Ragnar Schön18 december 2013 17:19
Wow, a lot of comments on this one!
It is pointed out that there may be problems with bullying and that there should be some follow up as I wrote. Also, it is said that focus groups might give better results than interviews in some cases.
As always, the result you'll get from any method will rely very much on the context. To get a more complete result I think you should combine a lot of methods, and the settings within a method could also be varied greatly. One could for instance have focus groups of very varying sizes and see how that affects how participants express their views. If somebody bullies others in a focus group it could mean that they have very strong views on the subject or that they are just mean. Varying settings could discriminate between that. For the follow-up I think that the more you have the better. Perhaps one focus group is not enough.
I think the only thing that limits this is time or money. So more time and money to researchers will give better research... ;)
It is pointed out that there may be problems with bullying and that there should be some follow up as I wrote. Also, it is said that focus groups might give better results than interviews in some cases.
As always, the result you'll get from any method will rely very much on the context. To get a more complete result I think you should combine a lot of methods, and the settings within a method could also be varied greatly. One could for instance have focus groups of very varying sizes and see how that affects how participants express their views. If somebody bullies others in a focus group it could mean that they have very strong views on the subject or that they are just mean. Varying settings could discriminate between that. For the follow-up I think that the more you have the better. Perhaps one focus group is not enough.
I think the only thing that limits this is time or money. So more time and money to researchers will give better research... ;)
On http://edvardtmm13.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-6-pre-reflection.html
Hej Edvard! I like your simplistic explanation of the case study. But I think it is important to point out which context we are trying to explore. This is simply because everything is always in the context of something else but also that everything is in a mutlitude of contexts.
On http://mathoglu.blogspot.se/2013/12/theme-4-quantitative-research-post.html
Hi! Interesting post. How do you think that systems should handle outliers in general? Following your example of a rotten apple, you classify it as an outlier whereas it still belongs to some variety of apple. Would you argue that it is a shortcoming of the system and that it could be fixed by adding more features in addition to colour and acidity?
On http://mathoglu.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-3-quantitative-research-pre.html
Are you regarding the 3470 data points or the eight persons as the population of this study? I find it quite hard to decide on which is "right".
I think I would have the same critique regarding the use of a single language. However, unless they have a more robust technique ready it is advisable to start in a simple manner and then add more complexity. One may argue that this is something they should address in their discussion.
Regarding the linear approach to frequency, I think it is more advisable to use percent or cent. A semitone is ~5.9% or 100 cent across the entire spectrum.
I think I would have the same critique regarding the use of a single language. However, unless they have a more robust technique ready it is advisable to start in a simple manner and then add more complexity. One may argue that this is something they should address in their discussion.
Regarding the linear approach to frequency, I think it is more advisable to use percent or cent. A semitone is ~5.9% or 100 cent across the entire spectrum.
On http://theoryandmethodformediatechnology.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-2-critical-media-studies-pre.html
Of course, intelligent design doesn't meet the standards of being scientific. But if you are a believer of ID or any other type of creationism, it doesn't matter. All those fossils and whatnot could of course have been put there because The Creator felt like it or to test our faith. I mean, you could say that evolution and big bang are true but that it's some divine entity's grand plan. Scientific critique doesn't work on pseudo-science.
The idea presented in Guess' quote is quite interesting. If I understand it correctly it is basically that scientists should mind their own business and not meddle with the "transcendent". I guess this is just because this is a threat to mainly religious people's beliefs. In that sense I guess you were better off in the 16th century, when science and religion were still united.
The idea presented in Guess' quote is quite interesting. If I understand it correctly it is basically that scientists should mind their own business and not meddle with the "transcendent". I guess this is just because this is a threat to mainly religious people's beliefs. In that sense I guess you were better off in the 16th century, when science and religion were still united.
On http://dm2572-cederman.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-post-reflections.html
Ragnar Schön13 november 2013 13:54
I think it would have made more sense reading a hundred year old book if we would have had the lecture. We only got two views as of now: Russell and Plato (2400 years ago!). To get a broader understanding of the theory of science we'll need a couple more. Philosophy is, just like most other sciences, ever-evolving. It definitely didn't stop with Russell. For some other views of theory of science you might be interested in Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and/or Feyerabend (epistemological anarchism sounds pretty cool, doesn't it? :D ).
On http://dm2572sylvan.blogspot.se/2013/11/post-theme-1-theory-of-science.html
The idea that this reality is not the "real" reality seems to pop up over and over again. We find it in Platon's theory of forms and in the hindu veil of illusion, Māyā, that obscures reality. Several esoteric and occult movements have also tried to break free and to experience a more true form of knowledge (Sophia).
The notion of different levels of reality has also been explored in several, mostly sci-fi, films (e.g. Total Recall, The Matrix, Inception, etc.).
But just because there is no real truth doesn't mean nothing exists. And what does it really matter. Isn't our experienced "reality" the most real thing that we'll get?
Start the reactor!
The notion of different levels of reality has also been explored in several, mostly sci-fi, films (e.g. Total Recall, The Matrix, Inception, etc.).
But just because there is no real truth doesn't mean nothing exists. And what does it really matter. Isn't our experienced "reality" the most real thing that we'll get?
Start the reactor!
On http://ahrsjo-tmm13.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science-pre-reflection_8.html
Hej Carl! I think you summarised the theme very good with your text. However, I would like to question your view on how statements of facts and propositions differ from other verbal expressions. You write that the difference is that they in some sense address reality. Aren't there a lot of other verbal expressions that also address reality? Isn't our entire language referring to reality in some sense or is it only like in Platon's cave metaphor that it's just a mere "shadow" of reality?
One may argue that language is everything. If so wouldn't say colour exist without a word (or another semantic referrent) for it? Some languages have the same word for green and blue. Does that mean that it is the same colour?
On http://theoryandmethodformediatechnology.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
It is interesting that you point out that I missed out on the differences from other verbal expressions. I kind of got caught up in discussing the arbitrariness of truths. I don't really see how they are different at all. They are verbal expressions just as any other. Both expressions can be true in some contexts and others not.
On http://dm2572-martin.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html
So, do you think the apple exists or not? What is the significance of its eventual existence for science? It might be that the purpose of this reasoning is that Russell does it to encourage us to be critical (and to have a systematic doubt). If we can't even be sure that the apple exists, we definitely can't be sure about the sense-data that we can measure from the apple.
Surely, we might argue that it is irrelevant whether the apple exists and that it is only our experience of it and how we describe it that is relevant. This is what I believe, but I think that questioning reality might be a good tool to understand how arbitrary a lot of descriptions of reality are. The apple exists, but there is not only one true description of it.
Surely, we might argue that it is irrelevant whether the apple exists and that it is only our experience of it and how we describe it that is relevant. This is what I believe, but I think that questioning reality might be a good tool to understand how arbitrary a lot of descriptions of reality are. The apple exists, but there is not only one true description of it.
On http://mathoglu.blogspot.se/2013/11/blog-post.html
You write that a proposition is something that could eventually turn into a statement of a fact as e.g. a researcher has found that it is true. But isn't also possible that statements of fact could be false? What I mean is that our imaginary researcher actually believes the statement to be a fact but that s/he never can be completely sure. Perhaps this is just a part of a reasonable doubt or Descartes' systematic doubt of which Russell speaks.
What I'm cooking up here is the question whether it is interesting to speak about true or false at all. Shouldn't we focus on for example what is good for the scientific project as a whole?
