I found this theme quite difficult, and realized I had some seriously lacking skills in this department, as this weirdly enough, was never something I worked with during my bachelor. I remember finding theory quite difficult back then as well, and at least now think I’ve gotten a better grasp of it.
During the seminar we discussed theory and agreed that theory starts by trying to answer the question why. Trying to get the answer as to why something is occurring or not occurring. We talked about a theory needing to be tested, and it being a theory until proven wrong. A new theory can come to be, not only because we’ve found new information, but it can also be a new train of thought based on the same data. New theories provide new knowledge, new tools to approach issues, and new perspectives. However, just because a theory has been disproven, it doesn’t stop being a theory. Even though something has been proven wrong or new theories has advanced from the original one, the original theory is still very much a theory.
During the seminar we also spoke a lot about our different papers, and in the small group I was part of everyone had very interesting papers, and honestly discussing the papers and their conclusions took up a lot of time and I would have happily spent the whole seminar just discussing that. I chose a paper about media literacy and democracy, how our ability to read and understand media is affecting a participatory democracy, something I found very interesting! My fellow group members found this subject intriguing as well, and some of them had chosen papers with similar subjects, resulting in us discussing social media and politics a tad more than the theory in the papers.
However, we did discuss the differences between theory in different fields of research, the differences between scientific theories and philosophical theories, as well as the difference between theory and hypotheses. When we spoke about theory in different fields of research, we concluded that it’s different depending on whether you’re working with numbers and math, or if you’re working with human behavior or interactions. A philosophical theory might not be able to be proven or tested, while scientific theories are more logical and tries to explain the logic between cause and effect. However, you need to be able to understand the researcher’s logic, regardless of research field.
Hi, interesting reflection and interesting perspectives. To elaborate on the coming and going of new theories, I think that it is a good thing that this shifts in time as it provides us with knew knowledge, but it also means that we can be critical about the given information. I think that this is the way it should be, as we often use theory to explain the world around us, so if the information that we use is as current and correct as possible, this also helps us to reflect on it.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI find it quite interesting that you define theory as something that explains "why". I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. As we read in the texts last week, some theories are based on and analytical approach which only describes "what is". With this in mind, I think theory is a lot more complex to define. Considering the essay you read, about "how our ability to read and understand media is affecting a participatory democracy", did you find elements of why this phenomena occurs?
I agree with you that theory is hard to define, but I would rather say that theory are empirically based ideas to support our understanding of the world, without necessarily limiting it to why.
I think realizing that the defintion of theory differs depending on research fields is an important learning from this theme, something you seemingly have learned. You are very right that a criteria of defintion in one field might not be applicable in another, which you for instance show with the example of philosophical theories.
ReplyDeleteNice addition with the discussion about differences between philosophical and scientific studies, pinpointing that regardless if content there is always need for interpretation. Nevertheless, I disagree with your use of the word "logic" in this context about scientific studies as it gives the impression of being more valid than philosophical ones. But overall, a nice reflection for being new in the topic. Seems like you have learned a lot.
ReplyDeleteGood reflections. You made some interesting thoughts. You wrote, ”Even though something has been proven wrong or new theories has advanced from the original one, the original theory is still very much a theory”. I don’t necessarily agree with you, theories are constantly being replaced of new ones that are more reliable. We eliminate theories all the time by finding them incompatible with new observations. This is just my thought, I might be wrong. Anyway well done with you blog post.
ReplyDelete