This week we got to investigate the wonderful and complex world of theories, and also choose research articles to read which was a good practice for future paper writing (I have not done the bachelor thesis yet, and in that sense I think this course is an excellent preparation).
Compared to the previous themes, I’d say that this theme was not as philosophical and abstract, which of course was reflected in the seminar discussions. Here we instead tried to define the term ‘theory’, which I’ve always thought was the same as ‘hypothesis’. Actually, ‘theory’ as an everyday term is rarely used correctly in either Swedish nor English, as it is often correspondent to “I think…”. Our conclusion was that a theory explains why something is in a way that is as simple as possible (preferably at least).
We also discussed what makes a theory strong or weak, which none of us was completely sure of at first. So basically, an example of a weak theory could be that when you’re at a beach and eat ice-cream, you’ll get attacked by sharks (the theory being that you get attacked by sharks because you have eaten ice-cream). This is just based on a correlation, and not even applicable everywhere which it indirectly states. However, it is still a theory, since nothing says that a theory must be “true”. Another thing about theories is that they should be “testable”, and that one shouldn’t be afraid to question them.
As for the articles, I chose one with a psychological theme about media addiction, and what factors cause people to become dependent on internet and television. Here the authors didn’t have any theories of their own, but instead used two external theories and put them up against each other. We talked about if this was an okay strategy, and came to the conclusion that it actually was. In a way, most theories are based on others that came before them, and revising them is necessary if we want to advance. I was thinking about the new type of magnesium carbonate with super absorption-powers that was discovered by scientists at Uppsala University. For over one hundred years, scientists had written articles explaining that it was impossible to create this substance. After many failed attempts, the Uppsala scientists accidentally managed to create it after having left the test beaker over the weekend, proving all previous theories wrong. This is just one of many examples which prove the importance of questioning earlier belief.
Source
http://swednanotech.com/2013/07/uppsalaforskare-upptacker-nytt-material/
Really interesting reading! I'm glad that you found this weeks theme so rewarding. If you haven't done your bachelors thesis yet, it could indeed help a lot to have read up on these kinds of subjects. Nicely explained with the ice-cream story and the one about the new material!
ReplyDeleteHow was it for you to define the kind of theory that was used in your chosen paper? I know that this was something that we discussed quite a lot in our discussion group before the seminar, and since yours was done in a particular way that you even questioned if it was ok, it would be interesting to read about how you reasoned when categorising the paper.
I really enjoyed reading your posts! It shows that you have put a lot of thought and effort into your reflection. I thought your description of weak and strong theories was interesting as we did not discuss this during our seminar and your examples made the difference between the two very clear. One thing we discussed during the seminar was how all truths are relative and if anything can actually be defined as "true". Have you thought about this?
ReplyDeleteI found this interesting because of how you viewed theory before- and after the Theme not having done your bachelor thesis yet. From my own experience I think that those that have done it might have a little better understanding of what theory is before this course, but I could be wrong, so seeing you haven't done it yet it might be helpful in your thesis!
ReplyDeleteKeep it up!
Your essay is very interesting. I pretty like your instances on "attacked by sharks"and "magnesium carbonate".I could clearly get your point that theory is unnecessary to be true becuse the example of "sharks" is vivid. What I didn't notice before is your point that questioning earlier belief.Obviously it is very important to promote science progress by questioning earlier theory.Like the scientists in Uppsala University,they made angreat contribution to Chemistry not only by creating a new substance but also promting the progress of theory.
ReplyDeletethanks for sharing. nice example on weak theory :)
ReplyDeletei also had read similar type of paper where they just gather other people theory and put them up against each other. however i think it is okay as well. as long as they actually find some new findings in that paper. because theory doesn't have to always be like a totally new one but can contribute to the existing ones.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteGreat reflection, with good points and a clear structure. I agree on being a bit confused of the meaning of theory before this theme. So fun reading that you also felt that you managed to get a clearer picture of what it actually means. Something worth mentioning is that a theory is also build on a hypothesis that can be tested. I also liked your opinion on that revising is necessary for advancement. Questioning an already existing theory and making your new theory credible is really hard but it is what leads to paradigm shifts. Great job, keep it up!
What I liked the most in your reflection is that you brought up weak theory, something I didn't do myself. While the example of ice cream and sharks might be easy to understand, I personaly think the distinction gets harder when not looking at obvious examples. Would any theory that doesn't try to predict its own failures be considered weak? I'm not sure myself but it's an interesting topic to think about imo.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, great that you feel that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory, since it's indeed a word that is used quite different in every day life.
What I liked the most in your reflection is that you brought up weak theory, something I didn't do myself. While the example of ice cream and sharks might be easy to understand, I personaly think the distinction gets harder when not looking at obvious examples. Would any theory that doesn't try to predict its own failures be considered weak? I'm not sure myself but it's an interesting topic to think about imo.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, great that you feel that you know the difference between hypothesis and theory, since it's indeed a word that is used quite different in every day life.
I had the same problem, I found it difficult in the beginning to define and distinguish hypothesis and theory. And I also agree that the daly usage and meaning of theory are quite different from who there are defined in the academia. That is quite an interesting/challenging question you brought up in your second paragraph about what make a strong or weak theory.
ReplyDeleteYou have chosen an article about a very interesting concept, I am sure most of us are guilty of this media addiction. I also agree that theories are built on pervious theories. I am also of the opinion that we need to question our beliefs if we want to advance in anything.
You have don a great job, nice piece of text!
Hi!
ReplyDeleteGreat reflection! I had actually forgotten about weak and strong theory and I really liked your example because it made it very clear. Interesting that your paper did not come up with the theory on their own but compared between two other theories. At first I thought it was strange that these could be a theory because in "what theory is not" they said that references aren't theory, but then I realised that because of the analysis between the theories they actually came up with a theory of how the theories differ and are similar. Real meta-theory thinking there! Anyways, great work with the reflection!
/Maria
I like the way you make the distinction between theory and hypothesis. Indeed, in many people mind, there is a confusion between these two concepts.
ReplyDeleteI’m not convinced by your example of ice-cream and shark but the definition which follows is correct. So why not if it helped you to understand!
And finally, I do appreciate your example about magnesium carbonate. It illustrates very well as you said the importance of questioning earlier belief and not take for granted every knowledge that we have established.