So first theme that was not so philosophical and abstract. There were more easily read texts, and broader questions I suppose you could say.
The lecture was, well the first part that I went to at least, not very interesting to be honest. I found that the lecturer presented very basic- and not really new- information about the theme. I left after the first half so I can't say much about the other.
The seminar was more interesting, and the discussions were more directed towards whether or not certain 'theories' can actually be considered theories. For example the theory of God. It's theory, but not a good one.
The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is that a theory derives from a hypothesis along with data and logical reasoning. You compare what actually came out of the data compared to the initial hypothesis.
One thing that we mentioned in our smaller group discussion was that the two texts kind of contradicts each other. For the type one in what theory is they say analysis says what is. Which is like presenting data and so fort while What Theory is not says that it's not theory. Just a peculiar thing that was mentioned.
Other than that there were not really that much that we talked about, and the theme itself felt way more simple and basic than the rest so far. That being said I feel like I understodd everything easier for this week
You have given a very clear and concise explanation of the most important terms and concepts of this week's theme. One aspect I found interesting in your text was your comment on whether or not certain theories can be considered actual theories. We had very different discussions in our seminar and focused on for example the concepts of truth and if there is such a thing as a truth. Good job!
SvaraRaderaHi Måns,
SvaraRaderaI agree with you that it was nice to have a theme which weren't so philosophical and 'hard to grasp'! It would have been nice if you had elaborated on what 'the theory of God' is and why you (and your seminar group?) see it as a weak theory. I have heard about several eminent researchers who've said that the more they understand of our world the more religious they get and that the concept or theory of a 'God' is becoming more graspable. I think this really is an interesting fact in the discussion about if a God exists.
hi,
SvaraRaderainteresting contradictions you brought up. i think why it is contradicted because like they say it depends on what kind of subject is that theory is looking into ? philosophical theory can be just analysis ? while scientific shouldn't be ? .. i think it's really depends on context. we also had discussion about 'god' to whether it can be theory. .. because there is acutally no prove about it. anyways interesting post. thanks for sharing :)
Nice reflection! I agree with you that this theme felt a bit more straight forward than the previous ones, it is probably closer to natural sciences than the others and therefore closer to what we are actually studying. I was not able to attend the lecture unfortunately, but according to you it seems like I did not miss anything important then. This is too bad, I think the lectures usually provide new information regarding the theme! Did you think anything about the notion of truth and how it relates to this theme? I for one found it very interesting.
SvaraRaderaKeep up the good work Måns!
NIce short summary! I think it is intresting that you bring up the theory of god as a theory and at the same time says "theory derives from a hypothesis along with data and logical reasoning". What kind of data do we have that can lead us to the conclusion with logical reasoning that god exists? I guess that you can percet phenomenas as a signal from god if you belive in god. However if you don't you will percept it in another way. In this way we could sure get data. I think this has to do with that we as humans tend to try to find as easy theories as possible. It is easy to explain phenomenas with something spiritual.
SvaraRaderaHello.
SvaraRaderaFirst of all, I agree that this theme was much easier to grasp and understand than before. In my opinion that also means that it is harder to write something about it since it just is what it is. It would be nice if you could explain an develop your thoughts a little bit more. It may seem obvious that the theory of God is weak, but I think that you should try to explain why since it would help you and everyone that reads your post to understand exactly what you are talking about.
Other than that. It feels like you understood this theme. Good job!
Good to read that you thought the seminar was fruitful. From my view I thought this weeks seminar was a bit less discussionable than the two previous ones. It was more clear for everyone to understand this weeks theme which lead to the discussions not really being very fruitful according to me. I like how you bring up how the authors slightly contradict each other. I would say that they overlap more than contradict each other leading to them reaching kind off different conclusions because of their different views upon the questions.
SvaraRaderaHello Måns!
SvaraRaderaToo bad the lecture didn't feel so interesting but I'm glad the seminar sparked some thoughts. I agree with you that this theme was a bit different than the previous in the sense that the approach to the subject wasn't as philosophical. I find it interesting that your group in the seminar found the texts contradicting, it would be interesting to know in what way. My understanding of theory is that presenting data is not enough to have a theory acknowledged, you also need logical reasoning.