I thought this week was gonna be a bit easier, since I finally started to get a grasp on the course structure. But then we were supposed to pick a journal and a paper. I took me way too long to find out there was example papers and journals to choose from, could have saved me a hour googling impact factors… When I finally found a paper which seemed interesting the rest went fairly quick. It wasn’t the easiest reading I have done, but still easier than the ordinary texts we usually read. I think I understood most parts of the texts correctly, even though I think the author went of track a bit, but I still found it hard to analyze and to find which theory was present. Also what was the actual question? Were we supposed to find out the theory which the author had used to write the paper or the theory the author, in the end, concluded?
Because we were able to choose our own subject, choose our own paper, I liked this week more than previous weeks. The text was more fun to read and because of that I understood the text better and could therefore contribute more to the seminar, even though we kind of drifted from the subject and started talking about next week's theme. Under the seminar discussion I asked question about that which I found unclear. But unlike previous weeks there wasn’t that many. The seminar was, as usual, more rewarding than the lecture but I think I mostly learned about this week’s subject by reading the texts. I’ve learned a lot about theory, what it is, how it’s structured and what it builds upon.
Under the seminar the group mostly discussed what theory actually was, and when a theory became the “truth”. The consensus was that when the majority of people regard a theory as the truth, it is. However since there are some theories which can’t be proved, the question is rather about how good or bad the theory is, not how right or wrong. Which I found interesting.
Hi Marcus,
SvaraRaderaI can see that you've taken your time to comment and analyze your chosen journal article for this week. I like that you took your time to reflect on the whole process of finding the article in the first place and how you then had more fun reading it, because it was a topic you enjoy personally.
I would have liked to read more about conclusions you've drawn from this week's lecture, e.g. what types of research are there, what's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory etc. But nevertheless I loved your really personal point of view how the lecture/seminar was. Good reflection!
Hi Marcus,
SvaraRaderaI also had some troubles finding quality and interesting article and analyzing which particular theory was implied. I would be nice to read what questions were unclear for you. Theory vs truth topic is very interested. As far as I understood theory is not the same as truth because theories are denied, changed with another theories during the time and also paradigms bring new points of view and new theories. In general, there is no such thing as truth. You wrote that "there are some theories which can’t be proved". But I would disagree with you that if the theory is not proved, then it is not a theory but maybe this rule only implies looking from scientific perspective.
I also had trouble finding my own article in a journal and it took some time to find one that was good enough. I had no idea that there were example articles to choose from. It seems like you have refelcted a lot about how you thought this theme was. I think you can expand more on the questions that you had and be more specific on what was difficult or interesting for this theme. Good reflection but I believe there is room for you to connect more to the terms and literature for the theme.
SvaraRaderaThe same thing happened to me – I had no idea about the example articles and I also spent hours trying to find something matching all criteria that also wasn't impossible to understand or decades old.
SvaraRaderaI don't agree with the notion of theories becoming truths due to majority opinion. Maybe that's true in some fields that are more abstract and deal with the humanities and perceptions. But as I have understood it, a scientific theory is a complex framework of explanations and will contain models and other bits of information that more or less accurately reflect reality. If reality turns out to be something else than a theory claims, the theory will have to be revised or rejected. The empiric evidence must be the basis for a theory and if the evidence contradicts a theory, the theory's claims are false, regardless of people's opinions. As I have understood it, even the most prevalent theories are constantly being revised and improved as new bits of evidence are produced. There are also examples of old theories that are rejected and replaced with new ones even though a majority of people probably don't know the difference – e.g. Einstein's Theory of relativity having replaced Newton's Theory of gravity, but how many think in terms of relativity in everyday situations?
Hello !
SvaraRaderaI agree with you, it wasn't that easy to find relevant journals and papers… I didn't know there were examples in the course website until I saw your post !!!!!! Thanks a lot for that, though I now feel a little stupid for having spent so much time searching...
In regards to what you said about the "theory [becoming] the truth", I agree that the concept of truth is relative, and many a theory has been taken as "right" until proven wrong. In that sense, we'd have to be more relative and say that it's a commonly accepted theory, as I think you meant it !
Thanks for your interesting post :-)
Hello.
SvaraRaderaI don't really agree with the statement that a theory is true when enough people regard it as the truth. Scientific evidence and theories (in the more hard core science) should not be up for discussion and be decided true or not by people and perception. It is also hard to talk about truth. We are always in a framework called a paradigm that more or less decides if a theory can be considered valid or not. There could always be a paradigm shift that falsifies a lot of theories at the same time. An example of a paradigm shift is when we discovered that we evolve around the sun. So it is hard to talk about theories as truth.
I also think that it would be interesting if you talked and reflected a little bit more about what you have learned from the texts, lecture and seminar during this theme.
I agree with you that this weeks material was (by far) the most valuable compared to the lectures and seminar. I suppose using your own articles not only makes for more interesting and relatable reading, but also poses more specific questions compared to those of other seminar members,
SvaraRadera