard,
in my opinion your blog posting belongs among the top ten blog postings in our
class so far. You had a pretty clear idea of what Russell was trying to say and
you put it in a very easy and understandable way. However, with your
interpretation of seeing philosophy as a watchdog of other sciences, I have to
disagree. I can understand your reasoning and your thoughts about philosophy as
a science which critically asks questions and doubts other sciences, which
might be true. But I wouldn’t limit its role to just being the watchdog of
other sciences, as far as I understood Russell right. By doing so you would
eliminate the starting points for other sciences to conduct research. I believe
that philosophy is the breeding ground for scientists and researchers to
scientifically try to verify or negate theories or things that philosophy
constructed or put into question. What do you think of this? But again, all in
all well written!
Link: http://edvardtmm13.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1.html?showComment=1384288694980#c9199593255930493175
To Vaidotas
Hej Vaidos!
Wow your blog posting is impressive since you wrote it as a little short story,
but still explained all the important facts that Russell mentioned in his book.
I had so much fun reading through your posting until I came to the point when
you made pretty clear that “what we see, read, hear and learn can be wrong.” I
needed a few seconds to think about that, because it seemed so harsh but then I
realized, it’s very true. You made it crystal clear what Russell was saying
about the difference between appearance and reality. Our sense-data cannot be
100 % truthful, as you put it in your blog posting, since it is personal and
very subjective – but still it is the only sign that there is existence of
something independent of us. As Descartes mentioned, the most certain things to
us are subjective things, we are very certain about our sense-data without
questioning what it really is. Every time I’m looking on my smart phone now, I
can’t be sure if it really exists or if it is just something that I want to
exist. Anyways, well written!
To Mårten
Hi Mårten!
I enjoyed reading your blogpost and I think you clearly understood the concept
of sense-data. When you mentioned that "sense-data, it is something that
can be connected as an attribute to a physical object, giving it some kind of
'life' " I started reasoning if objects can contain life? Thinking about
that objects consist of molecules, atoms or the chemical element carbon, which
is the basic compound of "life forms", you might made a good point
there!
To Victor
Hi Victor!
A well-written blog posting! I liked how you emphasized Russell's thoughts on
empirical and a priori knowledge. In the end, when you made the point that the
human factor cannot eliminate the risk of error, I'm absolutely with you. From
here we are starting again to doubt everything, since we all are fallible. But
the important thing for me is though, how heavily we can be wrong all the time
about things and if there is a way to dimish its degree? I think philosophy is
a good start to reduce the risk of being wrong in the interpretation of the
world - but still we will never find out I guess.
To Lucy Armelin on Simon Schmitz
I like that
you are still reflecting on this topics after 4 weeks passed. Yes indeed it
affected my life in the way that I started reading further literature. The
reasoning about what is real though, ends every morning when I wake up with
pain in my neck.
To Matteo Campostrini on Simon Schmitz
Thanks Teo,
I watched the movie! It's amazing and horrifying at the same time. I liked Eva
Green a lot though :D
To Lucy Armelin on Simon Schmitz
I'm
inclined to say that we are not living in the same reality - instead every
single one of us is living in their own reality right now. That's the reason
why the sensations can't never be the reality, since they differ from person to
person.
Theme 2: Critical Media Studies
To Lucy Armelin
I like your
idea how you define the existance of the "individual" as myth.
According to Adorno and Horkheimer, enlightenment liberates us from myth. Could
we then be liberated from the "individual" and experience the
"real" individuality? I think of individualism as an illusion because
- as you already mentioned - society and media suggests us that being
individual is the goal to achieve utter happiness. How would you draw the line
between myth and illusion concerning individualism?
To Jenny Sillén
Hej Jenny!
Your post was really interesting to read and you made some horrifying examples
in the end. It is unbelievable for me how far people would go to satisfy their
needs. In the context of this weeks reading, I'm questioning if it's their
needs or the needs that, how Adorno and Horkheimer puts it, the "culture
industry " creates? I believe that a need is created when you want to be
or possess something that someone else is or possess. That means, everything
what we define as a need is just a way to follow someone we thing is sublime.
I'm raising the question, if there can ever be individualism if we're always
following someone (who maybe got indoctrinated by the culture itself)?
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti
Hey Kat, I
liked your reflection about this week's reading. You made the point that
contemporary means of communication like Social Media is isolating us. I truly
agree with your opinion and wanted to add that already Adorno and Horkheimer
mentioned in Dialectic of Enlightenment that "communication establishes
uniformity among men by isolating them". When applying their critique to
our modern society, Social Media can be seen as an instrument to create
conformity although we are physically separated. Or in other words: it makes us
“alone together” as Turkle titles. I'm wondering if there will be a shift in
consuming media or different: will there be a scenario when everyone is
communicating out of his cocoon or "Matrix" without ever being in
physical contact anymore? Will critical reflection, as you said, change
anything to good in future?
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti on Gustav Boström
Good
reasoning and an interesting point you made. You talked about the dominance of
some voices in the Internet. Have you ever thought about why some voices are
heard and some are not? Today there is a shift in what we call "opinion
leaders". Before the Internet era, opinion leaders were people who gained
their role through knowledge, money and/or power. Katz also defined some
factors: expression of values, professional competence and nature of their
social network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_leadership). Nowadays,
everyone can become an opinion leader by meeting just the last factor, since
Social Media or the Internet makes it possible for everyone to be heard. The
difference here is that you have to be "liked" by a great amount of
people. The one's who meet the demands of the network community will be heard.
As long as you want to maintain your position you will need the Internet
community as your "fans" and you will do anything what please them in
order to keep them. No later by then you will loose your critical reflection
and will turn into a marionette to serve the masses. This is the great
difference between the Internet and other forms of media I think.
To Matteo Campostrini
Hey Matteo,
I enjoyed reading your post because you always touch different fields and
aspects which I didn't think of in the first place. You mentioned Kants
understanding of "what art is" and critical reflected upon how we
nowadays might miss the feeling of sublime. Your example of Wagner and Avicii
made it crystal clear for me and I totally agree with your opinion. I want to
think a little further and share my thoughts on why I think that we miss this
feeling. Art in the "past" was always something complex and
involved a lot of thinking. Of course
you can just listen to Wagner or look at a painting of Picasso and you will
like it or not. But that's too simple. Without further thinking what the
artists wanted to express, without further research and reasoning - I mean to
get behind the true meaning - you will never embrace and experience art how it
was intended. The problem today is - and this is of course only my point of
view - that art doesn't involve any active thinking anymore and makes us to
passive recipients. I don't know if technology has increased the pace of our
world just a bit too heavy in that way that we don't have time to reflect on
things, I just assume it has.
I could
notice my own passivity today when I was being confronted with art. I went to
Fotografiska to see the exhibition of Pieter Hugo which was great. There also
was an exhibition of Inta Ruka, a Latvian photographer which I didn't know of.
By passing by all the photographs she shot, which took me 5 minutes, I could
tell which photographs were beautiful in my sense and which were not. By
accident I entered the small cinema where a documentary about Inta Ruka was
shown and why and when she shot the photographs. This documentary covered also
the historical background and told stories about the people which I actually
saw on the photographs. After 58 minutes of film I entered the exhibition again
and I instantly could create a relationship between me as the recipient and the
photographs. It took me about 30 minutes more to look again at these photographs
which I now could embrace. What a pity I didn't do my research before
going...Well I'm kind of busy in a busy world.
To Lucy Armeling on Simon Schmitz
Ruling the
world might be a bit too much but dominating a society? This is actually
happening right now.
To Matteo Campostrini on Simon Schmitz
Sadly,
there is nobody in the position who can say it is too much. When we think of
military technologies or the newest innovations of weapons which we really
don't have any insight on, we will find out when it is already too late.
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti on Simon Schmitz
Have you
read the book "Alone Together" by Sherry Turkle? She gives a good
insight on how technologies and Social Media are affecting our lives. I can
highly recommend her book!
To Ekaterina Sakharova on Simon Schmitz
I agree
with you. We as individuals always have the choice. Everyone can quit Facebook
within a few clicks. But what happens when we get socially isolated by doing
so? I think it's not that easy as we think.
Theme 3: Research and Theory
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti
Hej Kat! I
liked how you described how theories have their limitations but still
contribute in the achievement of knowledge. When I'm thinking of the fact that
even the definition of the term theory has its limitations than I'm quite
skeptical when we can call a theory a theory. But apart from that and even
though there are limitations, our knowledge is also limited (in its definition
and in its extent) as we learned in the previous seminars and I think we have
to cope with the situation that there always will be limitations when it comes
to explain why things in the world are the way how they are. What do you think?
To Lucy Armelin
Hej Lucky!
I enjoyed reading your blogpost. You mentioned that research is not always a
straight path and can lead to new discoveries, which made me think of some
breakthrough discovery in our history. As an example, Alexander Fleming
discovered the mold "penicillium notatum", better known as
penicillin, when he was searching for a cure to heal bacterial infections. In
fact he didn't make the discovery on purpose. He forgot a petri dish with
highly infectious bacteria on his desk and went for vacation. When he came back
after 3 weeks the most powerful antibiotic contaminated his experiment. And
this is only one example of many others (Newton, Röntgen, etc.). In this light
it seems to me that research had a great influence on our lives, even though it
struggles sometimes to find the right answer to the right question. But trying
is always the first step.
To Malin Westerlind
I think you
made a very good point in the end Malin! When we think of our educational
system, there is not a lot of space for exploring things on your own. We were
always been taught, which means a teacher saying, what is right and wrong. In
my opinion it might be reasonable when it comes to moral or ethical questions,
but in terms of how to understand things in our world I would disagree.
Children have a creative way of thinking because their mindset and way of
thinking is not restricted by limitations which were caused through education.
I'm not saying education is bad, it is actually one of the most important
things in our world. BUT I would like to see a more explorative way of
spreading knowledge without creating too many barriers. Having teachers telling
us all the time "how things are" makes our brains lazy.
To Matteo Campostrini
There is an
interesting discussion going on here which I want to take part in. I might have
made the same experience than you Teo. When studying media economics in Germany
we also went sometimes very deep into details and covered theories which are
not applicable today anymore. The question arises why do we even have to deal
with it? I believe that it is very important to see how and why people thought
in the past or were trying to find an answer to a particular question. This
gives us a starting point to critically reflect and makes us aware of the fact
that a true belief can become outdated when the setting changes. When there
would be a transfer of just "practical knowledge", which you defined
as "know-how", than we would perfectly fit into the system we have
right now, turning into slaves of mass consumption, serving products to the
masses, which they actually don't necessarily need. Hearing out a bit of irony
in your first comment, you might agree on that?
To Ekaterina Sakharova
Hej
Ekaterina! As Kat already mentioned, you did a really great job in considering
"theory" from different angles. The explanation of what a "good
theory" is was interesting and helped me to better grasp the topic!
However, you made one point with which I cannot fully agree. Like already
Gregor did, you stated that a certain type of theory is more valuable than the
others. I think that it always depends on the research question and the
research background when a theory is more suitable than the other ones, but
still I wouldn't say that just one theory type is "the best" since
they have different aims. When we would focus just on one type, we might not
make new discoveries or find the right answer to a particular question because
we were limited from the beginning on in the research. I totally understood
your reasoning but that's just my opinion. What do you think?
Link: http://ekaterina-sakharova.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-3-research-and-theory-post.html?showComment=1385716407161#c6468159412482043564
To Andreas on Simon Schmitz
Hey
Andreas. Thanks for the information provided! They didn't use these categories
though, they just used the MPA as a basic concept.
Sorry for
the missing quote-picture, time is rare sometimes ;)
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti on Simon Schmitz
Thank you
for your lesson in greek :) I enjoyed it!! This shows how science evolved our
way of thinking.
To Matteo Campostrini on Simon Schmitz
Hi Teo!
Good point. I think that we can raise critique against any scientifical paper,
but of course when many papers come to the same result it is high likely that
we have some evidence for drawing a conclusion.
Theme 4: Quantitative Research
To Cim
Hej Cim! I
liked your example you used to describe how to choose between quantitative and
qualitative methods. Lucky you that (as you said) did the right thing without
any greater knowledge in the topic. Sometimes you have to jump in at the deep
end to make your own experience. I'm glad it turned out to be positive for you.
However from what I learned in the seminars, e.g. that qualitative research is
used to generate new knowledge, I'm wondering how your results would have been
turned out if you had started first with the interview and then tested your
hypotheses with the questionnaire. What is your opinion?
To Adam Rosén
Hej Adam.
First of all I wish you good look for your master's thesis! Just a few months
ago I finished my bachelor's thesis and can absolutely understand how it is
confusing and frustrating to be pressured to generate "relevant"
information by research. Therefore it is so important that you clearly define
prior what your bigger research question is, i.e. your goal what you want to
know. In the beginning of my thesis I had a clear assumption of what I wanted
my results to be, by taking less time and effort into deeper reflect on
"why" I was conducting the survey. I'm glad that I had a patient and
great supervisor who explained to me the importance of why we do research. I
could only start with my study when I had a clear outline why I was doing this.
The answer to the question "how" I should collect the information was
then pretty self-explaining. I hope you don't make the same mistake again ;)
To Zahra A
Hej Zahra!
I totally agree with your point that the way how your questions are formulated
always affects the quality of your results. I have the feeling that for a
questionnaire you have to put a lot of effort into formulating the questions
wisely because there is a lack of feedback where you don't have many
possiblities to clarify your point in order to avoid a misunderstanding. In
opposite to that, by conducting interviews you always have the chance to
clarify with your interviewees what you meant with a particular question. I
think that's one of the biggest advantages of qualitative research. But of
course you always choose the method which suits best to your research question.
To Andreas Sylvan
Hej
Andreas! Your last point about the reward system was pretty interesting. I'm
also wondering why it worked so well in Bälter's survey while in your example,
the effect wasn't that great as expected. I can just assume that it is more
likely to be dependent on a particular topic when the reward is not
"high" enough. For example, I think that most people are interested
in their health, so they might have thought that they gain a better knowledge
and understanding about their actual state of health when answering the survey.
Grades are of course important but not as important as your own physical
condition. But then I think that everything changes when you bring money into
play. I'm pretty sure that more students would have answered if they got a
little raise of their monthly student budget. What do you think?
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti
Hej Kat! I really enjoyed reading your blog
post as you always describe and reflect what you learned in a very detailed and
understandable way. And then I suddenly stumbled upon my name which made me
unbelievable proud :D I want to add a small thought on your last sentence where
you stated that "the right methodology depends on the focus of the
researched subject." I can agree with that but I believe that it is more
important to choose your method depending on the purpose of your research
rather than on the research subject. But maybe this is what you meant with
"focus"? Because the origin of all research is a larger research
question. When there is already existing data you could prove your hypothesis
with quantitative research. But when you are generally asking the
"why" question then the qualitative research would be the right
method to choose.
To Ekaterina
Sakharova on Simon Schmitz
Yeah, I
agree with you when there is no data available, you might start with
qualitative research and end up with quanitative research in order to prove
your findings. But as I said, which method you're going to chose is always
depending on your research question. Therefore I wouldn't always choose this
particular order.
To Ekaterina Sakharova on Simon Schmitz
Yeah, I
agree with you when there is no data available, you might start with
qualitative research and end up with quanitative research in order to prove
your findings. But as I said, which method you're going to chose is always
depending on your research question. Therefore I wouldn't always choose this
particular order.
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti on Simon Schmitz
The testing
of your questions in a questionnaires is one of the most important things.
Asking questions that doesn't make sense to other people will give you no
results or results without any use. Thanks for adding that thought!
To Filip Erlandsson on Simon Schmitz
Yeah good
point. Online service are indeed very attractive but we should never forget
that they are NEVER representative. You could never make any generalization
based on an online survey because your sample are Internet user's and not the
wole population. I think this is important to keep in mind!
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti on Simon Schmitz
I totally
agree with you! In many times a quantitative research follows / or is based on
findings of qualitative research. So yes I would say we get a deeper
understanding when having a combination of both methods!
Theme 5: Design research
To Gustav Boström
Hej Gustav,
I understand your point when you mentioned that Ylvas paper lacked in defining
the problems. When I remember it right the starting point of the design
research was the lack of user-friendly ways to control robotic products. When
we assume that the problem outline was crystal clear then we could question if
the authors' solution of the problem was the right one?
To Carl Ahrsjö
Hej Carl, I
had the same feeling about the meaningfulness of actDresses. It seems as if a
lot of time and effort were spent for designing accessories while there was a
lack in evaluation and validation to generate meaningful results. Maybe that
was one of the main reasons why actDresses is a project not worth to pursue
anymore. What is your opinion on that?
To Lucy Armelin
Hej Lucy! I
liked how you pointed out the main limitations of design research and
critically reflect on how dependent this kind of research is on technologies.
When do you think it is worth spending your time, effort and money in
proceeding to create a concept and build a prototype? In my opinion you can
never be sure that your results are meaninful or even making the breakthrough.
As a researcher you need to rely on your gut feeling (which is of course
everything else than scientific validation). A good example of that is how
"Hövdings" the invisible airbag for cyclists was created:
http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works/
To Matteo Campostrini
Hej Teo, I
liked how you reflect on the difference between the problem itself and the
problem solving process. You further mention that it is not really necessary to
invent something completely new in order to make a breakthrough. I like how
sometimes small improvements or "remakes" of something existing make
our lives so much easier. A good example of that could be "Hövding"
the invisible airbag for cyclists: http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works/
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti
Hej Kat, I
liked how you related your description of design research to Gregors
understanding of it. But I think that his characterization of design research
as "how to do something" a bit vage and unclear after we had the
lectures about this topic. I found it interesting how Ylva pointed out that
design research also consists of analyzing, building on existing theories and
Li mentioned that evaluation and validation also has to be taken into account.
It seems as if Gregor wanted design research to be more broad since it
"can" cover lots of different approaches. What do you think?
Link: http://teritmmt.blogspot.se/2013/12/reflections-on-theme-5-design-research.html?showComment=1386785746731#c8628419173066525231
To Katerina-Ioanna Kourti on Simon Schmitz
Of course
the prototypes are important without any doubt. I mean thanks to prototypes we
have all the technologies right now which are making our life so much easier
(and antisocial).
To Lucy Armelin on Simon Schmitz
Good
question. I think it always depends on the particular case. And it's just a
normal way in the development of things when each part is based on another one.
So logically you start bottom up insitead of top down.
Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research
To Lucy Armelin
Hej Lucy!
You were reflecting on case studies and how it is not possible to formulate
general conclusions based on this type of research method. I highly agree, when
we take only one case study in consideration. Comparing multiple case studies
conducted in the same way but examining different cases could actually give us
enough evidence to formulate a theory or a general conclusion. But I'm asking
myself if this is then enough proof or do we need to set up a quantitative
research? I think this differs from case to case. What do you think?
To Adam Rosén on Louise Heurlin
Hej Adam!
Good point. But I think it is not necessarily depending on the amount of
participants. The method being used in this example is "interviews"
which is definitely a qualitative method. However, what absolutely depends on
the amount of participants is how representative a quantitative study can be.
The general consensus is here "n" (sample) with a minimum of 30
participants. Qualitative research cannot be representative that's the reason
why the size of the sample isn't that important. Here it is more crucial to
select the right participants. Hope this could clarify your question.
To Jenny Sillén on Ingrid Larsson
Hej Jenny,
I totally agree with your point! From my experience I can say that the success
of the study or "how relevent" the results will be in the end, is so
much depending on the interviewer. Since I already conducted a qualitative
study with semi-structured interviews, it was very crucial to ask further
questions or to clarify what I meant in order to avoid a misunderstanding. This
means that the person who performs the interviews needs to be deeply into the
topic and knows what the professor is exactly looking for. In some cases it can
also be good to have someone with a more objective view on things to avoid
"leading" the participants to the expected results. But this is
always a case to case decision. Not sure though if it was the right one in this
example.
To Zahra A on Maria Strömbäck
I like your
reasoning on how the different interviewing methods effects the results. Based
on your personality you said, there would be no difference in your opinion when
being interviewd by phone or chat. I think it always depends on the research
topic and even for you there would be a difference :D While you might struggle
to talk about very contradictory or emotional topics face-to-face you could
feel more secure with your anonymity, when answering by phone or chat.
Furthermore I think that there is always a huge difference between spoken and
written answers. While you most of the times simultaneously speak out what you
think, when writing you automatically take more time to rethink and rewrite
your answer until you are satisfied, which can lead to a totally different
result.
Link: http://mariastromback.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-qualitative-and-case-study.html?showComment=1387447608885#c4297301118045737536
To Matteo Campostrini
Hi Teo! I
wanted to add that my paper indeed is "reliable" because it was very
well conducted. BUT it is not "representative" because it just
covered one specific case. I think you just coincidently mixed up the words :)
To Isabella Arningsmark
It is
important the you mentioned that, when conducting semi-structured interviews
is, you have to keep in mind that the questions should be openly formulated and
you don't deliberately lead the conversation to receive certain answers. The
great advantage of semi-structured interviews is that you have a broadly
formulated research question which leads the conversation but at the same time
you have the freedom to interact with your interviewee and ask further question
to get a deeper understanding and hopefully an answer to the prior formulated
"why"-question.
Link: http://dm2572isabella.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-qualitative-and-cad-study.html?showComment=1387448758330
To Matteo Campostrini on Simon Schmitz
True. But
then the case studies has to be conducted exactly the same which might be the
biggest challenge I think!
