An interesting seminar to say the least. On one hand a discussion bogged down in a semantic mire where our spirits rose and fell alternately, akin to a roller-coaster, when we tried to define mere words. On the other hand, we managed to exchange understandings which, although simple in nature, managed to untangle the soggiest of puzzles.
We discussed what a theory is, what a hypothesis is, their relation to each other and whether a pen is to be considered blue at all. We went on, taking a quick detour to Kant, refreshed our knowledge of basic mechanics (i.e. physics), and finally we got to discuss various form of theory.
Oh, and we did mention our individually selected papers aswell.
What did I learn then? Well, I learned that my, in my mind, clear definition of what a scientific theory is, might not be so obvious after all. Now, reviewing the reviews of my earlier retrospects, in retrospect, it should not really come as a surprise that I find my own views, initially very solid, rather altered after one of these seminars. But at least I was not the only one who had to rethink a few things.
Another thing that I gathered, an this is more of a specific detail then a general revelation, is that a (scientific) theory apparently does not have to relate to the natural world. Although I still have a hard time accepting this fact, seeing as science is usually dependent on empirical observations. The teacher cleverly pointed out that mathematics for instance, you know the main theories behind the paper I choose, does not inherently belong to the natural world.
I also learned that some of my grander ideas fly, in much the same way that bricks do not.
5 kommentarer:
Hey Olof!
I must say that your text was delightful to read! Your seminar discussion dealt with a lot of different concepts, it seems, and how nice to hear that your previous thoughts on the topic that was discussed was challenged! It was also interesting to read your reflection about what a scientific theory is! This is something that I haven't thought of, and I find the fact that it doesn't necessarily have to relate to the natural world really intriguing!
Keep up the good work!
hi, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
very nice subject line by the way. lol
i have to admit that when i read your last line that 'scientific theory apparently does not have to relate to the natural world.' i totally doubt it. and then you mentioned about math.
so yeah maybe it is true.
precise and nice reflecting blog. keep it up :)
Thanks for sharing us with your thought! I really enjoyed reading through your whole reflection of this week's lecture and seminar. Your reflection towards the concept of theory and the research are neatly written and hence interesting to read. I agree with most of your opinions and your effort in participating the lecture and the seminar could be easily seen. Good job!
Hey!
This is a very interesting post, I really like your way of writing and expression. It sounds as your seminar was interesting and useful, which was not how I felt about my seminar for this theme. We just reiterated thing from the lecture and there were not many discussions.
It is interesting to note that not all theories do not relate directly to the real world or are extracted from it. But they still provide a useful tool for explaining it and help us understand more about our surroundings and ourselves in general.
I found interesting your point about theory and its non mandatory relation with nature. I didn’t talk about that during my seminar, but I think that I would have had the same reaction than you, being surprised by the possibility of no looking for in the real world to manage theory. Mathematics is a good counterexample, which makes immediately understand the point.
Thank you for sharing!
Skicka en kommentar