Arozin - Research and theory, reflection

Before this week, I thought I knew the definition of theory, or at least had a pretty good perception of it, but after this weeks lecture and seminar I realized that my definition of theory rather was the definition of a hypothesis.

During the seminar everyone in my group had almost the same definition of theory , with some slight changes and alterations. we draw the conclusion that a hypothesis is a link or a bridge that connects the theory and the empirical data.

In the beginning a theory is nothing but an observation of the behaviour of causal relationships, or an outcome based on nothing else but a hunch or a feeling. The hypothesis then tries to explain what is expected of the outcome and the accuracy of the theory by observing the theory, and the hypothesis gets proven or unproven by empirical data collected through a research, which proves or disproves the theory.

We later through the seminar discussed what theories are based upon, and we came to the conclusion that basicly, research is result of the chain of theory-hypothesis-data, but we later discussed if research can be the base to a theory. The overall consent was that theory can not be based on research but I beg to differ, because I think that research in one specific scientific area can be a vivid base of a scientific theory in another area. The research itself may not prove the validity of the created theory, but can be used to raise a question around it.

For example there has been a theory that claims that black holes does not exist, since the amount of radiation shed from a collapsing star surpasses the amount needed for creating a black hole, and the theorist bases this theory on the research of hawking radiation around the phenomena of the event horizon that surrounds a black hole. I would see this as a theory based on research in a similar field that has a connection to the area of the theory, but not the theory itself.

(http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist)

We also discussed our different papers that we chose, whereas my paper had a theory that today's media companies and producers do not hold the same contextual power as they did decades ago due to the evolution of the internet, which gave individuals a greater freedom of speech.

The theory proved to be accurate after observing empirical data collected over the years, plus qualitative interviews of top shots in the media industry, but during the seminar we argued that maybe the internet is not as effective as we thought? We though this since a discussion on the internet lack some key values compared to a  discussion you have in person, such as feelings, impressions, and the behaviour of the participants. all this gets neglected in a discussion on the internet, which often leads to misinterpretations and unnecessary misunderstandings.

We thought of it as a wall, which everyone throw their opinions on, left it there and rarely reflected on others opinions on the wall.

This was a very hard drawn conclusion, and there is absolutely effective discussion on the internet, but we have to bear in mind what the digital world neglects us. Personally I think that internet is a modern way of expressing yourself, and it gives you an alternative, which makes it good democratic tool, but maybe it isn't as good as everyone think it is.