Theme 1: Theory of
knowledge and theory of science
1.
Hi,
During the seminar I attended a discussion was made on the differences between
Kant’s and Plato’s view on objectivity in knowledge. (I came to think of it
when I read about what you had discussed about the metaphor of God’s point of
view and the conception of scientific knowledge.)
In that discussion it was said that Kant means that we cannot ignore our senses
when we try to develop knowledge. However Plato means that we are able to find
a way to not let our senses be a part of the knowledge we develop and that we
should strive for that objectivity.
I like that you both mention the different terms you have learnt and also show
that you have learnt them by having explanations and/or examples for them.
2.
I think that you have asked an interesting question
with “is a priori = an analytical judgement?”
To add to earlier comment I have an
example:
During a lecture these words were
discussed. And as far as I understand they mean the same thing, even though
they are two different ways of saying the same thing. An example that was
mentioned was:
“There are pupils in this class” =
analytical judgement.
“There are 39 pupils in the class” =
synthetic judgement.
An analytical judgement means that
what is being stated does not need for someone to see if the statement is true.
As in “there are pupils in this class”, because the word “class” is a word that
in itself means “a group of pupils”. So we know without double checking that it
is true that there are pupils in a class.
A synthetic judgement means that we
can only know that the statement is true by experiencing/testing. To know if
the statement “there are 39 pupils in the class” is true we have to calculate
the pupils in the room to see if the statement is true.
Now I believe that to say “to have
knowledge a priori” means the same as the knowledge being an analytical
judgement. We do not have to have experience to know a priori to be true.
To say that a knowledge is “a
posteriori” means that it is a knowledge that requires experience before we
know the knowledge to be true. It is therefore equal to a synthetic judgement.
I hope I did not misunderstand your
question!
3.
Great summary and I also think that it can be difficult
to understand the different concepts at times.
I agree with you that it is a whole
new way of approaching a question, to sit and discuss it without really having
a clear answer in the end. In the seminar I attended we entered the topic of
“is a table actually a table?” And that discussion ended with “it is, because
the majority can accept the concept of the object being a table. But some might
not agree on that concept and perceive the object as something else”.
To add to the comment on getting to
know what you thought before and after the seminar: Seeing that you mention
different concepts that you have discussed I think that it would be interesting
to read what you learned about the concepts from those discussions :).
4.
I do not think you are alone about feeling that the
texts are confusing (at least I felt the same way). Sounds like a good thing to
mark words and concepts in the texts while reading them!
I think that maybe you can use some examples or further explanations about your
thoughts in your blog posts? It seems like you have thoughts about the
different concepts in the texts, and it would be interesting to read what they
are :).
I have a question about where you wrote:
“Things like analytic judgement, where you will know after investigating
something (aposteriori knowledge), sounded quite intriguing.”
Do you mean that an analytic judgement = aposteriori knowledge?
I might be mistaken but I interpreted it to be that:
Analytic judgement = a priori knowledge
And
Synthetic judgement = aposteriori knowledge
5.
Your reflective text is easy to follow and I too found
that I felt like I got a deeper understanding of the texts after the seminars
and the lectures.
I also think that when you say that you tried to “simplify something very
complex” you are not alone! These texts share some complex thoughts on
knowledge and how we perceive things, and it is hard to understand it all at
once.
However I liked the fact that you tried to “simplify” things in your first blog
post in terms of you writing examples on how you understood the texts. They
made it easier to understand how you interpreted the texts.
6.
I think that both of your blog posts are well written
and I think that your first blog post showed that you understood Kant’s and
Plato’s texts really well! I did not think of reading study guides or text
analysis, but they seem to help give a good understanding of the texts.
I found it interesting that you mention that you think that you after the
seminar and lecture no longer agree with your previous answers to the
questions. (I felt the same way about my own blog post)
It would be interesting to read how your answers differ now compared to the
answers in your earlier blog post.
7.
Did you discuss Plato’s text in the seminar? Did you
learn anything new about Plato’s ideas concerning knowledge and perception
after your first blog post?
Side note: In your first blog post you switch between using quotation marks and
colon when you quote a person, the quotation marks made it easier to read. (I
am referring to the sentence that starts with “What he says is: since
metaphysics hasn’t been able to enter upon…”)
I did not think of reading the texts referred to in our texts. That sounds like
a good way to understand their thoughts better!
8.
I like your blog design and the fact that your
reflection is easy to follow. It sounds like you had an interesting example to
explain a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Before reading your blog post I
had only heard explanations in the form of “bachelors” and “pupils”. It would
have been interesting to hear how the discussion about “E.T.” and a “rabbit”
discussion went and how it helped you in order to understand the two concepts
:).
9.
I like the fact that you use the terms presented in the
texts when you are discussing the answers to the questions.
I think it would be interesting to read some more about what you feel that you
have learned or what concept you think of differently after the seminar and
lecture. It would also be interesting to hear some examples of what you
discussed during the seminar :).
10. I
think that both of your blog posts had very well explained thoughts in them and
were easy to follow. I think that you did a great job on giving examples and
explaining the concepts a priori and posteriori knowledge. And in your first
blog post I think that your method to do research on what Kant opposes to in
order to get a better understanding of his ideas is really interesting.
Theme
2: Critical media studies
1.
I think your reflection really captured what we have
talked about in seminars and what has been presented during the lecture. I like
your explanation of why Adorno & Horkheimer thought of nominalism as
something that could be used in a negative manner in movies. I also like that
you have written a clear distinction of how Adorno & Horkheimer think that
media can affect people versus how Benjamin think that media could affect
people.
I think that you have understood the terms we have discussed and I think that
your last part was very interesting, and would have liked to read more and
maybe have gotten some examples of what you mean by us thinking freely by
conceptualising what we see.
2.
I find your text very easy to follow and you are good
at summarizing what you have learnt. I find the last part of your reflection
interesting. Especially where you write that media “takes away people’s
ambition for change. Just as enlightenment, media fails to question the world.
“
I find the discussion about mass media and media in these seminars interesting,
because I am curious as to what kind of media we sometimes are discussing. My
thought is that media in the form of cinema and media in the form of news are
different ways of talking about media. With that in mind, maybe media in some
cases is able to raise awareness by mirroring a current situation, and thereby
encourage a change?
3.
I really like your explanation of Platonic realism, it
explains the concept well and is easy to understand. I think it shows that you
have a good understanding of it.
I think that the examples with the paintings in the Swedish university are
interesting, and it would have been interesting to hear more about what you
think the connection between them and historically influenced perception is:).
4.
I agree that it is interesting how time and perception
are connected in a sense. I like that you elaborated your thoughts on time and
perception with your own example, and not only with examples from the lecture.
Do you mean that:
A nominalist would not question the chair. It is a chair, it stands there and
it looks a certain way and that is it.
The realist, however, would look at it as a perception of a chair. It is “not
only” a chair to a realist, it is our perception that tells us that it is a
chair. There is more to it than we perceive?
If you do, then I think I understood what you meant by the example with the
chair.
5.
It seems like you had an interesting seminar with an
interesting discussion on mass media. I agree that naturally and historically
determined perception are interesting concepts!
I think your overall discussion and thoughts about historically determined
perception is easy to follow and interesting to read.
Sometimes I feel that you do not follow through with explaining your thoughts
and the structure of the reflection becomes a bit unclear. However you should
follow your thoughts through, they are interesting to read :)! For example in
the beginning where you mention eight questions that helped you understand
clearly. What were the questions? What did they help you understand?
Theme
3: Research and theory
1.
Hi,
I like your discussion on truth and that you connect it with what we have
learnt earlier in the course. I think that you have given an interesting
perspective on how we develop theories by comparing this to the earlier
discussions on how we develop knowledge.
To add to your discussion on having old theories and making new once, there is
also the situations where the new theories replaces the old ones, which the
term “paradigm shift” refers to.
2.
Hi,
I think that your reflection was very interesting to read. We also discussed if
there are any “absolute truths” during the seminar I attended. I feel like my
thoughts on it are similar to what you have written. We will never be
absolutely sure that we have found a theory that is true. In other words even
if we were to develop a theory that is true we will not have a way of being
absolutely certain of it being so. Furthermore I was intrigued by your
discussion on that there are no theories that are not built upon other
theories. It made me think: “what theory was the first theory that humans
developed?”
Interesting discussions and interesting read!
3.
Hi,
I found your post interesting in terms of understanding difference in the term
theory itself. I think that your discussion on which concept of theory,
philosophical theory or scientific theory, is the more objective one is really
interesting. I think that it all depends on what one means by “objective”. If
objective would mean that the theory should not be able to be further developed
or questioned I do not think that either concept of theory could live up to
that.
Interesting discussion with interesting perspectives!
4.
Hi,
I like that you have taken what was said during the lecture and compared it to
what you found during your discussions at the seminar. The discussion you had
during the seminar on snow on trees reminded me of a discussion of perception
knowledge that was held during another seminar that I attended. There it was
said that “a table is considered being a table because enough people are
willing to except the concept of the object being a table”. We were discussing
why perception in some cases were considered knowledge. I think that both
theories and knowledge have in common that they require for people to accept
them in order to be considered more or less true.
Interesting summary and reflection of what you discussed!
5.
Hi,
I think that your reflection is well structured and you also present your
thoughts well. Interesting discussion on the contradiction between the two
authors. At first I interpreted Suttan and Staw to mean that one has to explain
or motivate why the diagrams or figures are relevant for the theory and not
only present them, which would mean that their statement not necessarily
contradicts Gregor’s statement.
During my seminar we discussed the reason behind the question “What is man?”
and we also asked Ilias. His thought was that it was a way of giving us the
experience of how a theory is formed, in this case a theory about what man is.
Theme
4: Quantitative research
1.
Hi,
I think that your reflection presents a very interesting perspective on
quantitative and qualitative data. I agree with your argument that quantitative
data is not automatically objective by being presented with numbers, and that
for example depending on which variables is decided to be included in a
questionnaire the information that will be received will be shaped from the
beginning.
To add to your discussion I came to think about the first lecture for Theme 5.
Among other topics I think that the term “curse of dimensionality” relates to
your discussion. In other words that numerical data do not always represent all
aspects/dimensions of the observations that can be made in a study. There is
information that can be difficult to include in numerical data.
Interesting reflection and great use of examples from research papers!
2.
Hi,
I think that you have written a great summary of what you have learnt and
discussed during the seminar. It seems that you had an interesting discussion
on the text about drumming and how culture was presented in it.
I also feel that the papers have given me a new understanding of how many
different ways it is possible to do research, and that not only one useful
method exists. To add to your discussion I also thought that they gave a deeper
understanding of different types of data that can be used in quantitative
research methods. As for the text about drumming where motion was measured and
later on analysed.
Great reflection with a good summary of texts and interesting discussions based
on your thoughts!
3.
Hi,
I think that it was really good that you researched the term qualitative
research in order to be more prepared for discussing the differences between
qualitative and quantitative research methods.
I also think that it was interesting to hear about the importance of testing
for example a questionnaire before handing it out to the participants. In a
paper that I read for Theme 6 they discuss how they did not test their
questions before they held interviews, and the participants thought that the
questions were difficult to understand. So I agree with you that it is
important to test the methods of collecting data before using them.
I like that you have written both what you have learnt and what methods you
have used to get a deeper understanding for Theme 4.
Interesting reflection!
4.
Hi,
I also found the lecture on "Drumming in Immersive Reality: The Body
Shapes the Way We Play" interesting. I think that you have pointed out an
interesting aspect of the paper when discussing the participants and how
representative they are. I think that your suggestion for further research have
an interesting perspective on how not only methods and data are important for
the generalisation of an experiment, yet also the participants. I had not taken
this perspective in to consideration when reading the paper at first and
therefore I found this interesting to read.
Great reflection with good explanations of your thoughts and what you have
learnt for this theme!
5.
Hi,
I think that you have an interesting discussion on collecting objective data
with the help of quantitative and qualitative research methods.
To add to your discussion on quantitative methods:
I think that an example of focusing on a minor set of data from a big set of
data is when a questionnaire consists of predefined answers. In this case the
answers lead to not collecting all types of answers to a question. Instead a
certain amount of alternatives are presented, which can be discussed in terms
of leading to objective data or not.
Great reflection with a clear explanation of the discussions held on the
different topics!
Theme
5: Design research
1.
Hi,
I think that you have a great summary on what has been said during the lectures
of this theme. To add to your discussion on the second lecture. I also found it
interesting that Anders also explained that the difference between design in
research and design in general was that design in general aims more to seem
appealing, to for example a customer, rather than to gain knowledge.
Great reflection and great summary with clear examples from what was said
during the lectures!
2.
Hi,
Your reflection gave me a new perspective on what was said during the first
lecture. I had a hard time understanding my own notes on the difference between
validating and evaluating an idea. At first I interpreted the ANOVA technique
to be a part of validating an idea. So your reflection helped me understand the
difference between these strategies better.
Interesting reflection. I think that you have a great structure of your
reflection, especially where you summarize what you have learnt from the first
lecture!
3.
Hi,
I think that you have a great reflection on what you have learnt. I like that
you have developed your discussion further by presenting your thoughts on for
example how one as an engineer can communicate design research.
To add to earlier comment made on what was being said during the second
lecture:
It was also mentioned that prototypes in themselves do not have to be the
solution in a study.
I interpreted that Anders, who held the second lecture, meant that they instead
allow for feedback to be generated that later on can be analysed and help
answer the research question.
Great reflection with interesting discussions of your own thoughts!
4.
Hi,
I think that you have a written a great summary of the lectures. I also found
the example of the bear from the first lecture to be good in terms of
clarifying the importance of defining a problem.
To add to the discussion on the second lecture:
It was also said that analysis is important in design research. He mentioned
that if the paper from Fernaeus had not included a chapter about “lessons
learned” the paper would give less knowledge and less new theories. He further
explained a definition of the term analysis.
I interpreted that analysis means to compare what has been done in the own
research project, which is called the process, with theories that exist from
earlier made research.
(I think that earlier made research also can mean that it is possible to
compare the different feedbacks made on the different versions of a prototype
used in the same design research project.)
Great summary with interesting explanations of your own perspective on the
different methods that were mentioned!
5.
Hi,
I think that you have written a really interesting reflection. Especially where
you discuss general knowledge and design research. I had not thought about
design research from this perspective before. I also tried to come up with
examples that lead to general knowledge myself, yet I found this very hard. I
think that this would have been a great topic to discuss during a seminar.
Interesting reflection with an interesting perspective!
Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research
1. Hi,
I think that you have written a good
explanation of the purposes/benefits of a case study. Furthermore I had not
thought about case studies being “cyclical” before, and this was an interesting
perspective.
I agree with your thoughts on what a
case study is. And I think that you have made a good point in that a case study
can be used in order to do research in an “unknown field”. I also interpreted
this to be one of the more characteristic benefits of a case study.
Great reflection, with a clear
explanation on case studies!
2. Hi,
I think that you have written an
interesting reflection. I like that you make correlations in between themes.
For example by discussing a correlation between qualitative research methods
and user experience testing that you mention in your blog post for Theme 5.
I had not thought about making this
comparison before. To add to this discussion: I agree that they are similar in
the sense that they both take the participants own answers as feedback to help
them test or build a theory.
Interesting reflection, with a good
summary of what was discussed during the seminar!
3. Hi,
I think that you have summarized case
studies well by saying that they are targeting on understanding a phenomena
instead of explaining a phenomena.
To add to your discussion:
I agree with that a case study can help
form a hypothesis that is being used in further research. When it comes to the
goals of conducting a case study, I had interpreted it to be to make
observations in a certain setting to get a deeper understanding of how that
setting works. In other words I had interpreted that the problem or question
that might rise from making a case study would be a result of the study, yet
not the goal or meaning behind it. So I found this part of your reflection very
interesting and it presented a new perspective to me.
Great reflection with good
explanations of what you have learnt from the seminar!
4. Hi,
I think that you have written a
really interesting summary of the seminar.
To add to your discussion: At the
seminar I attended we also, in a smaller group, discussed how to choose
participants for a study. We discussed how to make generalisations in a study,
and if the participants could have an effect on the result. We discussed that
in a qualitative study all participants have different experiences and different
perceptions, so depending on which participants are a part of a study they can
affect the generalisations.
Great reflection with really
interesting explanations from the seminar!
5. Hi,
I think that you have written a
really interesting reflection. I liked that you for example discuss objectivity
in scientific research.
To add to your discussion: I think
that you are right in that all studies require a more or less defined case in
order to do research.
I interpret the difference between a
case study to for example a qualitative research study to be that a case study
focuses on choosing a setting, or case, to make observations in. A qualitative
method on the other hand I interpret to focus on having a hypothesis or
research question that will help define the setting, or case, in which this
study will take place.
Great reflection with interesting
discussions!
