Theme
1: Theory of science
Blog No. 1
|
||
Author of the blog:
Amanda Glass
|
Date:
14 november 2013 16:15
|
|
Comment:
"For example, you could theoretically have a correct answer
on your math quiz, but that doesn’t mean that your problem was
solved in a correct way. "
I'm thinking regarding your example. I agree with it but at the same time I don't. As long as you know the actual truth about something, shouldn't that be the important part? How a problem is solved to get to the truth is important for people other than yourself. Other people need to find out if what you are saying is actually true or not, and thus you might have to know how to explain yourself for other people's sake. But for yourself only, as long as you truly believe it is actually the truth, then isn't it the truth no matter how you came to that conclusion? After all, we have been questioning whether there is any truth or knowledge to anything at all. Who is to even decide what way is "the correct way"? |
||
Blog No. 2
|
||
Author of the blog:
Zahra Alhouaidy
|
||
Comment:
I think we will have to spend a lifetime questioning ourselves
what knowledge actually is! If there is at all an answer to that
question to begin with. Just like how I started my sentence "I
think..", I think that for every known truth today and for
every belief, it should just all start with a "I think".
As science develops and we find out new "truths" every
now and then, we will never be sure, which is why I believe that
"knowledge will always be a belief". As long as the
world never stops, we will continuously find out new things that
will either falsify or "complete" our previous beliefs
or simply create additional beliefs (as if we didn't have enough
already). And this will go on and on. As you mentioned about
"probable opinion" that commonly passes as knowledge.
Everything we consider ourselves know today could be said to be
just that, a probable opinion instead of knowledge.
|
||
Blog No. 3
|
||
Author of the blog:
Simon Schmitz
|
||
Comment:
Hey! When I was reading the blog post and came to that statement
("reality might therefore be something that is not
immediately present to our sensation"), I thought that I had
to comment on it too.
I was
thinking that since we according to Russell only have access to
our thoughts and the sense-data we collect, how do we then know
that there even is a reality that is not present to us, since we
shouldn't be able to sense it? The reality of an object is unknown
because the sensation is varying, but why can't the sensations be
the reality? Can there only exist one and only one precise
reality? A lot of questions..
|
||
Blog No. 4
|
||
Author of the blog:
Victor Olsson
|
Date: 15
november 2013 12:46
|
|
Comment:
You stated that Russell uses the notion of sense-data to point out
that you can't use that data to explain the physical object,
because the sense-data is varying.
This
leads me to thinking that the so-called "physical object"
we think that we are seeing, touching, hearing, etc, might have
some other unknown value than "physical", you know?
Maybe some value that is not known to us human beings. If it was
physical, we should be able to explain it by saying "I can
touch this object, so this physical object exist", but
apparently we are not allowed to say that according to Russell.
I'm thinking that maybe in that case we should rather call this
physical object "unidentified object", much like how we
say about UFO's!
|
||
Blog No. 5
|
||
Author of the blog:
Mårten Cederman
|
Date: 15
november 2013 12:56
|
|
Comment:
Hi! I want to comment about how you stated that sense-data is like
an attribute that is connected to a physical object, and how we
are aware of the object but it doesn't mean it's actually there.
I had previously just written another comment on someone else's blog (http://tmmlp2013.blogspot.se/2013/11/theme-1-theory-of-science.html) about this. I started thinking about how Russell is calling this object as "physical". You explained the sense-data as attributes, which usually are adjectives in this case, right? But isn't the word "physical" an adjective, and thus also should be an attribute? How come that we are so certain about the object being "physical" but unsure about any other attribute, and yet at the same time unsure whether this object actually exists? I had come up with the idea that this object should in fact be called "unidentified object"! What do you think? |
||
Blog No. 6
|
||
Author of the blog:
Lucy Armelin
|
Date: 15
November 2013 13:13
|
|
Comment:
I like your last wording. "it is not true knowledge, but the
belief of true knowledge". I also thought that knowledge
should only merely be a belief and nothing else, since as you also
wrote "realities are not all exactly the same". The
"reality" (which is another question of what it actually
consists of) changes for every millisecond, so what is certain one
moment might not be certain the next moment and therefore we can't
and shouldn't seek for definite answers to things as it's just
like a blind game.
I'm
also wondering, I noticed that you wrote "realities"
instead of one "reality". I wonder if you did that while
actually being aware of it, as I would be curious on your thoughts
whether there might be several realities out there and not just
one reality. That point was actually very interesting that I
hadn't thought about before this!
|
||
Blog No. 7
|
||
Author of the blog:
Sara Långvik
|
Date: 15
november 2013 13:23
|
|
Comment:
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men;
although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify
this statement by examining his wives' mouths."
That
was actually very interesting! It makes me wonder how he then had
come up with that conclusion, if he hadn't examined any woman's
mouth? Did someone else say that to him? Maybe he only encountered
women with small teeth that made the number of teeth look less (?)
or with some broken teeth, so he must have thought that all women
must be the same and have less teeth. This leads us to thinking
that propositions are made up from our experiences among others.
|
||
Blog
No. 8
|
||
Author of the blog:
Marit Aldén
|
Date: 15
november 2013 13:43
|
|
Comment:
Hello! I also would like to comment regarding your answer for the
fourth question, as it was an interesting explanation you had
there!
You
wrote that "a belief of something cannot be considered to be
based on knowledge. A belief is just a belief and nothing more."
But
what do you think about the thought that knowledge always gets
updated as society develops and understands things better and
better, as time goes by? Can we then be certain at any moment at
all that there ever is a fixed statement of knowledge, and be able
to clearly differentiate it from belief?
In my
blog post, I stated that "knowledge will always be a belief".
During
this last week, I have had difficulties trying to figure out where
the line actually is between belief and knowledge. I came to
realize that those two might actually just be the same thing. The
difference might be that a belief is a statement that the majority
of people find false, and knowledge is the statement that the
majority of people find true. So the two are basically highly
dependent on what the contemporary people themselves believe, and
not actually representing the reality.
|
||
Blog
No. 9
|
||
Author of the blog:
Mimmi Albertsson
|
Date: 15
november 2013 14:02
|
|
Comment:
Hi!
You wrote that "knowledge could just be true belief. However this perception may result in errors when the true belief turns out to be false or when true believes does not result in the correct conclusion." Don't you think that this can be applied to knowledge itself too, and not only on belief, whether it's true or false? As you know, knowledge we have had in the past has later "proven" to be false, which means that it was merely a strong belief among the contemporary people at that time. Today, we want to think that the knowledge of today is certain, and thus true. But who knows, if in the future, just like in the past, today's knowledge that we hold so strong might turn out to be false! So in the end, that perception you wrote about could precisely turn out to be false, but that question we will not be able to answer as long as we can't see the end of the world and find the absolute last answer to any existing knowledge whether they are true or false. |
||
Blog
No. 10
|
||
Author of the blog:
Andreas Sylvan
|
Date: 15
november 2013 14:39
|
|
Comment:
Hi!
It sure was an interesting comparison with The Matrix. You wrote how the world "is a perception of the minds living in it, but it is not real." This leads me to wonder what we even believe that reality consists of, or is supposed to consist of, if we are confident enough to state that our current world is not real. If it is not real, and we don't even know what "real" is, then how do we know that it is not real at all? Can we even know that, since just that requires us to have knowledge about the "realness" or reality, and as you know, many of us have been questioning ourselves during the last week what knowledge even is and whether it is able to exist. So.. By the way, what about the "mind"? Apparently, the mind is allowed to be real and exist, but not the world. Our sense-data is telling us that we have a mind, but it is likewise also telling us that there is a physical world out there. We seem to be going in circles trying to make things clear for ourselves but we are only giving birth to yet more questions. "What even is this?".. |
||
Theme 2: Critical media studies
Blog
No. 1
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Johan Gårdstedt
|
Date 22
november 2013 11:53
|
|
Comment:
Hello!
You wrote "Enlightenment stands in the same relationship to things as the dictator to human beings. He knows them to the extent that he can manipulate them and here myth can be used as an instrument of control." I remember reading that in the book and it's a very philosophical statement. I don't have a clear understanding of what really is meant. It's like, if the Enlightenment was a person, it would be a dictator. I can understand that as most of us seek enlightenment and basically worship it, but is it really manipulating us? I don't think it's clear where the end of enlightenment is, so we can always continue to (try) enlighten ourselves. Whether it's bad or good enlightenment, aren't both good in a way as they both serve some kind of enlightenment, in the sense that they enlighten you to seek further even if it was bad for example.. Hm, what do you think? |
||
Blog
No. 2
|
||
Author of the blog:
Gustav Boström
|
Date: 22
november 2013 12:12
|
|
Comment:
Hey!
I agree with your comment about the mass deception in TV shows today that often contain stupidity. I believe one reason for the success and popularity of such shows is that you usually watch those shows during weekends, holidays, evenings, etc, that is, at times when you just want to relax your brain from work or school. You've usually already been stimulating your brain all day so these shows are entertaining but at the same time they don't require much activity from your brain. Due to the mass media, we are surrounded by a lot of information so I think just like "stefanetoh" commented, that it's great sometimes and other times you are free to choose the more stimulating media. There are many educating and interesting documentaries available for example. |
||
Blog
No. 3
|
||
Author of the blog:
Anna Tjörnebro
|
Date: 22
november 2013 12:29
|
|
Comment:
Hallå där Anna! :)
I was thinking regarding your description of old and new media. People in the past with old media could only connect with people talking "live" or through letters, but the new media allows for interaction through phone, the internet, etc. We discussed it a little bit in my seminar group and said how we're in fact not really communicating with more people but with less, as we're relying more and more on the technology to reach out to people instead of reaching out "live". I also came to think about how Dahlberg said during the lecture that social media can be described as an "interactive address book", which I thought was a brilliant explanation actually.. The address book has evolved from only containing text of the name, address, phone to being directly interactive with many ways to reach out to a person. |
||
Blog
No. 4
|
||
Author of the blog:
Nicholas Ojala
|
Date: 22
november 2013 13:04
|
|
Comment:
Hi!
I like
your description of enlightenment and myth. You explained that
"the difference between myth and science is that a myth does
not have any proof." and that myth "is just an attempt
to describe the truth about something without any logic".
Of
course I have to agree that that's the case, but I want to
challenge your (and my) thoughts. I was thinking that, can't myths
be explained with that it was just very early science? Because at
that time, they didn't have the necessary equipments or knowledge
of how, to actually find out the "truth". Also, they
kind of did have their own kinds of proofs, right? I mentioned
that in my blog post. They had various explanations of the myths
and for instance pointed out to different occasions as proof. For
example, if a person did something wrong and then it rained hard
the next day, they would say it was because some supernatural
thing (god) was angry/punishing the person. And if this event
happened several times, they would think it's actually true.
Also
how we once believed the world was flat. Isn't it just early
science? As time goes by, science is developing, the way we
research, and we find new knowledge to replace the old one with.
In the
future, there will be new types of "facts" and "truths"
that we don't know about today and for sure there will be many
that will even shatter the "truths" of today that we
consider obvious, much like how people did in the past with myths
for example.
|
||
Blog
No. 5
|
||
Author of the blog:
Edvard Ahlsén
|
Date: November
22, 2013 at 13:13 AM
|
|
Comment:
Like previous commentators wrote, I also agree with you stating
how the system has total control over the consumers. Also how you
said that the talent of artists show their eagerness to be part of
the system, which I find to be true in most cases. It goes to show
for example on TV shows such as "Idol" or "Talang",
etc.
I
believe the author of the book also mentioned something like how
we are "enslaved" to the system or the mass
media/culture industry. We take in everything this system gives us
and we follow it like slaves and want more, without much
consideration over the actual value or importance.
|
||
Blog
No. 6
|
||
Author of the blog:
Mårten Cederman
|
Date: 22
november 2013 13:21
|
|
Comment:
Hi!
Just like you, I also didn't really have any ideas of how myth could be related to enlightenment before this course, and so found this particular topic especially interesting. One thing I would like to ask though is how you stated that "if we can't conceive the underlying concepts of things, it may as well be mythical". You remember how we read from the first theme about the concept of knowledge and our attempt to define it? I just had a quick thought whether knowledge could partly be described as mythical, also considering the concept of "sense-data". Our "real" world may not be real but the way we think it is might be just supernatural compared to the "real reality"... hmm. Do I make sense? :) |
||
Blog
No. 7
|
||
Author of the blog:
Mikael Kjellnäs
|
Date: 22
november 2013 13:31
|
|
Comment:
Hello!
It's true regarding how we're manipulated and "our imagination is robbed from us". We all think the same, want the same things, consume the same things, etc. But I was thinking of alternatives and, maybe partly because of society and how we all already grew up, but I find it difficult to see/find what an alternative of this "mass deception" situation would be. If mass media wouldn't deceive us etc, how would we act and live? How would or could society otherwise look like? Since human beings always have to live together, there would always be some kind of culture and with it comes both good and bad, as with anything else. I wonder how Adorno & Horkheimer imagined their "perfect society". |
||
Blog
No. 8
|
||
Author of the blog:
Martin Johansson
|
Date: 22
november 2013 13:55
|
|
Comment:
Hello.
It's true how the content produced by companies with big economic possibilities is the one that gets most attention and become the most desired by people. The content that gets less attention is basically automatically seen as not interesting or worthy (even if we haven't even seen it). Adorno & Horkheimer stated just that how the people high up in the hierarchy of society are the ones that control the culture industry. Thinking about this, everything, or a lot of things, seem to be very money-dependent in the culture industry. Without economic support, it's very difficult to have a saying in this culture industry and try to make some kind of change. |
||
Blog
No. 9
|
||
Author of the blog:
Mimmi Albertsson
|
Date: 22
november 2013 14:15
|
|
Comment:
Hello!
Your
last paragraph with your thoughts is very interesting, especially
how you mentioned that we were manipulated to like and consume the
new technology. I remember a saying that you might have heard of,
how we don't know that we want something before we see this
something. I think this partly explains the success of technology
and how the culture has changed due to the developments.
In the
past where there only existed newspapers and radio, before TV,
internet, etc were invented, the people back then never thought
about having something similar to the internet. They might have
thought things like "I wish I could just reach my friend
directly who's at work now but I have to wait for them to return
home", but that's as far as their thoughts probably came, as
close as they could get to the internet. They couldn't imagine
something like a "computer" or so, which makes it then
impossible for them to desire it in the first place and request it
from the industry, right?
So, on
the other hand I'm thinking whether it's just natural the things
turned out and how the culture industry controls society and the
direction it takes..
|
||
Blog
No. 10
|
||
Author of the blog:
Maria Strömbäck
|
Date: 22
november 2013 14:26
|
|
Comment:
Hi!
Haha,
I like your final thoughts. :) I think the same thing!
Since
they (Adorno & Horkheimer) probably grew up under quite harsh
circumstances, the culture shocks they got might have been a
little too much and they might have gone through traumatic things
in their lives? .. which made them look at things very critically
and value things differently compared to the norm back then. I'm
not sure since I haven't read much about them in detail, but as
you say, they fail to see the positive sides of mass media or the
changes in the culture industry. There is good and bad in almost
everything. Don't we really like those very quick e-mails, instead
of having to send out handwritten letters and wait several days
for an answer? We're able to be more productive today than back
then, just as an example of one positive thing among many others.
|
||
Theme 3: Research and theory
Blog
No. 1
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Jenny Sillén
|
Date: 25
november 2013 15:37
|
|
Comment:
Hello Jenny!
That
was a really interesting study you've chosen. I do think it's true
that the quality of a website and the signals it gives you can
affect you greatly. As you mentioned too, I agree that this study
can not only be applied on ecommerce websites but also on pretty
much any website. I think that any website need to be of somewhat
high quality to be taken seriously by a visitor, or at least by
more experienced visitors?
I'm
also thinking whether high quality and the signals really are the
same thing. As I understood it from your text, it seems that both
are used synonymously. I think that it is possible for a website
to be able to cue positive signals to the visitor without
necessarily being very high quality.. it might require some great
skills though. I mean, as long as it doesn't look like it came
from the 90's. It can give off the signals of being trustworthy
and buy-able. What do you think?
|
||
Blog
No. 2
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Carl Ahrsjö
|
Date: 25
november 2013 16:10
|
|
Comment:
Hi.
Interesting
choice of paper where I find the results to be quite obvious. I
think people in general play games together for the fun experience
and the social interaction, rather than pay attention and enjoy
the technology itself even if it's indeed interesting to try out
but it's not really the main point. The purpose of games is to
have fun and for multiplayer games like golf where you can play
together, I think you'd mostly be seeking the social interaction,
play against each other. Those are my thoughts at least.
|
||
Blog
No. 3
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Louise Heurlin
|
Date: 25
november 2013 16:40
|
|
Comment:
Hi! You said that the paper was discussing a broad field and thus
seemed to be unclear, straggly and lacked some logic. I think that
happens very easily and is a high risk when you make the decision
to study a broad field or choose a specific field and decide to
include a lot of topics that seem relevant but later ends up being
irrelevant for the conclusions..
Just
thought I'd point it out because it's happened to me and it's
really unfortunate! Reading other papers like this though gives
experience and understanding of how you can improve your own
writing. :)
|
||
Blog
No. 4
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Anna Tjörnebro
|
Date: 25
november 2013 17:27
|
|
Comment:
Hey Anna :).
Interesting choice of paper about YouTube. I'm wondering though how the big companies changed the website, what the causes are, instead of being the users themselves which I would have thought? Maybe that's what you meant though about the lack of technological reasons. Nonetheless, it's an interesting study because I do agree about YouTube helping the online streaming business, early displaying the advantages about streaming media and thus allowing other services to be formed. |
||
Blog
No. 5
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Isabella Arningsmark
|
Date: 2
december 2013 12:47
|
|
Comment:
Hi!
Interesting
study you've chosen, regarding the relationship between use of UGC
and political involvement. By UGC involvement, I guess it's meant
for example uploading content on YouTube? Did the study mention
precisely what it is that defines "UGC involvement", eg.
minimum number of uploaded content? Those who have only uploaded
one single video might not be that much involved, and depending on
what type of content generated. Otherwise I can understand the
findings. As the UGC involved users might be used to expressing
their opinions and thoughts through uploaded content and make them
public, they're probably more eager to be politically engaged.
It's an interesting relationship and so an interesting theory! If
more research is done on this subject, certain measures could be
taken to try and involve more young people politically and
increase interest.
|
||
Blog
No. 6
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Cem Atilgan
|
Date: December
2, 2013 at 1:05 PM
|
|
Comment:
Hi. It's interesting how the author of your chosen study compares
the evolution of media with a life-cycle: Emergence, Adaptation,
Survival and Extinction. It's like explaining parts of the human
life, quite similar.
I
was also trying to understand the following: "Article
significantly underlines the importance of simulation process that
undergoes at at every stage."
What
is meant by the "simulation process" in this
case/context?
Nonetheless,
interesting choice of paper! There seems to be endless definitions
of the evolution of media. It's quite a difficult phenomena to
study as it consists of many things, perspectives and areas.
|
||
Blog
No. 7
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Filip Erlandsson
|
Date: 2
december 2013 13:48
|
|
Comment:
Hi.
I
read your post and I agree with you that it was indeed an
appropriately chosen method for the study. Since the study is
basically about the relationship between SNS and the social impact
it generates, it's better to study this over a period of time
rather than asking respondents if they feel SNS has made a social
impact on them. Such questions would be very hard to answer. So
the method used would give more accurate results as the
respondents answer based on how it is today.. right?
One
question I had while reading your description though is who those
"distinct SNS users" are, compared to the "regular"
SNS users? It wasn't very clear to me.
|
||
Blog
No. 8
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Tommy Roshult
|
Date: 2
december 2013 14:18
|
|
Comment:
Hi.
It
seems like you chose a really confusing and difficult paper, well
done on trying to explain and make sense of it anyway!
I'm
wondering though about the proposed new strategy "that makes
use of the pattern that appears when people overlapping each
other". If I understood correctly, this is the 2nd method,
right? Did the author explain the process of how they came up with
that new strategy, or is that also only referenced to? By your
description, it seems like they briefly proposed the strategy and
then went right ahead with the study of the two methods to answer
their questions about the detectors.
|
||
Blog
No. 9
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Oscar Friberg
|
Date: 2
december 2013 16:01
|
|
Comment:
Hi. I agree with your thought about the problem with the study,
that it depends on location and time. Though as you mentioned, the
article is supposed to only cover the Twitter usage of Dutch
politicians, or no? It would be good if the study was only focused
on the Dutch politicians. Further studies could then be to do the
same study but in another country and then make some kind of
comparison.
As
a side note, I think it's interesting in our case how Carl Bildt
is very active on Twitter. I think it's a good idea for
politicians because as you mentioned it decreases the gap with the
citizens for example. I also remember how Carl Bildt had some
arguing going on with an another politician (from an another
country) on Twitter, which was talked about in media and I found
quite funny..
|
||
Blog
No. 10
|
||
Author
of the blog:
Mikaela Wahlstedt
|
Date: 2
december 2013 16:50
|
|
Comment:
Hi. I found your chosen study interesting. As you mentioned, it's
written in 2007 so it must have been one of the few studies made
at that time about Facebook. There are many studies on social
media today and it's an interesting topic to study and learn about
the relationships between users and various subjects such as the
social capital. It's interesting thinking about how a social
platform online can affect the real life of a person to such
extent.. at least to the more "sensitive" people? Now
that I think about it, it would be interesting to study the
different characteristics of people with the same social media
usage and how differently they are affected.. I mean, if a
"strong-headed" vs a "light-headed" person
with the same Facebook activities have the same type of social
capital.. Just a thought.
|
||
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar