The third theme in this course was a covering a more
practical area than the previuos two. Which I think is great thus we learn to
use the knowledge. The preparation of the theme included reading as previous
weeks but also to examine a journal and an article to apply what you read. I
participated on both the lecture and the seminar.
During the seminar we discussed what theory is and continued
with discussion about if math is theory or not. Were do we set the boundry for
what is a priori and what is based on
theories? Our conclusion was that math itself can’t be an theory because it is a priori knowledge. But there is a lot
of mathematic theories.
Another thing we discussed was the link between knowledge
and theories. Which is quite intresting because theories can be both ”true” and
”false”, they are only a way of explaining which is based on current
observations and valid theories. As an example the heliocentric model which is
a theory that based on observations said that the earth is the center of the
universe. However other observations have proved it wrong and new theories have
been formed. Our conclusion was that
theory can lead to knowledge, but is on their own not knowledge.
I read an article that described a methodology which can be
applied to get a secure authentication system based on biometrics. (Karthikayani K, 2015) However the
theory they used might not be the one that characteristics theory the best. But
I still think it has a value. The theory used was mainly Design and action if classified with Gregors taxanomy. (Gregor, 2006) As I wrote in the blogpost
before this theme Design and action
describes how we can do things. This category of theory in the taxanomy however
does not answer many why queries. However it is important to investigate how we
can use theoretical knowledge in development. Specially in the field of
informations systems. However this type of theory might not be classified as
theory in other fields.
I think it is hard to rate this kind of theory as weak and
strong due to the fact that it is often built on other theories. However if I would
make a try I would concentrate on how well they motivate and explain why we
should do as they present. In the article I read they did not motivate their
choice of method well. But to be theory of category Design and action it is not anything that is required in the
taxanomy. (Gregor, 2006) However if they had presented
the theories they used when investigating how to design the authentication
system and explained why we should do as they present. I would regard the theory of the article to be stronger. I would say
that what characterize strong theory is that it is complete and with strong and
valid arguments.
In conclusion theory can be said to be something that
explain phenomenas, why they occur, what will occur and/or shows us a way of
use theoretical knowledge in practice. Even if the last category might not
always be classified as theory in our field I would argue that it is. Mostly
due to the nature that we work with constructed artifacts which serves a
purpose. Because of that it essential to overbridge the gap between theories
and practical usage.
Sources
Gregor, S. (2006). R Esearch E Ssay. MIS Quarterly,
30(3), 611–642. Retrieved from
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5220/NatureofTheoryMISQ.pdf
Karthikayani
K, L. R. (2015). Designing a Bio-Capsule Secure Authentication System. Journal
of Information Technology & Software Engineering, 05(01), 1–4.
http://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7866.1000138
Hi Calle,
SvaraRaderaThanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I think your reflection covers many points of this far reaching field. I especially liked the passage about the link between knowledge and theories as this was also quite interesting to me. Once a theory proved to be wrong and hence a new theory is to become effective we can call such a fundamental change “paradigm shift” according to Thomas Kuhn. Also because of your intense thoughts about the article you have read I think you did a great job on this.
Hi!
SvaraRaderaYou describe theories as something which can be both “true” and “false”. Are there really such a thing as an objective truth and false? I mean, you take the heliocentric model as an example of a theory which was proven wrong but was previously considered right. According to my understanding, this doesn’t mean that it was “true” until proven “false”, but rather that it was the most acceptable conclusion based on the data gathered at that time - or maybe I’ve got things on the backfoot as we say in Sweden? Furthermore it was interesting to read your thoughts on your personally selected article and its usage of theory! Keep up the good work.
Hi
SvaraRaderaYour opinion about the role of theory to guide our knowledge is quiet interesting.Yes,theory should have the objective description and judgement to reflect and generalize the information that we perceive and observe from the external changes in some way.It is given the value because we need it as a tool to find and
interpret more phenomenons.However,It's always in the process to develop and makes our conclusions end up with the knowledge.In the vein, we complete and detailing our knowledge system constantly and yet these still are progressive.Thanks for sharing
Hi Calle,
SvaraRaderaI like how you discuss several interesting points of the theme and that you explain them as well. And I think that it is good that you are critical to the own selected text and that you are questioning their theory. Your discussion of theory and a priori was very interesting to read. In our seminar we discussed what paradigm shift that was coined by Thomas Kuhn is, and that is has affected the world historically in many times, for example the Copernican revolution. Great work
Hi Calle!
SvaraRaderaInteresting read, I like how you connect this theme with the previous ones and brought up concepts of for example "a priori" and "a posteriori". I think the discussion on math is good and to me, it's a strange thought that math wouldn't be a theory in its foundation. Isn't a priori knowledge a theory since we came up with it, making it a priori?
Keep up the good work!
You pointed out that a theory can be true or false. I generally agree with you on this aspect but only under some preconditions which you haven't specified. Therefore I would like to add that it is important to consider that theory can only ever be considered true when evaluating it according to its present context.
SvaraRaderaMoreover, you say that most theories are "often built on other theories" - I'd rather they there is hardly any theory which is not built upon another one.
Hello!
SvaraRaderaGreat re-reflection on your chosen paper, seems like what you learnt this week really gave you new insight. I find your discursion on maths and theory quite interesting. Yes, maths is synthesized a priori knowledge, but as of now we do not know everything about maths. Some parts are still shrouded in darkness as with our observing the world. Therefore we will need to formulate theories also in maths, which will lead to new knowledge and proofs in mathematics!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaYour take on theory is very interesting. You write about mathematics and if they are theory. You conclude that math is based on a priori knowledge and can therefore not be theory but then you mention that there exist mathematical theories. If they are not theories, then what are they? I liked your conclusion regarding theory and knowledge , theory itself is not knowledge but that it can lead to knowledge and to other theories.
Hello!
SvaraRaderaGood reflection! I get the feeling that you have put down quite som energy in trying to wrap your head around what theory is. I like your discussion about math as theory. In my group we had a similar discussion of religion and if religion is a theory or just a hypothesis with the lecturer claiming religion can be seen as theory but perhaps not a very good one. I think the "why" is key in discussing what theory is. A theory aims to answer a question of "why" and you also bring that up in your reflection. Good job!