Theme 1 :
Comments :
Comment 1 :
Hej !
I did enjoy as well that you started by putting back Kant on his historical time. See how and why he started reasonning as he did.
Good analysis on the perception part of an object. we need to be aware of why this chair we see is the chair we see according to the time and space we are living on, as you mention " I have to understand the possibility of that object‘s existence". This can only be achieved through Kant's vision of things that you agree on.
You say that knowledge can never be pure since we "filter" it through our experiences, background. But it doesn't mean that we are forced to do so. What if it is possible to not use this filter and recieve the information as totally raw data and keep it that way ? Wouldn't that change your vision of things ?
A very interesting point you mention was that we are all inter-subjective creatures. Therefore we keep evolving in different way, different vision of the world, and yet we all live in the same.
I wish you had developped more your personnal reflections on the matter, especially your vision of this 'Inter-subjective creature'.I wanted to know more about it ! :)
Comment 2 : Hej, This has been very interesting to read, you created your own opinion over the different courses. While I agree on most of the point you are presenting here, there are a few different point of view here and there. Your question number 4 seems a bit pessimistic. Being aware of the wrong doing is the first step to put things in order. If we ever need a goal in our lives, may the search of the pure knowledge, truth be the one. Moreover, once you notice what you are subjective to, what you are not objective about, it will open a new perception, a new way of thinking... And Who knows... Might even make you happily ever after ! The truth is true until proven otherwise !
Comment 3 : Hej, I really like reading this post, you made some personal reflection upon reading Kant. A particular subject you seem to hold on to: Objectivity. If I got this right, you think that we can't assume this is possible, therefore pure knowledge either in this conception of perception. I often wonder why we tend to find a truth about everything. In my case, I do think that finding a objective way to see the world makes you unaffected by certain event, avoiding the sadness in it by making it less personal. I personally think we can still be closer to this objectiveness by knowing, as you say, that certain aspect are subjective. Being aware of those make you reconsider your decision to some extend. :)
Comment 4 : Hej ! This is a true reflection about knowledge, based on how you experienced it through the first weeks. Would you say that your knowledge of these course has evolved or still needs to evolve? Do you know what you don't know about this lecture? My point is, we are perfectionist and must therefore always look for what we don't know yet, especially the things we don't know that we don't know. You asked yourself a lot of questions about the matter,
I do hope you have been able to answer them. As Michaela mentionned, I would have also loved to hear about your thoughts on the application of those information upon the actual world governed by technology and such ! :)
Comment 5 : Hej, we can see that you took the time to make reflection on your own about knowledge, perception and conception and how they are related. I really appreciated reading about your thoughts on what becomes an object if the human would come to dissapear. I agree that "knowledge" can be a fluctuating reasonning but isn't it the point of being a human being ? Even though we may be wrong or very far from what this concept actually is, the process of understanding is something on it's own that makes us what we are. I might disagree on the mathematical point, it may be a depiction of us producing a knowledge but it stays true for a long time. At some point, there must be something objective, otherwise we shouldn't be able to talk about objectivity, if there is no such thing. I do agree however that this discussion can be talked about further and in many direction !
Comment 6 : Hej, Very nice thoughts and critique about human society and how we interact with each other. You do bring up a point that I really like : We do think and comment on people based on how WE percieve things. Therefore, this is how judgements are made. If you find a clothe somehow very disgusting and that someone wears it, the first thing that comes to mind is "How could she even wear that". I think this is exactly what you mean by "But what we don’t often consider is, not everything that we in Europe see as normal is normal". The example of the "Barbarian people". They are barbarian based on our vision of society. But do they consider themself barbarian ? I don't think so. Illusion is the burden of our society, I agree.
Comment 7 : Very interesting thoughts about a point that hasn't been a lot developed. (from what I read so gar at least). I would like to say, on the hypersensitive people that are more aware than others, that I don't think this is related otherwise they would as well be hypersensitive about the good part of being a human being, they would see the second qualities (Kant's point of view) from both side. But this is only speculation. You point out an interesting question that I would have loved to hear more about from you: The universal law and do we, as human, intuitively know it? Or is it something that we give to our children through socialisation and society ? I'm gonna have to think about this now... For the God part, the Bible said that God created human at his image when mostly this is us human that created him at our image, a better one. Moreover what we can't comprehend now (I.e outside time and space) doesn't mean there is something magical or that we will never know. It will simply be a myth that we tell our future generations until we have the right tools to answer those questions, a new era of enlightenment. Very interesting reflection :)
Comment 8 : Hej, very nice reflection. I read your first article and you mention your example as well in this post. I had never heard of that example that a big noise we immediatly think about a big thing doing this noise. That got me thinking about the immediate thinking reaction we, human, can have and that we tend to consider way too much. When things happens we do react according to what we suppose it to be and not to what it really is. This is a fascinating subject that relates more about how the brain works though. But that can be applied as well, if I understand correctly what you meant in the "knowledge field" a priori ! Good reflections !
Comment 9 : Hej, I loved reading your post ! Very interesting thoughts about the experience part of knowledge through multiple exemple. This is not something we do think of everyday, but your example with the painting made me think. When you go out from your "comfort zone", from what you know and used to know and start a new thing, here the painting, you have an open mind about everything. You don't know anything so you keep it open to knowledge in this field. Few years later, you have the basics, the experience and you even learn to people but your mind stopped being open to every information that you can get. So there is a process in those that let your brains (soul?) attract knowledge. Therefore, coming back to your engineer point of view, I think you just have to be open minded about what we learn here and in the long term, once you have assimilated what you need to know, go back to your way of thinking that there is an answer for everything BUT you will have that learning phase (the phase where you have been open to new information) that will help you see things on a different scale. If there is no answer, we just did not find it yet :) !
Comment 10 : Hey, very interesting thoughts here. You are following Kant's point of view on the matter. That no matter where we are, who we are, we can never be impartial because of our background, unique from each other. And I agree that this is what makes the world a colourfull place to live in. I disagree however on the sadness part of us doubting our sense, as you said, it makes a grow. Human being are perfectionnist, if we do not reflect on ourselves with those brains we have we will never progress, evolve. And if we don't, we just die. Movement is what makes us, us ! And very good point about us closing the world upon our only point of view. I'm going to like random things in facebook to open my mind to things I might or might not know. You oppenned up a very intriguing point !
Comment 2 : Hej, This has been very interesting to read, you created your own opinion over the different courses. While I agree on most of the point you are presenting here, there are a few different point of view here and there. Your question number 4 seems a bit pessimistic. Being aware of the wrong doing is the first step to put things in order. If we ever need a goal in our lives, may the search of the pure knowledge, truth be the one. Moreover, once you notice what you are subjective to, what you are not objective about, it will open a new perception, a new way of thinking... And Who knows... Might even make you happily ever after ! The truth is true until proven otherwise !
Comment 3 : Hej, I really like reading this post, you made some personal reflection upon reading Kant. A particular subject you seem to hold on to: Objectivity. If I got this right, you think that we can't assume this is possible, therefore pure knowledge either in this conception of perception. I often wonder why we tend to find a truth about everything. In my case, I do think that finding a objective way to see the world makes you unaffected by certain event, avoiding the sadness in it by making it less personal. I personally think we can still be closer to this objectiveness by knowing, as you say, that certain aspect are subjective. Being aware of those make you reconsider your decision to some extend. :)
Comment 4 : Hej ! This is a true reflection about knowledge, based on how you experienced it through the first weeks. Would you say that your knowledge of these course has evolved or still needs to evolve? Do you know what you don't know about this lecture? My point is, we are perfectionist and must therefore always look for what we don't know yet, especially the things we don't know that we don't know. You asked yourself a lot of questions about the matter,
I do hope you have been able to answer them. As Michaela mentionned, I would have also loved to hear about your thoughts on the application of those information upon the actual world governed by technology and such ! :)
Comment 5 : Hej, we can see that you took the time to make reflection on your own about knowledge, perception and conception and how they are related. I really appreciated reading about your thoughts on what becomes an object if the human would come to dissapear. I agree that "knowledge" can be a fluctuating reasonning but isn't it the point of being a human being ? Even though we may be wrong or very far from what this concept actually is, the process of understanding is something on it's own that makes us what we are. I might disagree on the mathematical point, it may be a depiction of us producing a knowledge but it stays true for a long time. At some point, there must be something objective, otherwise we shouldn't be able to talk about objectivity, if there is no such thing. I do agree however that this discussion can be talked about further and in many direction !
Comment 6 : Hej, Very nice thoughts and critique about human society and how we interact with each other. You do bring up a point that I really like : We do think and comment on people based on how WE percieve things. Therefore, this is how judgements are made. If you find a clothe somehow very disgusting and that someone wears it, the first thing that comes to mind is "How could she even wear that". I think this is exactly what you mean by "But what we don’t often consider is, not everything that we in Europe see as normal is normal". The example of the "Barbarian people". They are barbarian based on our vision of society. But do they consider themself barbarian ? I don't think so. Illusion is the burden of our society, I agree.
Comment 7 : Very interesting thoughts about a point that hasn't been a lot developed. (from what I read so gar at least). I would like to say, on the hypersensitive people that are more aware than others, that I don't think this is related otherwise they would as well be hypersensitive about the good part of being a human being, they would see the second qualities (Kant's point of view) from both side. But this is only speculation. You point out an interesting question that I would have loved to hear more about from you: The universal law and do we, as human, intuitively know it? Or is it something that we give to our children through socialisation and society ? I'm gonna have to think about this now... For the God part, the Bible said that God created human at his image when mostly this is us human that created him at our image, a better one. Moreover what we can't comprehend now (I.e outside time and space) doesn't mean there is something magical or that we will never know. It will simply be a myth that we tell our future generations until we have the right tools to answer those questions, a new era of enlightenment. Very interesting reflection :)
Comment 8 : Hej, very nice reflection. I read your first article and you mention your example as well in this post. I had never heard of that example that a big noise we immediatly think about a big thing doing this noise. That got me thinking about the immediate thinking reaction we, human, can have and that we tend to consider way too much. When things happens we do react according to what we suppose it to be and not to what it really is. This is a fascinating subject that relates more about how the brain works though. But that can be applied as well, if I understand correctly what you meant in the "knowledge field" a priori ! Good reflections !
Comment 9 : Hej, I loved reading your post ! Very interesting thoughts about the experience part of knowledge through multiple exemple. This is not something we do think of everyday, but your example with the painting made me think. When you go out from your "comfort zone", from what you know and used to know and start a new thing, here the painting, you have an open mind about everything. You don't know anything so you keep it open to knowledge in this field. Few years later, you have the basics, the experience and you even learn to people but your mind stopped being open to every information that you can get. So there is a process in those that let your brains (soul?) attract knowledge. Therefore, coming back to your engineer point of view, I think you just have to be open minded about what we learn here and in the long term, once you have assimilated what you need to know, go back to your way of thinking that there is an answer for everything BUT you will have that learning phase (the phase where you have been open to new information) that will help you see things on a different scale. If there is no answer, we just did not find it yet :) !
Comment 10 : Hey, very interesting thoughts here. You are following Kant's point of view on the matter. That no matter where we are, who we are, we can never be impartial because of our background, unique from each other. And I agree that this is what makes the world a colourfull place to live in. I disagree however on the sadness part of us doubting our sense, as you said, it makes a grow. Human being are perfectionnist, if we do not reflect on ourselves with those brains we have we will never progress, evolve. And if we don't, we just die. Movement is what makes us, us ! And very good point about us closing the world upon our only point of view. I'm going to like random things in facebook to open my mind to things I might or might not know. You oppenned up a very intriguing point !
Comments :
Comment 1 :
Hola,
It seems like you have a completely different opinion about every point. You say that they drive to erase the unknown from the society. But is it just a goal ? To me it appears very difficult since once we removed the unknown that we know, it left us with the unknown that we dont know about.
You originally thought that imitation nature was more of a transcendent explanation. It makes me wonder what makes you change your mind ? I agree that the text tend for the other definition but if you had this idea, it means that some point were true for you or your point of view. Therefore, this new vision of things erase completely your last statement ? I would have loved to read more about this transition in your mind which seems interesting.
I do agree however with the last point you made about the definition of myth. My mind was also coloured by my previous connotation of religion. therefore Religious was fully incorporated in my definition of myth, I know see that I should have opened my eyes more to a wider vision of it, thanks.
Comment 2 : Hola, I was reluctant at first to read and write about your blog cause it was too long (after 9 comments, you know the feel...) but that was very interesting. Using religion as an example is always interesting. I totally agree with you, that there is a simple correlation between power and knowledge and that the church abused that power over the civilisations as we knew them. They still have that effects on people cause roots doesn't leave easily but I think this is one of the superstructure of the actual society. As you mentioned, scientists using science to prove knowledge, the one they obtain, therefore the illusion upon church's knowledge falls down. And over time, church will lose his power, already started, and who knows ... in few years (more like hundred at least), won't have any power left over people. On a point I shall disagree however is that you are saying that there is no way of proving that these universals and abstracts objects do exist and impossible to prove that they do not. But the burden of the proof falls on those who affirms. Therefore, we can reject their affirmation. Affirmation without proof can be rejected without proof. Very nice reflection thought keep up the good work.
Comment 3 : Hola, i'm not sure that the example of the phone reflects perfectly what superstructure represents exactly, but it gives an idea at least ! Because I dont think the app affects the phone on any point over time. But as I said, it gives an idea of the concept. As a better example would be feminism. See that as a superstructures, their goal is that women have the same thing as the man. Not more, not less. This isn't in our (By that I mean the whole Population) mind yet, not implanted. therefore if you wanna change that way of thinking, you can't go directly and fight the idea by yourself saying that feminism is a good thing. No one could care less. Because you can't change the superstructure directly. So you have to go through the substructures first. In this case they would represent the idea we have of the difference between men and women. Through the movies, games, newspapers, primary socialisation, at school. And once we remove all the places where the cliches about men better than women exists, the overall population will start thinking differently. Through ;multiple generation however... Wish you had talked more about your reflection on the aura it was interesting to read.
Comment 4 : Hola, You make a great point talking about IT in this century. it has been I believe a very important step for humanity and access to information. I completely agree with you on that point. That before only the elitist people would be allowed thanks to their past and/or money, therefore it was a vicious circle since you needed money to get money. Now with free access for everyone, even if you come from nothing you have a chance to success if you invest yourself in what you do and share with the world. And about the point made on Benjamin's definition of aura. I think to put in with actual perspective. Imagine a car, you say to your customers that this car has been produced 10 times in the entire world, you will be able to sell it twice or three times the actual prices and people will do whatever they can to acquire it. Now if you say that this car has been produced 3 billions times, you will be able to see it twice or 3 times less that the actual price and the customer won't do much to get it since it can be everywhere. I think this is the aura of an object, the idea we get from it. The example of painting is interesting because the original has only made ONE. But I do agree on the others points, very good reflection.
Comment 5 : Hola, You're making a good point on saying that enlightenment is more than just knowledge. This is to conquer ourselves. But Knowledge is the most powerful weapon to conquer, therefore the hierarchy of dominance is what comes after knowing. Not something in itself, id say... Human right are new rules we apply to govern people, but those are the good sides of nominalism, since we can use it to govern people in a more oppressive manner as the famous german example. But you make a very good point, we do have listened about our history and what they applied to govern the society. But the question today remains intact, what should we do to govern now. never thought to that. Even though green vision is the next step in humanity. And I agree as well on the modification of substructures and superstructure. We shall first modify what comes first before trying to change ideas. you can't change an opinion without changing what impacts this opinion.
Comment 6 : Hola, You brought some appealing informations about history and the context in which they write in. I have difficult time to grasp the relation between :Marinetti: and the essence of enlightenment you seem to talk about. The aura Benjamin talks about isn't only about destruction. He adhere to the fact that on one side this is a bad thing that it is destroyed, because losing of his uniqueness and what makes the product what it is. But on the other side the open door to everyone looking to expand their vision of art, or just to enter in a new world they were never supposed to. Overall, good reflections !
Comment 7 : Hola, Very interesting reflection, you used a lot of examples, that made the reading more interesting. I agree on the point that we, humans, chase superficial phone illusions and that we are driven by those. And this is what makes the enlightenment interesting is that up to a certain point, when we become aware that the illusion we are chasing to is an illusion, we just stop running after and find an other one that we are not aware of and keep chasing it. Are we condemned to chase illusion for the rest of our humanity time ? In your last point you are saying that theory is the perfect representation and that practice in the imperfect one ? Interesting reflection...
Comment 8 : hola, Good reflection you make here. i didn't reflect on the historical context at first either. We talked about it in the seminar and it made things into perspective. that helps understand their point of view, and some point wouldn't apply now. I think however that if they were watching our society now, first they would be proud that we study the; :p, but they would have a very similar discussion since as you say, we do have the technology now, but it still can be used to press the people and it was mostly the idea they tried to give in their time. But they would love the idea of this sharing information world, where everyone can access to everything.
Comment 9 : Hola, You say that in order for nominalism to be, we need to reject truth, the total truth. You speak of "objective truth", does that imply a relative truth ? Truth shouldn't be just truth ? but I know what you mean, thanks to this wonderful co-student of yours who explained the allegory of the cave, we may perceive what we believe is truth. That truth is relative depending on our point of view or our background. You say that we tend to repeat ourselves over and over. History repeats itself as the saying says. But if the superstructure changed over time, it means that we change with it. I think it just takes a long time before we adapt and that the whole population follow... I really enjoyed the Loving Vincent movie, this is pretty good example I believe since his story has been made through painting, and we dont have the opporutinity to see Van Gogh's Paintings... Modern weapon!
Comment 10 : Hola, You are making some very interesting points here. I do agree with you that the downside of nominalism tends to contain structure but I think this is what we humans tend to do as well for everything. Putting thing into a box in order to make them fit in our way of thinking. I think this is the downside of every human being. In an other hand, value judgement shouldnt exist, we cannot interfer with what people thing on a certain matter because we do not have the same background, experience, life. I do think that once every human being starts to understand that we cannot modify people's way of thinking , we will stop categorize everything and therefore the social oppresion shouldnt even be considered. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 2 : Hola, I was reluctant at first to read and write about your blog cause it was too long (after 9 comments, you know the feel...) but that was very interesting. Using religion as an example is always interesting. I totally agree with you, that there is a simple correlation between power and knowledge and that the church abused that power over the civilisations as we knew them. They still have that effects on people cause roots doesn't leave easily but I think this is one of the superstructure of the actual society. As you mentioned, scientists using science to prove knowledge, the one they obtain, therefore the illusion upon church's knowledge falls down. And over time, church will lose his power, already started, and who knows ... in few years (more like hundred at least), won't have any power left over people. On a point I shall disagree however is that you are saying that there is no way of proving that these universals and abstracts objects do exist and impossible to prove that they do not. But the burden of the proof falls on those who affirms. Therefore, we can reject their affirmation. Affirmation without proof can be rejected without proof. Very nice reflection thought keep up the good work.
Comment 3 : Hola, i'm not sure that the example of the phone reflects perfectly what superstructure represents exactly, but it gives an idea at least ! Because I dont think the app affects the phone on any point over time. But as I said, it gives an idea of the concept. As a better example would be feminism. See that as a superstructures, their goal is that women have the same thing as the man. Not more, not less. This isn't in our (By that I mean the whole Population) mind yet, not implanted. therefore if you wanna change that way of thinking, you can't go directly and fight the idea by yourself saying that feminism is a good thing. No one could care less. Because you can't change the superstructure directly. So you have to go through the substructures first. In this case they would represent the idea we have of the difference between men and women. Through the movies, games, newspapers, primary socialisation, at school. And once we remove all the places where the cliches about men better than women exists, the overall population will start thinking differently. Through ;multiple generation however... Wish you had talked more about your reflection on the aura it was interesting to read.
Comment 4 : Hola, You make a great point talking about IT in this century. it has been I believe a very important step for humanity and access to information. I completely agree with you on that point. That before only the elitist people would be allowed thanks to their past and/or money, therefore it was a vicious circle since you needed money to get money. Now with free access for everyone, even if you come from nothing you have a chance to success if you invest yourself in what you do and share with the world. And about the point made on Benjamin's definition of aura. I think to put in with actual perspective. Imagine a car, you say to your customers that this car has been produced 10 times in the entire world, you will be able to sell it twice or three times the actual prices and people will do whatever they can to acquire it. Now if you say that this car has been produced 3 billions times, you will be able to see it twice or 3 times less that the actual price and the customer won't do much to get it since it can be everywhere. I think this is the aura of an object, the idea we get from it. The example of painting is interesting because the original has only made ONE. But I do agree on the others points, very good reflection.
Comment 5 : Hola, You're making a good point on saying that enlightenment is more than just knowledge. This is to conquer ourselves. But Knowledge is the most powerful weapon to conquer, therefore the hierarchy of dominance is what comes after knowing. Not something in itself, id say... Human right are new rules we apply to govern people, but those are the good sides of nominalism, since we can use it to govern people in a more oppressive manner as the famous german example. But you make a very good point, we do have listened about our history and what they applied to govern the society. But the question today remains intact, what should we do to govern now. never thought to that. Even though green vision is the next step in humanity. And I agree as well on the modification of substructures and superstructure. We shall first modify what comes first before trying to change ideas. you can't change an opinion without changing what impacts this opinion.
Comment 6 : Hola, You brought some appealing informations about history and the context in which they write in. I have difficult time to grasp the relation between :Marinetti: and the essence of enlightenment you seem to talk about. The aura Benjamin talks about isn't only about destruction. He adhere to the fact that on one side this is a bad thing that it is destroyed, because losing of his uniqueness and what makes the product what it is. But on the other side the open door to everyone looking to expand their vision of art, or just to enter in a new world they were never supposed to. Overall, good reflections !
Comment 7 : Hola, Very interesting reflection, you used a lot of examples, that made the reading more interesting. I agree on the point that we, humans, chase superficial phone illusions and that we are driven by those. And this is what makes the enlightenment interesting is that up to a certain point, when we become aware that the illusion we are chasing to is an illusion, we just stop running after and find an other one that we are not aware of and keep chasing it. Are we condemned to chase illusion for the rest of our humanity time ? In your last point you are saying that theory is the perfect representation and that practice in the imperfect one ? Interesting reflection...
Comment 8 : hola, Good reflection you make here. i didn't reflect on the historical context at first either. We talked about it in the seminar and it made things into perspective. that helps understand their point of view, and some point wouldn't apply now. I think however that if they were watching our society now, first they would be proud that we study the; :p, but they would have a very similar discussion since as you say, we do have the technology now, but it still can be used to press the people and it was mostly the idea they tried to give in their time. But they would love the idea of this sharing information world, where everyone can access to everything.
Comment 9 : Hola, You say that in order for nominalism to be, we need to reject truth, the total truth. You speak of "objective truth", does that imply a relative truth ? Truth shouldn't be just truth ? but I know what you mean, thanks to this wonderful co-student of yours who explained the allegory of the cave, we may perceive what we believe is truth. That truth is relative depending on our point of view or our background. You say that we tend to repeat ourselves over and over. History repeats itself as the saying says. But if the superstructure changed over time, it means that we change with it. I think it just takes a long time before we adapt and that the whole population follow... I really enjoyed the Loving Vincent movie, this is pretty good example I believe since his story has been made through painting, and we dont have the opporutinity to see Van Gogh's Paintings... Modern weapon!
Comment 10 : Hola, You are making some very interesting points here. I do agree with you that the downside of nominalism tends to contain structure but I think this is what we humans tend to do as well for everything. Putting thing into a box in order to make them fit in our way of thinking. I think this is the downside of every human being. In an other hand, value judgement shouldnt exist, we cannot interfer with what people thing on a certain matter because we do not have the same background, experience, life. I do think that once every human being starts to understand that we cannot modify people's way of thinking , we will stop categorize everything and therefore the social oppresion shouldnt even be considered. Thank you for your reflection !
Comments :
Comment 1 :
Salut,
The process going around the question what is man is pretty interesting. You would rather go for one theory or a couple instead of opening your mind to all those theories that could be applied in a situation. I can see the positive in both way to process that kind of things. But I think having more than a couple of theory would prevent the fact that if you find something that contradicts one of your theory e.g. the multiple ideas that contradict each other when you were searching the question, it would allow you to have some back up of a back up theory and so on.
However, you raised a good point, who was first between the theory and the research in the sense that did someone had first a theory that he tried to applied, or it is the result of a lots of data that has been found to prove a new point, new theory.
I appreciated reading that.
Comment 2 : Salut, Your distinction between your new definition of theory and hypothesis is interesting. Do we however mean I have a hypothesis every time we have a theory? I understand that this is in the case we just come out of nowhere and say we have a theory, instead of having done some research prior saying that and come up with a real theory that implied a questions, research and hypothesis. You're making a good point here linking this to knowledge, I believe in that connection as well. Everything humans do are organised and lead to a point we are trying to express, as you mentioned the papers. I wonder however what others tools you are referring to in order to make sense of the world ? As far as I'm concerned, in order to prove a point, the logical science way to do it seems to me the only way to do so. Great reflections however, thanks !
Comment 3 : Salut, Very interesting reflection here, loved reading it. You raise a good point that I totally agree with. If a theory is tested and even if multiple expert works on the subject, they may all miss (we never know) an actual element that would change completely or partially the truth they've discovered, therefore we would set up on that truth until someone comes up and do it all over again and don't miss it. I think this is exactly the point of the sentence "Truth is the truth until proven otherwise" that I keep sense of. "Theory is designed by us" I think you couldn't be truer. Even if the information point into a certain direction, we, human, decide how the theory should be applied or written. And understand the relation between each object, why do they react this way and not this way... Thank you for the reading!
Comment 4 : Salut, Very nice example to express your way of seeings things. About your different definition it sounds like there are two different meaning, one for the "civilian" world and the other one for the scientist world. As it is true, since we sometimes use " I have a theory" in order to express a hunch we may have. But the problem that I notice of having two different definition is that when the scientist explains their discoveries, if we have a lot of different use of our words, we will misinterpret the discovery and therefore reduce the trust we could have in the scientist world... Nice quote from the teacher, one funeral at a time, meaning that when we take down we old theory a new one arise, right ? At least I get it that way... Unfortunately and you're right, theory do not die. This is mostly a bad thing because people keep holding to those old theories and, I would dare to say, hold the whole humanity back, they don't want to move on (yes, I'm aiming at the religious people). Thank you for the interesting read.
Comment 5 : Salut, I agree that your definition can be correct in a way for a direct definition of what theory is. But I think it raises a problem; to human that is a bit strong to ignore. Right, the fact that theory will never be true forever because something new can come up and prove it wrong. But it we take your definition as it is : "Theories are tested ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic for current scientific studies – until they have been contradicted." The last part implies the fact that we can NEVER EVER trust a theory, a definition or what we believe is true. And if we act like that, there is no way we are going to improve as human. I believe that we have to trust those theories completely, believe in them. And that a new theory comes and destroy it. We will therefore change our mind about what we believed accepted that we were wrong and move on. You point it out in your next paragraph, that we should't make the mistake to get confused between theory and knowledge. But How can we be sure knowledge is not theory anymore ? Your blog raises a lot of question that are interesting to think about, thank you.
Comment 6 : Salut, I agree with you on the fact that theory can / might not be true. I wonder however on the point that a false theory ( knowing that this is false) if presented to the scientist committee would receive a good welcoming ! You are raising a very interesting point on the question, who is producing, presenting theory? I think the institution offers a very credible background in your theory. And I believe that if you are a researcher in a university, the university holds a part of your theory's results. They are part of your success in a way, so it would seem normal but sad for the researcher! Thank you for the reflection
Comment 7 : Salut, Once again you are raising some good point in your reflection. I didn't really consider that theory can be neglected even though the results are really impressive or original. As you say, if there is too little theory involved, there is no reason to move forward with those research. I guess it stays in the definition of theory and that those rejected are way too close to raw data than the actual meaning of what this means. I agree with the constructing theory over other theory that having a flaw at the base of the theory may result in a flaw of the rest of those theory based on it. However even know they may be all wrong, the way they constructed on each other can still offer good reflection and useful information. however on the point saying creationist criticism the theory of evolution, it seems a bit ludicrous. Even if criticism can come in all form, I'm not sure that if a theory is facing criticism from a theory from the old age it would impact his veracity. I would understand more if some other body of the science committee would interfere and ask questions about it. I mean q certain degree of credibility would be a start in order to value a critic. Thank for the reading very interesting stuff !
Comment 8 : Salut, I don't think that theory is as abstract as knowledge can be. However I agree that a theory explains what is occurring and what is not, or at least why it doesn't. But the nuance between abstract and concrete reality makes the difference in your argument about theory. If we use theory in only an abstract reality, does that mean that the results are therefore abstract. At what point does the theory becomes concrete ? Does it work as phases ? You're making a good point that the newly produced point of a theory, that comes and add up to an older one, makes both of those as important to each other. But as you imply, this way of doing thing, adding to older theory does work only in a world filled of innovation. How can we use theories of the past about a world of the past in order to understand the actual word with things that didn't exist in the older one... I completely agree on that point with you and I hadn't think about that. Finally, I think there is plenty of room for new theories, we just have to find it. Thank you for this very nice reflection
Comment 9 : Salut, Very nice reflection that sums up very nicely the idea behind theories. You mention Ockham's razor, which is a very pragmatic thing to use in your daily life but i'm not very sure it applies here with your definition, because later in your reflection you mention theory as a thought process were you resolve and undo and make the clear distinctions becomes unclear. Ockham's razor is the exact opposite, to make a confusing situation into a simpler one. But in an other senses I can understand the idea behind what you meant. I agree that theories are enabling and easing the process of understanding the world, they allow human being to have a structured vision of the world, understand how things interact with each other while being affected by time and space. Once lots of those standards theory that allows us to understand the structure of our world we start conceptualising it. Once again, it's all bout the framework. What would happen if time were going backward... Using Kant's sentence in order to make order the relation between research and theory is pretty well done, very interesting thought. Thank you for the reflection !
Comment 10 : Salut, You are pointing some interesting information, however I disagree with you on the fact that if a theory is already existing and commonly accepted, if a new theory comes in play, and if it invalidates completely the one is place them at least in the science community, they will change their mind about their vision of things instantly. But I still believe that old theory can still help you understand things that the new wouldn't be able. We learn as well when we are in the wrong. But I agree that if we are speaking about the common people, then the time before they think different will take at least one generation or ever more depending on how it was implemented. (#Religion) I totally agree on your last point, and I think those are the limitation of EP paper. They state a problem, you know this problem exist, but you just have no idea how to deal with it now. They studied the question, they should be able to come up with at least a beginning of an answer to the problem they are raising. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 2 : Salut, Your distinction between your new definition of theory and hypothesis is interesting. Do we however mean I have a hypothesis every time we have a theory? I understand that this is in the case we just come out of nowhere and say we have a theory, instead of having done some research prior saying that and come up with a real theory that implied a questions, research and hypothesis. You're making a good point here linking this to knowledge, I believe in that connection as well. Everything humans do are organised and lead to a point we are trying to express, as you mentioned the papers. I wonder however what others tools you are referring to in order to make sense of the world ? As far as I'm concerned, in order to prove a point, the logical science way to do it seems to me the only way to do so. Great reflections however, thanks !
Comment 3 : Salut, Very interesting reflection here, loved reading it. You raise a good point that I totally agree with. If a theory is tested and even if multiple expert works on the subject, they may all miss (we never know) an actual element that would change completely or partially the truth they've discovered, therefore we would set up on that truth until someone comes up and do it all over again and don't miss it. I think this is exactly the point of the sentence "Truth is the truth until proven otherwise" that I keep sense of. "Theory is designed by us" I think you couldn't be truer. Even if the information point into a certain direction, we, human, decide how the theory should be applied or written. And understand the relation between each object, why do they react this way and not this way... Thank you for the reading!
Comment 4 : Salut, Very nice example to express your way of seeings things. About your different definition it sounds like there are two different meaning, one for the "civilian" world and the other one for the scientist world. As it is true, since we sometimes use " I have a theory" in order to express a hunch we may have. But the problem that I notice of having two different definition is that when the scientist explains their discoveries, if we have a lot of different use of our words, we will misinterpret the discovery and therefore reduce the trust we could have in the scientist world... Nice quote from the teacher, one funeral at a time, meaning that when we take down we old theory a new one arise, right ? At least I get it that way... Unfortunately and you're right, theory do not die. This is mostly a bad thing because people keep holding to those old theories and, I would dare to say, hold the whole humanity back, they don't want to move on (yes, I'm aiming at the religious people). Thank you for the interesting read.
Comment 5 : Salut, I agree that your definition can be correct in a way for a direct definition of what theory is. But I think it raises a problem; to human that is a bit strong to ignore. Right, the fact that theory will never be true forever because something new can come up and prove it wrong. But it we take your definition as it is : "Theories are tested ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic for current scientific studies – until they have been contradicted." The last part implies the fact that we can NEVER EVER trust a theory, a definition or what we believe is true. And if we act like that, there is no way we are going to improve as human. I believe that we have to trust those theories completely, believe in them. And that a new theory comes and destroy it. We will therefore change our mind about what we believed accepted that we were wrong and move on. You point it out in your next paragraph, that we should't make the mistake to get confused between theory and knowledge. But How can we be sure knowledge is not theory anymore ? Your blog raises a lot of question that are interesting to think about, thank you.
Comment 6 : Salut, I agree with you on the fact that theory can / might not be true. I wonder however on the point that a false theory ( knowing that this is false) if presented to the scientist committee would receive a good welcoming ! You are raising a very interesting point on the question, who is producing, presenting theory? I think the institution offers a very credible background in your theory. And I believe that if you are a researcher in a university, the university holds a part of your theory's results. They are part of your success in a way, so it would seem normal but sad for the researcher! Thank you for the reflection
Comment 7 : Salut, Once again you are raising some good point in your reflection. I didn't really consider that theory can be neglected even though the results are really impressive or original. As you say, if there is too little theory involved, there is no reason to move forward with those research. I guess it stays in the definition of theory and that those rejected are way too close to raw data than the actual meaning of what this means. I agree with the constructing theory over other theory that having a flaw at the base of the theory may result in a flaw of the rest of those theory based on it. However even know they may be all wrong, the way they constructed on each other can still offer good reflection and useful information. however on the point saying creationist criticism the theory of evolution, it seems a bit ludicrous. Even if criticism can come in all form, I'm not sure that if a theory is facing criticism from a theory from the old age it would impact his veracity. I would understand more if some other body of the science committee would interfere and ask questions about it. I mean q certain degree of credibility would be a start in order to value a critic. Thank for the reading very interesting stuff !
Comment 8 : Salut, I don't think that theory is as abstract as knowledge can be. However I agree that a theory explains what is occurring and what is not, or at least why it doesn't. But the nuance between abstract and concrete reality makes the difference in your argument about theory. If we use theory in only an abstract reality, does that mean that the results are therefore abstract. At what point does the theory becomes concrete ? Does it work as phases ? You're making a good point that the newly produced point of a theory, that comes and add up to an older one, makes both of those as important to each other. But as you imply, this way of doing thing, adding to older theory does work only in a world filled of innovation. How can we use theories of the past about a world of the past in order to understand the actual word with things that didn't exist in the older one... I completely agree on that point with you and I hadn't think about that. Finally, I think there is plenty of room for new theories, we just have to find it. Thank you for this very nice reflection
Comment 9 : Salut, Very nice reflection that sums up very nicely the idea behind theories. You mention Ockham's razor, which is a very pragmatic thing to use in your daily life but i'm not very sure it applies here with your definition, because later in your reflection you mention theory as a thought process were you resolve and undo and make the clear distinctions becomes unclear. Ockham's razor is the exact opposite, to make a confusing situation into a simpler one. But in an other senses I can understand the idea behind what you meant. I agree that theories are enabling and easing the process of understanding the world, they allow human being to have a structured vision of the world, understand how things interact with each other while being affected by time and space. Once lots of those standards theory that allows us to understand the structure of our world we start conceptualising it. Once again, it's all bout the framework. What would happen if time were going backward... Using Kant's sentence in order to make order the relation between research and theory is pretty well done, very interesting thought. Thank you for the reflection !
Comment 10 : Salut, You are pointing some interesting information, however I disagree with you on the fact that if a theory is already existing and commonly accepted, if a new theory comes in play, and if it invalidates completely the one is place them at least in the science community, they will change their mind about their vision of things instantly. But I still believe that old theory can still help you understand things that the new wouldn't be able. We learn as well when we are in the wrong. But I agree that if we are speaking about the common people, then the time before they think different will take at least one generation or ever more depending on how it was implemented. (#Religion) I totally agree on your last point, and I think those are the limitation of EP paper. They state a problem, you know this problem exist, but you just have no idea how to deal with it now. They studied the question, they should be able to come up with at least a beginning of an answer to the problem they are raising. Thank you for your reflection !
Comments :
Comment 1 :
Allo,
I understand that the scientist you mention claim that quantitative data are a more trusted way to obtain an understanding of a situation, because the higher the number the more accurate the answer. Unfortunately and as you say, this can leads to a certain problem in the research which is that you can based your results on the numbers only and those number won't cover the entire story behind it. There is a saying that Numbers never lie. But number doesn't always say the whole truth. Especially if the aim of the study is to get an understanding of a situation.
I agree with the limitation of qualitative data and the difficulty to create question of our own, clear, simple and easy to answer. Definition needs to be made, no negation can be used, the goal to remember here is to make everyone understand the same thing so they can answer truthfully and with a fully comprehension of what we ask. Good point.
Thanks
Comment 2 : Allo, Thank you for your reflection, yes lots of research are based on quantitative method because they base their research on numbers, data, information they can gather as much as possible in order to get a wider view of their study. Then they match their information between each other and try to understand what they mean. When trying to understand a problem, quantitative research offers a global point of view that his very good for understanding. We often say that we need to see the bigger picture. Now that you mention caucasian only in the study is that it was in spain so this is mostly the biggest part of the population. But thinking the result would change completely based on the origin of people is a bit racist, don't you think ? Even though if the body ownership illusion makes us act as the gender we see already is ... Good reflection though !
Comment 3 : Allo, You are making a very valid point. In a research if we just focus on collecting, gathering data all over the place and that the base on what the research is made is false, misleading and can't be comprehensive, the information we gather will be totally wrong or at least not answering the initial research, the hypothesis. And yes I think researchers that spend a lot of time in their research and can't find an answer to their problem after 10 years of their life would be most likely to cheat a bit in order to get a first answer in the good direction (At least ... thats what they do in the movies). But I think when you you to show your study or if you want to publish it in a journal, then it will get verified and they will certainly see the mistakes you/ve made.
Comment 4 : Allo, I dont think this is a generalisation that needs to be made the fact that we can't tell them what the aim of the study. Lying or not saying anything to the participants might not be a good thing for every research. I think it depends on what we study and what we aim to. Even though the time to get your paper approved after month may be considered as a bad thing as a researcher because you wait for it, but I think it needs that time so only the proper paper can be approved. On an other blog, someone said that a co student of his had wrong data, wrong information about the study he did. Therefore having a last control, allows to have only the approved and verified content into the papers and as a paper reader you will find this way more professional to know that every paper are approved. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 5 : Allo, I totally agree on the fact that the study needs to be totally under control. this is a point that has been repeated over and over during the seminar, that we need to test the study. If we do a part of the study differently each time then the answer doesn't make any sense in a well made study. You're making such a clear difference between qualitative and quantitative, this was very nice to read and I couldn't agree more on that. This is the foundation of qualitative, makes things clear because one abnormality makes the total study wrong or incorrect and might be hard to go through the approving phase. Thank for your reflection
Comment 6 : Allo, I totally agree that qualitative and quantitative should be and are complementary, this is two different approach allowing a better understanding of a situation from two different angle. This makes me thing of substructure and superstructure what you mention. The researchers uses their ability to understand data, understand the meaning behind it, then they explain it and show it to the world through medias, and once the substructure (Here the research on a certain thing) changed it will affect as you say the behaviour on how we perceive this specific research. Takes time. You bring some very interesting point at the end of your reflections, the false belief that is brought by so many raw data that the standard human doesn't get at first without the knowledge of the study therefore, it starts with one to misunderstanding it and he will share the false information that will spread like plague. Very interesting reflection, thank you
Comment 7 : Allo, This is a very good reflection you brought here. But i think this is the point of qualitative research, is that they don't procure an overall understanding of thing through pattern of data but more an answer to the why and how. This is focused on why this instead of that. I think using both method may end up to a wider understanding of the situation therefore a better result and a better research. I agree that quantitative are less subjective than qualitative but doesn't mean that qualitative are totally subjective, they have their part of Objectivity otherwise the result would change everytime we realise the study. But since we are dealing with numbers most of the time in quantitative it appears that this is way more objective. Thank you for the reflexion
Comment 8 : Allo, This is a very interesting point you are bringing to the discussion here. The replication is and should be totally what you described it should be. A paper that has more than 10 others studies trying to disprove it or studied from a different angle makes it more closer to the truth. I used to say in the early theme that the truth is true until proven otherwise. But at some point, aren't we going hit the wall and the universal truth that will never be changed again ? Anyway, trying to disregard an actual theory and ending up saying the same thing is what makes is strong. I hadn't thought about it so thats why im exciting to read and write a comment on that. But I can understand the point of view of the researchers that they dont go for a redo of an actual theory because they won't prove something new, discover a pattern in something, they won't contribute on a discovery level. And the newness thing of things is what makes researchers research...
Comment 9 : Allo, I understand that in a qualitative research the researchers needs to interpret data and that can go in a different way for each researcher doing this study, but I think there are no other way because the researcher brings his own knowledge to the understanding of the gathered data. Therefore, him and only him can interpret and explain in a simpler ways the results of his study based on what he knows and on what he expects the result to be (Because we often have an idea of what we are looking for). Even though the lack of interest for redoing research is low it stays important in the research world to fortify prior theories by redoing them and ending up in a similar result. This is the bad work, low work of the field because you dont get any rewards if you find the same result, this is low reward compared to the amount of work. But it does amplifies the previous study and makes it more solid in term of trustworthiness ! Thank you for your reflection
Comment 10 : Allo, I totally agree with what you said in your reflection you also point out one point that I used as well but someone in the comment made me realise of that mistake, so I just share it with you as well. You say that The researchers do not just make up their own questionnaires towards answering the hypotheses at hand. Instead, they use the standard ones, which have already been tested before. which is true in a way but it s also false because they can create their own questionnaires in order to answer their own hypotheses but it is very harder and a longer process which can end up totally wrong at the end so it's not often made but you can't, as I did, exclude totally the possibility to do so. very interesting reflection thought ! Thanks
Comment 2 : Allo, Thank you for your reflection, yes lots of research are based on quantitative method because they base their research on numbers, data, information they can gather as much as possible in order to get a wider view of their study. Then they match their information between each other and try to understand what they mean. When trying to understand a problem, quantitative research offers a global point of view that his very good for understanding. We often say that we need to see the bigger picture. Now that you mention caucasian only in the study is that it was in spain so this is mostly the biggest part of the population. But thinking the result would change completely based on the origin of people is a bit racist, don't you think ? Even though if the body ownership illusion makes us act as the gender we see already is ... Good reflection though !
Comment 3 : Allo, You are making a very valid point. In a research if we just focus on collecting, gathering data all over the place and that the base on what the research is made is false, misleading and can't be comprehensive, the information we gather will be totally wrong or at least not answering the initial research, the hypothesis. And yes I think researchers that spend a lot of time in their research and can't find an answer to their problem after 10 years of their life would be most likely to cheat a bit in order to get a first answer in the good direction (At least ... thats what they do in the movies). But I think when you you to show your study or if you want to publish it in a journal, then it will get verified and they will certainly see the mistakes you/ve made.
Comment 4 : Allo, I dont think this is a generalisation that needs to be made the fact that we can't tell them what the aim of the study. Lying or not saying anything to the participants might not be a good thing for every research. I think it depends on what we study and what we aim to. Even though the time to get your paper approved after month may be considered as a bad thing as a researcher because you wait for it, but I think it needs that time so only the proper paper can be approved. On an other blog, someone said that a co student of his had wrong data, wrong information about the study he did. Therefore having a last control, allows to have only the approved and verified content into the papers and as a paper reader you will find this way more professional to know that every paper are approved. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 5 : Allo, I totally agree on the fact that the study needs to be totally under control. this is a point that has been repeated over and over during the seminar, that we need to test the study. If we do a part of the study differently each time then the answer doesn't make any sense in a well made study. You're making such a clear difference between qualitative and quantitative, this was very nice to read and I couldn't agree more on that. This is the foundation of qualitative, makes things clear because one abnormality makes the total study wrong or incorrect and might be hard to go through the approving phase. Thank for your reflection
Comment 6 : Allo, I totally agree that qualitative and quantitative should be and are complementary, this is two different approach allowing a better understanding of a situation from two different angle. This makes me thing of substructure and superstructure what you mention. The researchers uses their ability to understand data, understand the meaning behind it, then they explain it and show it to the world through medias, and once the substructure (Here the research on a certain thing) changed it will affect as you say the behaviour on how we perceive this specific research. Takes time. You bring some very interesting point at the end of your reflections, the false belief that is brought by so many raw data that the standard human doesn't get at first without the knowledge of the study therefore, it starts with one to misunderstanding it and he will share the false information that will spread like plague. Very interesting reflection, thank you
Comment 7 : Allo, This is a very good reflection you brought here. But i think this is the point of qualitative research, is that they don't procure an overall understanding of thing through pattern of data but more an answer to the why and how. This is focused on why this instead of that. I think using both method may end up to a wider understanding of the situation therefore a better result and a better research. I agree that quantitative are less subjective than qualitative but doesn't mean that qualitative are totally subjective, they have their part of Objectivity otherwise the result would change everytime we realise the study. But since we are dealing with numbers most of the time in quantitative it appears that this is way more objective. Thank you for the reflexion
Comment 8 : Allo, This is a very interesting point you are bringing to the discussion here. The replication is and should be totally what you described it should be. A paper that has more than 10 others studies trying to disprove it or studied from a different angle makes it more closer to the truth. I used to say in the early theme that the truth is true until proven otherwise. But at some point, aren't we going hit the wall and the universal truth that will never be changed again ? Anyway, trying to disregard an actual theory and ending up saying the same thing is what makes is strong. I hadn't thought about it so thats why im exciting to read and write a comment on that. But I can understand the point of view of the researchers that they dont go for a redo of an actual theory because they won't prove something new, discover a pattern in something, they won't contribute on a discovery level. And the newness thing of things is what makes researchers research...
Comment 9 : Allo, I understand that in a qualitative research the researchers needs to interpret data and that can go in a different way for each researcher doing this study, but I think there are no other way because the researcher brings his own knowledge to the understanding of the gathered data. Therefore, him and only him can interpret and explain in a simpler ways the results of his study based on what he knows and on what he expects the result to be (Because we often have an idea of what we are looking for). Even though the lack of interest for redoing research is low it stays important in the research world to fortify prior theories by redoing them and ending up in a similar result. This is the bad work, low work of the field because you dont get any rewards if you find the same result, this is low reward compared to the amount of work. But it does amplifies the previous study and makes it more solid in term of trustworthiness ! Thank you for your reflection
Comment 10 : Allo, I totally agree with what you said in your reflection you also point out one point that I used as well but someone in the comment made me realise of that mistake, so I just share it with you as well. You say that The researchers do not just make up their own questionnaires towards answering the hypotheses at hand. Instead, they use the standard ones, which have already been tested before. which is true in a way but it s also false because they can create their own questionnaires in order to answer their own hypotheses but it is very harder and a longer process which can end up totally wrong at the end so it's not often made but you can't, as I did, exclude totally the possibility to do so. very interesting reflection thought ! Thanks
Comments :
Comment 1 :
Yop,
I think design research allows to broaden the sense of a certain point of view. You said you change your point of view based on something someone said that you didn't expect or that you didn't see that way. therefore this sentence can be assimilated as a design work, and when you came to hear this sentence, it opened a different perspective on the approach of the definition or on how it works. Therefore this sentence (aka Design research) contributed to a wider knowledge for you. I hope you understand my analogy ...
finally I agree that research through design and design work are completely different work and they definitely not have the same goal afterward neither the same starting reason of working on them.
thank you for your reflection
Comment 2 : Yop, Oh very interesting reflection and some valuable information. I didn't know that the research needs to be able to show up his result up to 10 years after the research. The attention brought to something unknown brings some very interesting question upon the research. That means if for exemple the researcher forgot or didn't take care about something that could affect the study then it makes the study needs to have a start over. This is what the lecturer mentioned as well that we often need a study of a study then with the result get another study etc. Ive watched your video "out of the box" concerning the attribution of the pig's part to at least 190 other objects. Makes us wonder what kind of other raw material is used to that many different objects that we use on a daily life basis. All linked to knowledge once again... Very good reflection thanks!
Comment 3 : Yop, seems like you grasped the idea pretty well ! I agree that the investigation leads to new redesign and redefinition of the actual and first Idea. That makes the journey the actual knowledge. Because by learning through experiencing your view on the matter evolves at the same time. Therefore you end up with an actual research on the research, and can finally come up with a qualitative study. And this is what makes the data analysed interesting, because once you've done that path to where you are at the end, you can definitely give a meaning to the data you gathered along the way. And without that path, analysing the data without that experience wouldn't make much sense. Thank you for your reflection.
Comment 4 : Yop, You're making a valid point saying that those children and the replicate study didn't interact with each other that much as before because of the new way on how the research was presented. And I think it does alternate a bit the result because if this is not the same background or way to do things, a certain change can make us think different and therefore act different. And pointing that out makes us reflect on why we have to think about every aspect of the research. Like Anders said that in his study the GPS would have blurred the result because the attention would be focused on that ! This is cool it made you think about your thesis already ! Thanks
Comment 5 : Yop, You are raising an interesting point by the statement of your fellow student and on the fact that this is rather open definition that doesn't really get the point of the adjusting part. I really like your definition, that makes exact words on my vision of things. And I totally agree that what makes qualitative research, qualitative research. But even though this is the heart of the qualitative research, when publishing a paper about this, you can't tell all the steps you have taken to arrive there. So this is a bit of a paradoxe. You are able to adjust it a lot of time in order to get the process right, but at the end, it's better if you dont mention all those steps in the paper otherwise you would lose the attention of the reader and that wouldn't make much sense ... And I stand by your opinion as well, we do evolve as well as the technology and our view on things change and modify over time. So redoing a experience after 10 years, should be considerate as a new experience ... Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 6 : Yop, Very interesting reflection on the matter, I really like your writing skills, makes the reading faster ! "One could argue" about replicability but I dont think his argument would go very far. Since it's proven that we interact differently with objects over time, therefore if we reproduce 10 years later a study, I dont think we would obtain quite the same result. For example, if we studied the behaviour of people around cigarette in a close space 10 years ago and today, there would be much of a difference even if we have the EXACT SAME way of processing. As all the other comments above mentioned, I really appreciated the reminder of the 4D! Completely forgot about those and they make the process very clearer. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 7 : Yop, You are making a valid point as starter. What would be the opposite of empirical data, since those are based on observation and verifiable, what would be logic as you mentioned is that they are speculation whose cannot be verified, hello god. later on you mention that not everything need to be thought of, I disagree a bit on that since this is the principal source of problem of a researcher is to know that he has thought about everything. Even if along the ways he learns new things, he cannot just ignore some facts just because he is most likely gonna learn more while researching it. Therefore, being able to explain all those steps he took makes it even more important for him to think about everything. But very nice reflection it sounds like you wider your knowledge on that subject ! Thanks
Comment 8 : Yop, I like how you reflected on the evolution on how you thought about it. I agree with the fact that RtD is quiet complex in order to reach what we really want to. Some things we added may not turned out the way we thought they would. For example in an smartphone app, what kind of button the main menu would be in order to works properly, swipe, hold, simple action ? Finding the correct way to do in order to have correct results may be the essence of RtD. Your fellow student made a valid point, im glad you reflected on that and shared it on the blog. Snapshot of a specific moment and group of people. Bringing attention so something unknown is the based of our first theme with Socrate. Knowing what we dont... This is pretty interesting to find that everything is related. thank you for your reflection !
Comment 9 : Yop, I always enjoy reading your reflection, you have a very nice approach on the matter. I totally agree on the fact that we, humans, have a different approach of technology and will definitely have a total different approach in the next 50 years or so. Therefore, reproducing a research involving this enormous change in the technology would result in a different outcome. A TVShow reflects on that, called Black Mirror, seeing how the technology will affect our lives in the near/long future. So the example of the children using iPhone to recreate an original study would alter their behaviour. But I don't think recreating a research is just to find that answer that will always come out, no matter the timespace. Redoing a research add some credibility to the background of this research. We can never be sure to have the truth, the universal truth as you say, but the more we experience it from different ways, different perspective, the more we can base the next researchs that will come up on that and by extension add it to the Humanity's knowledge. if we don't have solid bases we won't move on. As you mention a bit later in your reflection is that social study doesn't aim for one final answer that will suit everything. But to understand why and how we arrived to this result and understanding it. Im surprised that hard science can have this effect as well, I was in the logic you mentioned, if this is wrong, this is just wrong. It does shake the logic behind hard science, would love to read more about this ! Thank you for your reflection anyhow, Enjoyed reading it !
Comment 10 : Yop, I agree with you on the fact that design research is an analyse of a specific object of element we intended to use. Once we analyzed that and once we analysed in which situation that specific tools works for the best and with the intentional use we aimed for works as well, then we can start gathering data with this, but along the way the process of finding it the perfect is long and repetitive and must be open to mistakes. It seems after reading a lot of blogs about it that time is the essence of design research. You conclude your reflection with time as well which is altered by social and/or cultural challenges. I really enjoy the quote from your fellow student and the explanation. This is what the lecturer warned us about, we might be free to change along the way but keeping the essential in the end is important part. Considering this, if every research skipped some key process because it was too long and too boring, the replicate process may be altered and difficult to reproduce ! Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 2 : Yop, Oh very interesting reflection and some valuable information. I didn't know that the research needs to be able to show up his result up to 10 years after the research. The attention brought to something unknown brings some very interesting question upon the research. That means if for exemple the researcher forgot or didn't take care about something that could affect the study then it makes the study needs to have a start over. This is what the lecturer mentioned as well that we often need a study of a study then with the result get another study etc. Ive watched your video "out of the box" concerning the attribution of the pig's part to at least 190 other objects. Makes us wonder what kind of other raw material is used to that many different objects that we use on a daily life basis. All linked to knowledge once again... Very good reflection thanks!
Comment 3 : Yop, seems like you grasped the idea pretty well ! I agree that the investigation leads to new redesign and redefinition of the actual and first Idea. That makes the journey the actual knowledge. Because by learning through experiencing your view on the matter evolves at the same time. Therefore you end up with an actual research on the research, and can finally come up with a qualitative study. And this is what makes the data analysed interesting, because once you've done that path to where you are at the end, you can definitely give a meaning to the data you gathered along the way. And without that path, analysing the data without that experience wouldn't make much sense. Thank you for your reflection.
Comment 4 : Yop, You're making a valid point saying that those children and the replicate study didn't interact with each other that much as before because of the new way on how the research was presented. And I think it does alternate a bit the result because if this is not the same background or way to do things, a certain change can make us think different and therefore act different. And pointing that out makes us reflect on why we have to think about every aspect of the research. Like Anders said that in his study the GPS would have blurred the result because the attention would be focused on that ! This is cool it made you think about your thesis already ! Thanks
Comment 5 : Yop, You are raising an interesting point by the statement of your fellow student and on the fact that this is rather open definition that doesn't really get the point of the adjusting part. I really like your definition, that makes exact words on my vision of things. And I totally agree that what makes qualitative research, qualitative research. But even though this is the heart of the qualitative research, when publishing a paper about this, you can't tell all the steps you have taken to arrive there. So this is a bit of a paradoxe. You are able to adjust it a lot of time in order to get the process right, but at the end, it's better if you dont mention all those steps in the paper otherwise you would lose the attention of the reader and that wouldn't make much sense ... And I stand by your opinion as well, we do evolve as well as the technology and our view on things change and modify over time. So redoing a experience after 10 years, should be considerate as a new experience ... Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 6 : Yop, Very interesting reflection on the matter, I really like your writing skills, makes the reading faster ! "One could argue" about replicability but I dont think his argument would go very far. Since it's proven that we interact differently with objects over time, therefore if we reproduce 10 years later a study, I dont think we would obtain quite the same result. For example, if we studied the behaviour of people around cigarette in a close space 10 years ago and today, there would be much of a difference even if we have the EXACT SAME way of processing. As all the other comments above mentioned, I really appreciated the reminder of the 4D! Completely forgot about those and they make the process very clearer. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 7 : Yop, You are making a valid point as starter. What would be the opposite of empirical data, since those are based on observation and verifiable, what would be logic as you mentioned is that they are speculation whose cannot be verified, hello god. later on you mention that not everything need to be thought of, I disagree a bit on that since this is the principal source of problem of a researcher is to know that he has thought about everything. Even if along the ways he learns new things, he cannot just ignore some facts just because he is most likely gonna learn more while researching it. Therefore, being able to explain all those steps he took makes it even more important for him to think about everything. But very nice reflection it sounds like you wider your knowledge on that subject ! Thanks
Comment 8 : Yop, I like how you reflected on the evolution on how you thought about it. I agree with the fact that RtD is quiet complex in order to reach what we really want to. Some things we added may not turned out the way we thought they would. For example in an smartphone app, what kind of button the main menu would be in order to works properly, swipe, hold, simple action ? Finding the correct way to do in order to have correct results may be the essence of RtD. Your fellow student made a valid point, im glad you reflected on that and shared it on the blog. Snapshot of a specific moment and group of people. Bringing attention so something unknown is the based of our first theme with Socrate. Knowing what we dont... This is pretty interesting to find that everything is related. thank you for your reflection !
Comment 9 : Yop, I always enjoy reading your reflection, you have a very nice approach on the matter. I totally agree on the fact that we, humans, have a different approach of technology and will definitely have a total different approach in the next 50 years or so. Therefore, reproducing a research involving this enormous change in the technology would result in a different outcome. A TVShow reflects on that, called Black Mirror, seeing how the technology will affect our lives in the near/long future. So the example of the children using iPhone to recreate an original study would alter their behaviour. But I don't think recreating a research is just to find that answer that will always come out, no matter the timespace. Redoing a research add some credibility to the background of this research. We can never be sure to have the truth, the universal truth as you say, but the more we experience it from different ways, different perspective, the more we can base the next researchs that will come up on that and by extension add it to the Humanity's knowledge. if we don't have solid bases we won't move on. As you mention a bit later in your reflection is that social study doesn't aim for one final answer that will suit everything. But to understand why and how we arrived to this result and understanding it. Im surprised that hard science can have this effect as well, I was in the logic you mentioned, if this is wrong, this is just wrong. It does shake the logic behind hard science, would love to read more about this ! Thank you for your reflection anyhow, Enjoyed reading it !
Comment 10 : Yop, I agree with you on the fact that design research is an analyse of a specific object of element we intended to use. Once we analyzed that and once we analysed in which situation that specific tools works for the best and with the intentional use we aimed for works as well, then we can start gathering data with this, but along the way the process of finding it the perfect is long and repetitive and must be open to mistakes. It seems after reading a lot of blogs about it that time is the essence of design research. You conclude your reflection with time as well which is altered by social and/or cultural challenges. I really enjoy the quote from your fellow student and the explanation. This is what the lecturer warned us about, we might be free to change along the way but keeping the essential in the end is important part. Considering this, if every research skipped some key process because it was too long and too boring, the replicate process may be altered and difficult to reproduce ! Thank you for your reflection !
Comments :
Comment 1 :
Oy,
You're making some great point in your conclusions, it does gives a perspective on a matter as a singularity to better understand the generalisation.
Therefore what seemed complex gets easier to understand as we come from from an example of an actual matter, research. Instead of being and staying in the full theory.
Good reflection thanks
Comment 2 : OOy, I hadn't added the different structures we could have had, multidisciplinary , interdisciplinary, transidisciplinary. I think they are a great distinctions to make in the researchs so we have a distinction in the sample. I do think that prior knowledge makes the contribution more positive because we have the knowledge required to understand the result we get. Thanks
Comment 3 : Oy, I totally on the point that you are making that we need the participants in the study on their right mind. If they have a definition or a wrong perceptions of something, their result would be altered and useless to the original research, in some case the misperceptions could be totally off track. Thanks for the reflection
Comment 4 : Oy, You are raising an interesting point with the paper you've chosen. I had thought about the prior knowledge as a benefit for the researcher but thinking that this knowledge would result as a biased thinking therefore leading to a biased research leading to biased result didn't cross my mind. This is interesting to think of it, but I think if this happens it does make you a bad researcher because you are looking for what you to see and not what you are truly seeing. It should never be the case. Good point, thanks for your reflection
Comment 5 : Oy, your post made me reflect on the connection there can be between a case study and the use of different combination of other research technique. I had a hard time discerning if my paper was a case study or not and this is the same reason I had to deal with in order to find out. I dont think a study needs a real direction but it needs to have a field and from there, the anarchic way to do it can be done and then the research question comes up by itself and lead the path. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 6 : Oy, I must mention the use of the meta method, important point of your reflection. yes it does not have a specific and original method for each case study but does based itself on the existing method in order to make it suitable for the case we are studying on. Therefore a case study by itself without any reliable method cannot be properly researched. And usually, as you mentioned, the name case study is rarely used since this is a research on a case, it should do speak for itself, but the qualitative or quantitative method is named. And you are raising an interesting point that case study needs to be studied after the event, like the earthquake, we can only study it after the earthquake is passed. We can't really recreate it on purpose for science knowledge only, wouldn't be really fair to the people that will experiment it. But that makes it an interesting approach for a research. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 7 : Oy, I do agree that the more data we get the more information we can get out of it and ideally the more perfect we can understand the process we are researching. But in case study the idea is to understand a complex way through a case that can be follow step by step. Usually, following thousands case required lots of energy and it also depends on which field and what question you aim to study. For the study of the one year car free, having thousand people to follow up every week or month would be an administrative nightmare and a time consuming task for a lot of people ! I agree on the fact that minor intervention doesn't really alter the process but in some case its hard to evaluate how the impact of a certain thing is going to make people react. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 8 : Oy, Having assumptions before going to research should end up in a biased result for certain research. because if you go out in order to find out why to a question and you think you know certain things based on your experience, you might totally influence the research and end up with result based on your wrong assumptions. Which would look bad on paper at the end... or for the commun knowledge. I think you can go on the field with a specific research question but I dont think its the most important thing to have. but if you do, then it can be changed throughout the experience since you discover and learn new things you can readjust or change completely your research question. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 9 : Oy, Yes having to research on a case study in order to come up with a research question and gather more information on a certain matter would define the subject but I dont think it is exclusively for that matter. You could have as well a research question that doesn't have the correct information or partial and studying a case would provide more data on the question. But I agree that in order to find a question, the case study is most likely the better choice, depending on the field as well. I think having 9 different case study with different prerequisite requires a stronger man power in order to follow everything on a perfect/research level. Therefore, its not usually the case to have 9 companies to study on. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 10 : Oy, very interesting point you are bringing here to the reflection. I reflected as well on the matter or not the case study should be aware or not. But I think, as you mentioned, it all depends on the goal of the actual study. When the participant is aware of why and on what he is observed, studied, his behaviour could change. This is called social disability, when one in order to make a good impression do certain things because he thinks this is what he should do. And in this case, it provides the researchers with faked result that doesn't give a true visual on the matter. but in certain studies, making the participant aware, like the one free year car is obviously the right thing to do ! Thank for your reflection !
Comment 2 : OOy, I hadn't added the different structures we could have had, multidisciplinary , interdisciplinary, transidisciplinary. I think they are a great distinctions to make in the researchs so we have a distinction in the sample. I do think that prior knowledge makes the contribution more positive because we have the knowledge required to understand the result we get. Thanks
Comment 3 : Oy, I totally on the point that you are making that we need the participants in the study on their right mind. If they have a definition or a wrong perceptions of something, their result would be altered and useless to the original research, in some case the misperceptions could be totally off track. Thanks for the reflection
Comment 4 : Oy, You are raising an interesting point with the paper you've chosen. I had thought about the prior knowledge as a benefit for the researcher but thinking that this knowledge would result as a biased thinking therefore leading to a biased research leading to biased result didn't cross my mind. This is interesting to think of it, but I think if this happens it does make you a bad researcher because you are looking for what you to see and not what you are truly seeing. It should never be the case. Good point, thanks for your reflection
Comment 5 : Oy, your post made me reflect on the connection there can be between a case study and the use of different combination of other research technique. I had a hard time discerning if my paper was a case study or not and this is the same reason I had to deal with in order to find out. I dont think a study needs a real direction but it needs to have a field and from there, the anarchic way to do it can be done and then the research question comes up by itself and lead the path. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 6 : Oy, I must mention the use of the meta method, important point of your reflection. yes it does not have a specific and original method for each case study but does based itself on the existing method in order to make it suitable for the case we are studying on. Therefore a case study by itself without any reliable method cannot be properly researched. And usually, as you mentioned, the name case study is rarely used since this is a research on a case, it should do speak for itself, but the qualitative or quantitative method is named. And you are raising an interesting point that case study needs to be studied after the event, like the earthquake, we can only study it after the earthquake is passed. We can't really recreate it on purpose for science knowledge only, wouldn't be really fair to the people that will experiment it. But that makes it an interesting approach for a research. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 7 : Oy, I do agree that the more data we get the more information we can get out of it and ideally the more perfect we can understand the process we are researching. But in case study the idea is to understand a complex way through a case that can be follow step by step. Usually, following thousands case required lots of energy and it also depends on which field and what question you aim to study. For the study of the one year car free, having thousand people to follow up every week or month would be an administrative nightmare and a time consuming task for a lot of people ! I agree on the fact that minor intervention doesn't really alter the process but in some case its hard to evaluate how the impact of a certain thing is going to make people react. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 8 : Oy, Having assumptions before going to research should end up in a biased result for certain research. because if you go out in order to find out why to a question and you think you know certain things based on your experience, you might totally influence the research and end up with result based on your wrong assumptions. Which would look bad on paper at the end... or for the commun knowledge. I think you can go on the field with a specific research question but I dont think its the most important thing to have. but if you do, then it can be changed throughout the experience since you discover and learn new things you can readjust or change completely your research question. Thank you for your reflection
Comment 9 : Oy, Yes having to research on a case study in order to come up with a research question and gather more information on a certain matter would define the subject but I dont think it is exclusively for that matter. You could have as well a research question that doesn't have the correct information or partial and studying a case would provide more data on the question. But I agree that in order to find a question, the case study is most likely the better choice, depending on the field as well. I think having 9 different case study with different prerequisite requires a stronger man power in order to follow everything on a perfect/research level. Therefore, its not usually the case to have 9 companies to study on. Thank you for your reflection !
Comment 10 : Oy, very interesting point you are bringing here to the reflection. I reflected as well on the matter or not the case study should be aware or not. But I think, as you mentioned, it all depends on the goal of the actual study. When the participant is aware of why and on what he is observed, studied, his behaviour could change. This is called social disability, when one in order to make a good impression do certain things because he thinks this is what he should do. And in this case, it provides the researchers with faked result that doesn't give a true visual on the matter. but in certain studies, making the participant aware, like the one free year car is obviously the right thing to do ! Thank for your reflection !
No comments:
Post a Comment