Post Research and Theory, or what maketh the man.

This week felt different from the previous ones. It was to me less philosophical and a litte more practical, in that we what we read had to be applied straight away. It was still quite theoretical (pun intended), however.

I had a tough time grasping what theory is, but an easier time understanding what it is not. The text by Sutton & Staw was really helpful in telling me what it wasn’t, but the other text from MIS Quarterly was a little harder to grasp. What I chose to hang my understanding on was the statement “Theory is the question why”. So in that vein, theory would be trying to figure out why things happened. Say that you have observed a bird flying backwards. Facts about how it works, diagrams detailing how often it happens, none of these things is theory. Trying to figure out and explain why the bird does this, that would be theory.

At the seminar we discussed how it is possible to build a theory in the scientific sense when you can’t be sure that you will never be proven wrong. That, in a way, makes the question itself mute. You can never be sure to never be wrong, because you can only work with what you know and have at the time. It is Kantian, in a way, realizing that as he decided to work with and not through his senses, we have to work with the state of things as they are right now. You have to make assumptions, but make them sound and as good as you can. Build on those that came before, but be open to the idea of being proven wrong at some point, when someone makes a new discovery. You can only work within the paradigm, but don’t be afraid of it shifting.

During the lecture on monday we talked about theory in a historical context. In the western tradition seeing is the way to gather knowledge. That means that theory is taking a step back, to view things from the outside. Practice would then be the opposite, since it means actually doing things. Leif mentioned something I found quite interesting on that topic, and that was the different ways to view a subject. KTH, as a technical university, has a practical approach to things. We learn how to do math, and physics, and coding. Stockholm university, on the other hand, teach theory. Their students, even in subjects such as math, learn the theory behind things, and how to apply it. My friend from SU might not be able to solve a third degree equation as fast as I can, but she can do a proof of things I can’t explain. I think you need a combination of both to be a well rounded scientist, both theory and practice.

Although the lecture this week was very interesting (I found myself disagreeing about a lot of things, but in a very passionate way), I didn’t really see the connection between it and the seminar. The lecture talked about theory, sure, but on a different plane than what we saw in the literature and seminar. The most interesting thing to me was the discussion on what made a human. I’d like to formulate some of my thoughts about that, just briefly.

I believe, and stated during the lecture, that a human is made up of a human consciousness and a human body. A dead body is in a way still human, but it’s not a person because it lacks consciousness. A mind without a body, while very sci fi, like in an android might also not be considered fully human. I don’t really want to get more specific than that, because it feels like it leaves room for acceptable abnormalities. If you argue for something like language, how would you then view someone who is nonverbal (something that can occur in people on the autism spectrum, for example)? If lying is intrinsically human, is a bad liar then not a person? Someone mentioned being highly evolved, but that to me is meaningless. The mantis shrimp have 16 types of colour receptive cones is their eyes, compared to the human three. They can probably see colours we can’t even imagine. That seems highly evolved to me, but that doesn’t make them human.