Theme 4: Quantitative Research

Before theme 4 started, we were to read the article:

• Fondell, E., Lagerros, Y. T., Sundberg, C. J., Lekander, M., Bälter, O., Rothman, K., & Bälter, K. (2010). Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection.Med Sci Sports Exerc, 43(2), 272-279.

It discusses and analyses the relationships between physical activity, stress and URTI. I enjoyed the article because of the timing. Autumn is just arriving and it’s cold outside. I had a cold just the other week so the timing of the article was good. I also got better insight on papers based on quantitative methods.

We were also to read a paper of our own and answer some questions. I chose to read the article: ‘Interactive Features of Online Newspapers: Identifying Patterns and Predicting Use of Engaged Readers’ (2008), which was published in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (impact factor: 2.019). The author of the paper is Deborah S. Chung, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.

The aims of the article were to identify:

1. Categories of interactivity promoted through different interactive features
2. Patterns of online news reader’s uses of interactive features
3. factors that predict the use of different types of interactive features 

I enjoyed reading the article even though it was very focused on giving quantitative data and correlations. Thus, this is good regarding this week’s theme, but I do think it was a bit too much sometimes. What I’ve learnt from the article is that it isn’t that important for newspapers to have all these new and exceptional interactive features. According to the paper is the market apparently not ready for it. In my opinion I would like to add “the market is not ready, just yet”. The four categories of interactive features presented by the article were:

• human/medium interactive features (e.g. “submit photos/stories” and letter-to-editor)
• medium/human interactive features (e.g. customized weather/topics and search feature)
• human interactive features (e.g. message boards, Q&A and chat functions)
• medium interactive features (e.g. audio files and video files)

Which quantitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

The paper used an online-based web-survey. The benefits of this method is that you can receive more responses than if you’re using for instance a telephone-based interview. The limitations on the contrary is that you don’t get as detailed answers as compared to telephone interviews. I would for this paper perhaps tip Chung off to start out with a web-survey and then ask some of the respondents to participate in a focus group session. In this way Chang would in addition to her quantitative responses also deepen her result with more qualitative data.

What did you learn about quantitative methods from reading the paper?
The most interesting with the methods in this paper was how few of the readers actually answered the survey. Despite the method being a rather simple web-survey and despite the chance of perhaps winning a prize, out of over 40 000 readers Chang “only” received 542 verified respondents. I also learnt the importance of being well-prepared when constructing surveys. Chang included a variety of theories and models in order to receive as “good” (effective) responses as possible, with great result I think.

Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the quantitative method or methods have been improved?

This is kind of similar to my response in the previous question but I guess Chang could have done follow-up surveys  or focus groups as well. Perhaps to analyse the changes over time and make sure to get what respondents really think. Sometimes when you fill in surveys you go through it very fast and don’t really think before you answer. I think a couple of follow-up web-surveys with similar question or discussions from focus groups would strengthen the conclusions Chang draws.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using quantitative methods?

I think I have answered this further up but I think you lose some depth to the investigation if you only ask quantitative questions. I think a combination of quantitative and qualitative would gather a more valuable result. This of course depends on what result you’re seeking, but I’m thinking in general that this would result in a better investigation. The upside of using quantitative methods is that you can gather a lot of responses since it’s very general questions and time efficient.

Which are the benefits and limitations of using qualitative methods?

See questions above. In short: time consuming and it’s hard to prove your result in numbers. When having a quantitative survey you can write that 7 out of 10 likes cheeseburgers over hamburgers. This is difficult to do ‘a priori’ in a qualitative survey. The benefits are like I wrote above that you’ll have more detailed answers to your questions.

Reflections on theme 3: Theory & Research

Theory, theory, theory… I have a lot of theories what theory really is. It is hard to grasp but at my seminar there was one defining theory as: “I would explain theory as a way to organize abstract thinking, making meaningful generalizations of a phenomena or the world.” I am quoting this because I truly think it’s very nice put. I mean it’s still fairly abstract, however it’s a little less abstract now.

During the seminar we evaluated if we’ve chosen the correct theory type. Someone at the seminar had posted this very nice picture of Gregor’s table. There were quite a few that had chosen the third type ‘Prediction’. I among them had understood Gregor as hypotheses can be included in this third type. However it can not. We discussed this for a long time at the seminar and it became fairly clear to me, though I’m kind of unsure how I ever can put a paper in the third section. I’m even more unsure when to put a paper in the fourth section ‘EP - Explanation and Prediction’. That is still, to me, a mystery. :)

Some part of me want to write that the higher number on theory type, the more valuable the article. However I won’t write it since I think it depends on the article and purposes with the article. I defined my paper, before the seminar, to be a hybrid between type one (‘analysis’) and type two (‘explanation’) and I still believe so. Before the seminar I thought the article was more of a type two but now I’m leaning towards it being more of a type one. Thus we discussed our articles in smaller groups during the seminar and when I was talking about my paper ‘out loud’ I realized that Chan is more saying ‘what it is’ than explaining ‘how, when, why and where’. Because he kind of does this too, I’ll still categorize it as a hybrid between the two types - perhaps type 1,5?

At the lecture the professor talked a lot about theories and how to define ‘theory’. I thought this was helpful and confusing at the same time. I had hoped that we would discuss this further on the seminar and especially the benefits and limitations with different theories. I ended up in a nice semi-seminar group in which we discussed this to some extent, so I am satisfied anyway. Haha.

Also, during the lecture, we looked at a picture of trees and snow. We were asked to describe what was shown. Trees, snow, how the wind had blown and loneliness came up. I was thinking ‘Christmas morning’ but I wasn’t sure how to argue for why I thought so. I think the purpose of the assignment was to look at the picture and look at it again. I took a course in photography in high school, that’s when I first got introduced to this. Before I could see a picture or a painting without really seeing it. Thus I was very boring to go to museums and art galleries with. However, during that course in photography I sort of learnt to take the time and look and look again. To me I manage to see more of the object by making up stories to it. Perhaps that’s why I was thinking of a Christmas morning when looking at the picture at lecture.

I don’t think anyone can see the whole picture, since it requires a posteriori knowledge (i.e. experience) to be able to interpret the picture/object/painting. The picture differ depending on who is watching. I think that is why some art/pics attract some people and not everybody. Haha, Kant is still bugging me with his “How can we say anything about the world a priori?”

Theme 3: Research and Theory

This week I have read the texts:

• Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611-642.
• Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371-384.

In addition, I have also chosen an academic paper in the field of Media Technology. Below are my pre-reflections for the third theme.

1. Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

The construct ‘theory’ is easier said than done to explain. The Oxford Dictionary explains ‘theory’ as: “A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something” and gives Darwin’s theory of evolution as an example. In the text “What Theory is Not” (Sutton and Staw, 1995) I especially liked the sentence:

“Theory is about connections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events, structures and thoughts occur.”

As you can see, it’s hard to fully explain what ‘theory’ is. Gregor (2006) characterizes theories in five sections:

1. theory for analyzing (what is)
2. theory for explaining (what, where, why, how, when)
3. theory for predicting (what will be)
4. theory for explaining and predicting (EP theory) (merges the theory for explaining with the theory for predicting)
5. theory for design and action (how to do something)

To sum up, I would like to use another quote from Gregor: 

“/.../ theories [can be described] as abstract entities that aim to describe, explain, and enhance understanding of the world and, in some cases, to provide predictions of what will happen in the future and to give a basis for intervention and action.”


Write a short description of the journal and what kind of research it publishes.

I’ve chosen a paper from ‘Journal of Communication’ which is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed academic journal that publish articles and book reviews in the field of communication theory. The impact of the journal is 2.076.

Write a short summary of the paper and provide a critical examination of, for example, its aims, theoretical framing, research method, findings, analysis or implications.

‘Multimodal Connectedness and Quality of Life: Examining the Influences of Technology Adoption and Interpersonal Communication on Well-Being Across the Life Span’

The article is written by Michael Chan (Chinese University of Hong Kong) in August 2014. Chan discusses how multimodal connectedness affects the quality of life. Since tablets, laptops, smartphones, among other technical devices occur daily our social life, Chan thinks it’s of great importance to investigate how these devices affects our well-being.

The article uses a regression analysis, surveys and correlation matrices, among other things. The findings are that there is a correlation between well-being and aging. People older than 34 years old tend to get an enhanced level of well-being by multimodal connections. This in contrast to people in the age 18-34 who tend to get a decreased level of well-being when engaging through multimodal connections.

• Means of representation - tables, graphs, words, mathematical formulas
• Constructs - multimodal connectedness, strong-tie and weak-tie communication, demographics, well-being
• Statements of relationships - “With Internet connectivity and the mobile phone, individuals have perpetual connectivity with others, affording them the ability to develop and maintain meaningful relationships unbound by time or location, to obtain and provide social support, and to be more engaged with the community”
• Scope - very exact numbers and calculations, careful with: “some” and “many”
• Causal explanations - well-being and age span between 35-70
• Testable propositions - None.
• Prescriptive statements - further research

Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

I would say the article is in line with Gregor’s second theory - ‘theory of explanation’. Chan discusses relationships between well-being and aging. Answer to what the constructs Chan uses are is received when reading the article, as well as why the correlations are drawn the way they are.


Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The benefits of the ‘theory of explanation’ are clear and thoroughgoing result. It gives knowledge of questions such as what, why, where, when and how. Even though the article is easy to understand, I think Chan could have used more illustrations to show the findings. Not just on a shallow level but to further deepening the meaning of the findings.

In general the limitations if the article only can be categorized in the ‘theory of explanation’ is the lack of answer to questions such as how to change the issue (‘theory of design and action’) and the ‘EP-theory’ where the ideas of ‘theory of explanation’ and the ‘theory of prediction’ are sort of merged together. 

Reflections on theme 2: Critical Media Studies

The lecture was partly a history lesson with a lot of interesting relationships between scientists and society. I thought it was especially interesting to think about why certain inventors and philosophers have drawn the conclusions they have. To think about history in a more holistic perspective is new for me but I enjoy it. It gives a greater understanding. Anyway, to connect to philosophy, which sort of is the theme for this week as well, is also to think of it in a more holistic way. To understand why Benjamin committed suicide and the relationship he had with Adorno and Horkheimer contributed higher level of knowledge about the texts to me.

I have also gotten a greater understanding of the meaning of dialectic in the sense of Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer refer to it. It can not only be explained as two sides of an argument but also as the metaphoric relations between an artist and a photographer as well as the relation between a magician and a surgeon.

Furthermore the movie shown at the lecture got me thinking. I was watching the countdown for the Swedish election this Sunday and was surprised how alike the political culture and the sport culture are. Not only have politicians opponents like athletes, they also have fans. When I’m attending soccer games I’m always fascinated of how people act together like one unity. They tend to sing the same songs and “dance” in the same way. When I was watching the countdown of the election these behaviours was shown but with political fans instead of sports fans. As long as it is just for fun and doesn’t hurt anyone, I think this is okay and even cheerful behaviour. However after I watched the movie at the lecture I draw the parallel to the second world war and Germany. I’ve thought a lot about this kind of group behaviour in the last couple of days. How come we can engage in arrangements like this without questioning it? Or are we fully aware what we are doing at all times? I know that many germans didn’t understand what they were doing. It is hard to write about this and perhaps the parallels are silly but I think it is a bit creepy how similar the events are. A swedish xenophobic party received over ten percent of the votes in this weekend’s election. I hope people voting for that party don’t really know what they’re doing either.

Adorno and Horkheimer wanted change. The lecture raised the question: how is the Media Technology being misused? This has made me think even more critically when watching TV and seeing commercials on the subway. Am I being tricked on a daily-basis? Haha, it sounds like I’ve gone all paranoid and perhaps that is the only solution to be a true philosopher. Anyway, I think it is very interesting to experience how this knowledge on different fields in philosophy affects me.

To write something about the seminar. It was a good seminar and I realized the value of perceiving information in swedish over english. I didn’t realize that the vocabulary has such a great importance. However I think this is very good practise, both to write in english but also to learn how to gain knowledge in another language.

We talked about universal and particular things. The universal are shared of all people, such as the knowledge of a chair for example. We can all picture the universal chair with four legs and perhaps a back side. The particular chair is on the contrary different to all of us. The particular things are only shared by some. I might think of a blue chair while you think of a green one. Adorno and Horkheimer argues that there only exists particular things.

During the seminar we also discussed in what ways the culture have revolutionary potentials according to Benjamin. Someine raised the examples of the camera and the telephone. They have really changed how our perspective on things. Nowadays everyone has a camera in their phone and can take snapshots of the everyday-life. Before the camera, the need for a camera didn't really exist but now we pretty much can't live without it.

I wonder if it's the same for social network sites, such as Facebook. I mean Facebook in specific will perhaps not change our everyday-life but along with all other sites I think it sure will. I can't imagine a world like we had for only 10 years ago. I remember not having broadband connection and only being able to log in to MSN messenger and sometimes the social network sites playahead and lunarstorm. Nowadays I'm on Facebook several times a day and I also use apps like Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat and WhatsApp on a daily-basis. What if we someday don't have smartphones and social media? Will strangers start talk to each other on the bus and will people not look at their phone as soon as they're feeling bored? Scary. I think the smartphones with the social media tool really has changed our way of living.

Theme: Critical Media Studies

This theme discusses critical media studies. Before the lecture and the seminar we are to read two texts; "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) written by Walter Benjamin and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"). Below follows my thoughts on the questions.

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

a. What is "Enlightenment"?

The Enlightment period took place in the late 17th century and is based on rationality and reason. This instead of myths and fantasies, that previously dominated the society. The purpose of the enlightment is to explain everything to avoid fearfulness among humans.

b. What is "dialectic"?

When two sides have different opinion on something the Dialectic method can be used. It consists of both parties listening to each other and then together come up with the best solution or the correct answer, i.e. the truth. To know what is true, you must so to speak know what is not-true.

c. What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism determines what exists and what doesn’t exist. Basically nominalism says that all objects you can scientifically prove exists while illusions (abstract objects), such as spirits, doesn’t exist according to nominalism. You can say that nominalism is in line with or encourage enlightenment if you look at it this way.

d. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

According to Adorno and Horkheimer, myths are made-up explanations created by humans. They mean that the reason for humans to make up myths is to feel safer and not as afraid of the “not-knowing”. Adorno and Horkheimer are not big fans of myths since they push for enlightenment and true (scientifically proved) knowledge.

2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

a. In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

I interpret Benjamin's text as substructure being the parts building the superstructure. When Benjamin, for example mentions paintings, painters, cameramen and photographs, he is talking about objects directly connected to the production, i.e the substructure. The superstructure on the other hand is more complex. All the pieces of the subculture together makes the superstructure, such as the whole culture field, which Benjamin discusses in the text.

This cultural production is interesting to look at from a Marxist perspective because it tells you a lot about (in this case) culture. What is happening and what will happen with the culture? The substructure can change fairly fast while the superstructure, of course, takes longer time to change. Benjamin spends, for example, a great time of discussing the ability to reproduce paintings and the invention of the camera. He means that some of the aura is lost because the new technology. I especially liked the quote:

“/.../ while resting on a summer afternoon, you follow with your eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that branch”.

I interpret this as that you have to actually be there to experience the “right” aura. A photograph won’t do it. A painting would kind of do the aura for you, since you need to interpret the painting compared to the photograph where you basically don’t need to think at all in order to perceive the experience. In other words, with the new technology of reproduction, the substructure is changing as well as the superstructure in the culture field.

b. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

Because of the new technology, such as the camera and ability to reproduce objects (reproduction), Benjamin means that (as written above) the culture is changing and also how we think of culture and other areas, thus Benjamin thinks culture have a revolutionary potential. Before the only option where to interpret yourselves what characters in a book look like. However, now with movies you get the characters appaerance served to you. In addition to this, movies/books/art are easier distributed which leads to more people having access to it. Benjamin is not a big fan of any of this. He means that the art gets ruined while Adorno & Horkheimer embrace this because knowledge is easier spread (enlightened).

c. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

Benjamin means that perception can be split in two. The natural perception is determined upon our senses, feelings and experiences. This while the historical perception rather is determined by historical events. Our perception depends both on what we feel and sense but also because of our history. Benjamin mentions for example: “

The fifth century, with its great shifts of population, saw the birth of the late Roman art industry and the Vienna Genesis, and there developed not only an art different from that of antiquity but also a new kind of perception.”

d. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

I interpret Benjamin as the aura of objects are unique and not changed by time and space. With the example of the mountain, mentioned above, Benjamin means that you have to experience the shadow of the mountain and be there in order to perceive its aura. For sure you can see a picture of it but then you don’t get the same aura. I’m not sure if Benjamin means that you don’t perceive any aura at all. However I think you do, but a different kind of aura. In order to understand this, I thought of a picture of a sunset compared to actually experience the sunset in real time. There’s for sure a difference in time and space where, at least I think, you loose some of the, let’s say “feeling” or aura if you’d like.

I think there’s a slightly difference between natural objects’ aura and art objects’ aura. However they are as complex but only experienced in different ways. Of course you loose some of the aura if you see a poster of a painting instead of the actual painting. However you can still choose when to look at the painting compared to for example the sunset where you have to take the sun’s position in consideration. I guess this is different depending on what you are looking at so my final conclusion is that all objects’ auras are unique, but perhaps art objects’ aura aren’t as dependent on time and space as natural objects’ aura.

Reflections on the lecture & seminar on 'Knowledge'

The lecture was a bit hard to follow. Even though I understood more what Kant and Socrates are saying, I was still confused with the fact that I didn’t understand everything. During the seminar, we talked about the lecture in a slower tempo, thus (and because I’ve read, thought and heard of the ideas a couple of times by now) it made more sense. Still, I have a hard time to accept the fact that I don’t fully understand everything but I’ve started to somehow make peace with it. The quote below has helped a lot. :-)

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” - Socrates

My conclusion from the lecture and the seminar is a deepen understanding of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. You can combine those with synthetic judgment and analytic judgment. Basically, I understand it as synthetic judgment (like a posteriori knowledge) is based upon experiences and analytic judgment (like a priori knowledge) is a form of “objective” perspective.

Kant asks the question: “how can we gain synthetic knowledge of the world a priori?”. This is really hard to comprehend and think of. I’ve experienced that rides on the subway and late at night to be good times to think of these abstract questions. During the seminar we asked ourselves if a newborn possessed the ability to see. I mean of course the baby see stuff unless its blind but does it understand what it sees? Someone did put it as the baby was laying a puzzle. At first it only has a couple of pieces but the more pieces it gains the more it understands, and the the more it “sees”.

I thought it was interesting to shift perspective and ask whether the baby could hear us or listen to us. To me, that is how I understand it. When I have enough pieces of the puzzle I listen and before that I can only hear. I think this is very interesting to reflect further on. When learning, for example, you can either get a shallow picture of the field or you can dive right into it. When you’re learning about how businesses are structured (I’m taking a course in marketing at the moment), you can either read about the theory first or you can pay a company a visit and see how they’re organized in reality. I interpret this as you need to both visit the firm but also learn about the theories of organisation structures in order to gain knowledge of business organisations. However, it is interesting to look at what is most efficient to do first. I think I would like to visit the company first and then read about the different theories and perhaps then again visit the company to gain knowledge.

This is also how I look at the philosophical stuff we’re learning at the moment. I need to read about it, reflect on it and talk about. I will never fully understand it but the more I think about the more interesting I find it.

Lastly, I would like to enlighten the differences between naturalism and scientism I’ve reflected on. We talked about why some people have more words for snow than others. Of course the environment plays a big role. The interesting part to me though was that there isn’t really only a scientific answer to the question. We talked about love too. Someone said it depends on the level of dopamine/serotonin in the brain and I accept that fact. However, that isn’t all. I think I understood that science isn’t everything. There must be some kind of magic in order for me to fall in love. I’m sure it isn’t just serotonin levels. To explain it in a somewhat  “engineery” way I would say that the equation has no solution or that the equation has an infinity of solutions.

I also reflected on how the senses play a role in all of this. During the seminar, we also talked about how blind people experiences the world. I was thinking that if you’re blind you compensate this by trying to “see” things with your other senses. Perhaps we (people with five senses) also try to “see” stuff only someone with a sixth sense can see? I don’t mean to get all dopey now. However, I was thinking that maybe it is the same with falling in love. Some people only have five ways of falling in love and some people have more “senses” and therefore can fall in love in more ways. I don’t think this can be explained with serotonin and dopamine, this is something else. You could call it magic or humbug, I don’t know, but my conclusion is that this “something” is needed to fully understand how come we fall in love or how come some people knows more words than others of how to identify snow.

My knowledge about the world is the world and I’ve learnt to see both facts but also forms in order to gain knowledge.

Theme: Knowledge

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" 

- Socrates

1. In the preface to the second edition of "Critique of Pure Reason" (page B xvi) Kant says: "Thus far it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to objects. On that presupposition, however, all our attempts to establish something about them a priori, by means of concepts through which our cognition would be expanded, have come to nothing. Let us, therefore, try to find out by experiment whether we shall not make better progress in the problems of metaphysics if we assume that objects must conform to our cognition." How are we to understand this?

According to Kant, there are two ways of knowledge. On the one hand, we can look at a priori knowledge which is only necessarily, universal knowledge we have about things basically without any experience. For example is mathematical knowledge typical a priori knowledge. On the other hand, Kant writes about a posteriori knowledge where the approach is all based upon experiences. Furthermore, we can look at the example “a pregnant woman” which says that the a priori knowledge is a woman carrying a child. If we instead look at the example “all pregnant women are hungry all the time”, with the perspective of a posteriori knowledge, we need to meet (experience) all pregnant women in order to determine that all of them actually are hungry all the time.

Kant says that our cognition must conform to objects, however he also discusses the importance of objects conforming to our cognition. As an example Kant describes the view of the solar system, in which we thought the sun was spinning around the earth. It wasn’t until Copernicus thought “outside the box” (and found out that the earth actually is doing all the spinning) our view of the solar system changed. I interpret this as Copernicus thus made the object conform to the cognition in order to solve the problem.

My general thoughts on this subject is that in order to gain knowledge we need to combine both the a priori knowledge and the a posteriori knowledge. Also, empiricism (as mentioned in the question below) could be compared to a posteriori knowledge in the same way as rationalism could be discussed to be a sort of a priori knowledge.

2. At the end of the discussion of the definition "Knowledge is perception", Socrates argues that we do not see and hear "with" the eyes and the ears, but "through" the eyes and the ears. How are we to understand this? And in what way is it correct to say that Soctrates argument is directed towards what we in modern terms call "empiricism"?

In this part of the text, the discussion between Socrates and Theaetetus goes back and forth whether knowledge can be described as perceiving. Socrates argues that we rather see and hear “through” our eyes and ears than “with” them. I understand this as it is not enough to only hear and see things with separate senses to have knowledge about them. For example, as Socrates and Theaetetus also discuss, we need to combine all senses to be able to know what colour is showing or if the music playing is loud. You could also put it as we need to reflect on the impressions we perceive in order to gain knowledge about them. Socrates also exemplifies this with the Trojan horse which unlike human beings does have unconnected senses;.

“/../ no one can suppose that in each of us, as in a sort of Trojan horse, there are perched a number of unconnected senses, which do not all meet in some one nature, the mind, or whatever we please to call it, of which they are the instruments, and with which through them we perceive objects of sense.”

According to the Swedish National Encyclopedia, “empiricism” is emphasizing experience rather than wisdom as base for our knowledge. I interpret this, as written above, that we need to connect the senses in order to gain knowledge. Therefore I think Socrates’ argumentation and the definition of “empiricism” are equal in this aspect. We need to reflect on what we see and hear and not just use the senses separately, in other words we need to see through our eyes and not with them. Thus, I don’t think you could say Socrates only discusses empiricism in the text. I would rather put it as empiricism being a part of his discussion with Theaetetus.

In addition to this, I have also thought about the distinction between “hearing” and “listening”. We can hear what people are saying but it isn’t until we listen to them that we actually understand what they’re saying. This agrees with Socrates argumentation; we see and hear through our eyes and ears. However, I would like to express it as “we hear with our ears, but we listen through our ears”.

First post - Welcome!

Hey, this is my blog for the course dm2572 - Theory and Method for Media Technology. The purpose of the blog is to reflect on the course twice a week during the autumn of 2014.

The course is part of the master program "Media Management" held at Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).