After reading the articles for the theme and writing the first blog post I felt pretty confident about what theories are. After the lecture and the seminar, I felt that the concepts were more complicated than I had first thought.
In a sense, theories can be explained as speculative reason.
An example is during the lecture when Leif asked what the cause was for his voice sounding sore. The theory was that he had a cold. The saying ”I have a theory” in that sense is not directly related to scientific research, but it still aims at answering the question of why or providing an explanatory framework for an observation.
This made me think about Ockham's razor, a problem solving principle which I apply, more often to my everyday life than I feel confident sharing online. The principle in short describes that when having two competing theories that make the same prediction, go for the simpler one. Or if you are facing several hypothesis, the one with least assumptions should be chosen. Or if using words that applies to my life on a personal level; if you have lost your keys/cell phone/wallet look in your pocket/bag/sofa first rather than panicking that they are lost forever.
The picture about what theories constitutes of became more complex when the distinction between philosophical and scientific theories were drawn up, a concept I did not fully grasp just by reading the advised articles. The distinction of philosophical theories are that the statements concerning the subject matter can not be scientifically tested using empirical observation. An example of a sub-branch of philosophical theory is critical theory, which was used in the texts from last weeks’ theme (Adorno, Horkheimer and Benjamin). Critical theory aims at critiquing the current state from a holistic, teleologic standpoint and focusing on the possibilities of change. Critical theory also aims at showing how knowledge is not neutral but charged with value as well as having an historical context (as could be seen in the texts).
Reading about critical theory and how it connects to the readings gave me a better understanding of the overarching purpose of the texts “Dialect of Enlightenment” and “The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity". And I suppose that is what theories are for, enabling and easing the process of understanding the world by structuring and conceptualizing knowledge.
During the lecture the image of a theory as a constructed, abstract entity was articulated. When we compared our different answers to the question "What is man?", it became clear that the different answers contradicted each others, such as man being mortal and man being created in the images of god. There are tensions and contradictions, which resulted in me broadening the view of theory to also incorporate it as a thought process were you resolve and undo, get confused and watch how the clear distinctions becomes unclear.
This is also a question that we discussed further during the seminar, were I asked Illis about the process of finding a theory for your research and if the hypothesis actually is formed beforehand or if it could be articulated in retrospect. I connected the question to deductive reasoning (forming an hypothesis and finding a logical conclusion) and inductive reasoning (specific observations leading to broad generalizations), but I still feel that I could gain a deeper understanding about how theory building varies between these two different logics.
To sum it up, theory is something we construct to understand the world. Looking at the statement, which we used during the seminar, "There are only black, brown and white bears because X", we see that X is true until it is proven inapplicable, which for examples would be the case if we find a pink bear running around in the forest. If that is the case, our statement is no longer a coherent reasoning for explaining the phenomena, but it is still a theory, even if it has been disproved.
Research without theory is empty; theory without research is blind.
Salut,
SvaraRaderaVery 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 !
Hi! Good reflection!
SvaraRaderaThe link between Kant and research is very interesting.
I agree with you on that theory is a way for us to explain the world around us. After experimenting, exploring (our explanation) etc. if this is true or false.
Your example with the white and brown bear is a good way to explain how we construct our world based on theories. Even if we know that a theory is proven not to be true (anymore) it still exists, as just because something (probably) isn't true doesn't mean we need to true it away.
Interesting summary of the different sides of theory!
I found your reflection really interesting to read and I think you have done a great job reflecting on this theme. I also found the concept of theory much more advanced than I first imagined when writing the first blog post. I learned that it is easier to state what theory is not rather than what it actually is. The exercise “What is man?” during the lecture indeed showed how our different theories contradicted each others. Would you say that our “theories” of what man is were theories, or would you say that they were hypotheses? I think this is an interesting and difficult question. I believe it is difficult because the question belongs to the discipline of social science which appears more blurry in contrast to, for example, natural science. Theories within natural science is often more likely to rely on raw data that you can prove while social science have to take other factors into account, for example cultural or social factors. Therefore it is really hard to give an exact answer of what theory actually is, since it varies among different disciplines. As said, you have done a really good job with your reflection and your last sentence was a perfect closure for this theme.
SvaraRadera
SvaraRaderaHi! This post was extraordinary; your academic insight is impressive and admirable.
I enjoyed reading your reasoning and comparison of scientific and philosophical theories, and particularly how it led up to your definition of what theories are for (;enabling and easing the process of understanding the world by structuring and conceptualizing knowledge). When you write about the process of tensions and contradictions as inherent parts of the concept of theory, I started thinking about how that very fact must be included in the definition of the concept. Because if we do so, we do not risk divesting disproven theories of their attribute of being a theory. If we include the contradicting of theories in its definition, we may broaden the understanding of what theory actually is. Then, perhaps explaining the concept to a first year student won't be as challenging.
Very interesting reflection. I appreciate how you connect the question to deductive reasoning. I recognize from own experiences that I by default try to implement a structure in almost everything and of course this is applied by us when it comes to different frameworks of theory. It is important to take time and space into account regarding theory. Especially if it is applied in a human social context, that is reflecting our current culture and habits in a society. To have a framework to work with, will make our research process much easier.
SvaraRaderaThank you for the good explanation what a theory is and how we get there. You mentioned the links to the previous topics and how every new topic builds on the previous one and at the same time it helps us understanding the relevance of the previous theme even more. Especially here theories are the enlightenment of our theoretical knowledge of understanding the world. And I agree with you on the statement that a theory stays a theory even though it was falsified. Then it’s simply a wrong theory, but still has the status of trying to explain a construct.
SvaraRaderaHej, and thank you for advanced and thorough reflecting! You connected this theme nicely to the earlier ones in this course and showed actual improvement in your thinking. Good, concrete examples as well as sophisticated reasoning. Great job!
SvaraRaderaI enjoyed especially the last paragraph about "pink bears" and theories being in constant change as yet another explanation for the X (unknown) is found. This brings to my mind a scientist called Nassim Nicholas Taleb and his theory of black swans. To put it shortly, black swan theory underlines the importance of unknown in our reasoning before the black swan actually "happens" and then has a major effect on its surroundings (economical, cultural, sociological - you name it). You see, people thought black swans were impossible and weren't prepared for those in their reasoning – until they found one. So, when taking the epistemological approach, it's interesting to think about this in the terms of knowledge. Nassim talks about "the fourth quadrant" and the philosophical problem, which explains the decrease in knowledge, that is related to these kind of "black swans" i.e. rare events. These unexpected events are not visible in past samples and therefore require a strong a priori. The fourth quadrant is about knowledge that is uncertain, but has enormous consequences. I highly recommend to read about this, truly fascinating and could be interesting for your as well!
Thanks. :)
Hi,
SvaraRaderaI too thought that I had some sort of idea of what theory was until the concept of philosophical theory was raised. I think this is an important question to highlight as it shows how complex the definition of theory is.
As you brought up the question ”what is man” in your post, I come to think of how theory and results are dependent on what discipline is applied to it.
Great blog post! I appreciate that you make a connection to everyday life (Ockham's razor prinicple) and back to Critical media theory. I think it's helpful to look at theory as a thought process of decontruction and reconstruction - shows how messy research is in reality. The bear example at the end is very clear and helpful.
SvaraRadera