What I have learned week 48

This week has mainly been about the concept of theory, what it is, and what theory is not. This week I discovered that the concept of theory is quite hard to define, but there exist rules and examples on what theory is and was it not.

We have read two texts this week, one that try to explain different kind of theories and one that explain what theories is not. We also read a paper from a good journal (impact factor > 1), and discussed the theories that exist in our papers. In my paper I argued for my paper was of an analysis type of theory, according to Gregory text. Even if they had some explanations, they mix the explanations with references in a way that I must read the references in order to understand the explanations. This week we have among other learned that references is not theory, and that’s why I claim that my text was of an analysis type.

Unfortunately I was sick to the second seminaries, it was something that I looked forward to, especially sense we didn’t discuss so much about the concept of theory on the first seminar, but discussed our papers and journals quality instead. Something I wanted to discuss was the different theory types, that where discussed in Gregory’s text. For me was my paper an analysis type, because the way the text uses references. But it had some short explanation, that where mixed a bit with references. But my text was very technical, and the short explains had a few mathematical formulations that I didn’t understand. I maybe do if I study it a bit more, but not by just reading it. It when occurred to me that a text could be of different types, depending on the knowledge from the person reading it. For example if someone read a text that is of explanation type, but have low prior knowledge on the subject, the person could claim the text to be analysis, because the reader didn’t get the explanation. The reader in question understands “what it is”, but not “why” or “how”. While another reader with good prior knowledge could claim that the text is of an explanation type, sense he understand the whole text, and then know “what it is, why and how”. So in order to determine with type of theory a text belongs to, it requires a reader with “the right” prior knowledge to the subject. I would for example find it hard to truly decide what kind of theory a paper is, if the paper is written to quantum physicists.

I find the text “what theory is not” to be interesting even if it had (for me) some obvious points, like “data is not theory”. But I do think it is a common mistake for authors, to use data as theory. I think it could be done easily, if I author is really focused about the text and the meaning of the data seems obvious for the author. If the meaning of the data is obvious for the writer, it’s easy to think that the meaning of the data is obvious for all readers. But it’s not; it’s imported to tell why the data is important for the theory, and how it is important. 

Sem 3

I found a journal Named ”International Journal of Computer Vision” which have an impact factor of 3.6. It contains major technical advances for broad general interest and presents details from science and engineering from the growing field of computer vision. Since we the track ”image- and video technology” in the media technology-program and parts from computer vision is including in the track I find it could be very interesting for media technology students.

In the same journal as above, I read the text “Detection and tracking of occluded people”. The text is mainly about compare different methods and technologies for examine how well the different methods ant techniques works for detecting and tracking people in crowded street scenes using image technology. The aim in the paper is to examine which technology and method that works best, when other people occur people. Except techniques that are good on detecting one person, they also propose a new strategy that makes use of the pattern that appears when people overlapping each other, and are otherwise uncommon. So they basically take a single-person detector with two different methods, and a joint detector (for couple of people) using one method, and examine how much the people could occur each other, in terms of percentage, before the detector can’t detect the people, or make “false positives”. They try to give some theory of how the methods work, but it hard to understand. Maybe because I have to little background knowledge, but also because they use references in a way that force the reader to read the references, to fully understand.  So the could first show some mathematical calculation, then write like “that combing with (reference), makes something”. Sometimes they even use the references directly, like “we used the method in (reference)”.

Something that I think is little confusing is that they have a single-person detector, using method 1 & 2, and a joint detector using method 1, and set a table with all the result from there measures. When they set like a competition, and bold the one with the best result, but in the competition they only compare the single-detector using method 1 and the joint detector using method 1, and bold the best results, just between those. The single-person detector using method 2 is not in theirs competition, even if the result is in the table. So they bold the best result, that most appears in the joint detector, but the single-person detector with method 2, have many times better result, but is not bolded. The whole things gets little confusing, and it would be better to just compare the different detectors that using the same method, without printing the result from others method, and thereby just compare single-person detector with joint detector.

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

If I tried to explain for a first year student what theory is, I would probably say that is something that is hard to define, and could means different things for different subject, or different people. But it’s somehow an attempt to explain how or why something works, and the parts in the theory must be relevant by logical reasoning. The question, “why is that part needed” must be answered. Things like data or references, is not theory, even it could be a foundation for a theory. If for example data is used for develop a theory, it’s also imported that the question “why is the data it important?” could be answered.

 2. 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 argue for the theory type in my selected paper is mainly of type 1, of an analysis type, there the answer the question, which detector is best? It could also be considered as a explanation type (type 2 in the table), sense it answers the question “why is it best”? However, it’s not so much about how comes it’s the best detector, where they theirs argument is mixed with references, instead of fully explaining in the paper how it comes that a certain detector is better, in a technical way.   

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

An analysis could be both easier to write and read. Its less background knowledge needed for the reader, to understand an analysis. But its only show “what is”, and a reader don’t really have to know why it is so. An explanation will give more knowledge to the reader, even if it could require more background knowledge.

References

Tang, S., Andriluka, M. & Schiele, B., 2013. Detection and Tracking of Occluded People. International Journal of Computer Vision, (February). Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11263-013-0664-6 [Accessed November 22, 2013].

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

What I have learned, week 47

To be honest I find the literature for this week quite heavy and difficult to understand, however the lecture and especially seminar make things much clearer. I think we have a good seminar, with a lot of good discussions and interesting ideas.

By only reading the text it was hard to understand where all the negativity and the anger come from. That was almost nothing that was good in “new” media, according to the text. But with more knowledge about the author’s background it become somehow easer to understand the anger, and therefore the text. 

I find the part where Adorno and Horkheimer discuss the concept culture industry and criticize the “new” media very interesting. How media being criticized for being an industrial that only manipulates people and only care about how to make money. How it is seen as a threat to the culture and the statement of art. I must agree that media was and still is owned by big companies that somehow decide what newspapers, TV’s, films and radios shall contain. But today we have many more media platforms and the media consumer have in a way become a producer as well, and it’s possible for any person to spread messages. In that way, it’s not always the big companies that decide what the medias shall contain. We also had a quick discussion about that we don’t know for sure that the information that media tells people always is true. Even if it is true, it could be that is just a part of the story, and the medias exclude some information in order to save the interest of the owners to the media companies, by just saying a part of the truth.

I also don’t agree with Adornos and Horkheimer sight that mass media is a threat to the statement of art. That probably because I don’t define the concept “art” as same way they do. In our seminar we find out that it’s pretty hard to define what art is, because meaning of art is different for different people. So while someone could say that standardized movies from today could be consider as art, and other claim that is just a product. For me is art some artifact that somehow affects my feeling, and make me feel exited, glad, sad, happy or afraid. So in my opinion, media could be consider as art.

Something that is discussed in the book, that I feel that I want to discuss little more about, to understand it properly, is the concept of “myth”.  We discussed it quickly in our seminar, and if we had more time, it was something that we could discuss more about.

Seminar 2

What is Enlightenment?

The term enlightenment made me think on the time on the 18^th, where scientist thoughts where spread in Europe and traditions become contested.

According to the text, enlightenment has always focused on the aim to make people free from fear, and make them to masters instead.  It ‘s criticized for the way it make people think, the way it takes away philosophic thoughts, because for the enlightenment thinkers is anything an illusion unless it can be solved with numbers.  The old powers in the Platonic and the Aristotelian heritage of metaphysics have been discerned thanks to the enlightenment. The text arguing for the enlightenment works on same way as a dictator, it decides what people should thought.

What is the meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument?

Myth is something that we don’t know for sure, like if the sphinx is a man or lion. Myths sought to report, to tell of origins and to name things. But in order to do that, it also sought to narrate, record and explain. But enlightenment and scientific calculations annuls this account, that once in our time was given to myths. Enlightenment simply has the ability to reduce the myths in a way in meaning of local myths are gone or heavily reduced, like local demons and myths figures are replaced by e.g. gods

What are the “old” and “new” media that are discussed in the Dialectic of Enlightenment?

All the characteristic media, especially cinema, radio, jazz and magazines have the same origination as culture industry, who originate in liberal industrial countries. In progress this media followed the general law of capital. Some companies did not follow the follow the money, and it did it to its own disadvantage. The old media, like old movies or old radio program, media could be consider as art. Which have another focus than today, then today it is nothing else but business and even call themselves for industries.

What is meant by “culture industry”?

Culture industry is the generic name for industries that bring culture, and nor at least media, to the society. Its common for interested parties like to explain culture industry in technological terms. Millions of participants argue for the demand of reproduction process will inevitable lead to the use of standard product, for meet same needs at countless locations. It is claimed that the standardized forms where originally derived from the need of the costumers. For present is the technology of culture industry confines itself to standardization and mass production, thereby it sacrifices what once distinguished the logic of the work from that of society. This thanks to the function of economy today, not because that is how technology work.

What is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to Adorno and Horkheimer?

Mass media is media for the masses. But since culture industry, which is including media have the main goal to make a profit, it will be produce it in a way to make sure that the profit is as large as possible. The phrase “this concert is brought to you as a public service” in a way an indirect deception, since someone must somehow pay money to make the concert happen. If masses go to such public services, and therefore pay for example personal transportation or toilet visits, someone will somehow make a profit on what is suppose to be a public service.

Please identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting. Motivate your choice.

I find the concept of cultural industry quite interesting. Maybe because I think that I consume lot of media, and even collect on games, movies (old as new) and books. But I don’t I never think on way like the way the Authors describe it. I maybe had similar thoughts, but never formulate it or but words on those thoughts like Author succeed to do. The thought of “standardized media” whose greatest goal is to make profit is fascinating. Even if I don’t fully agree with the view on media as is described in the text.

What I have learned week 46.

Except a general practice in the English languish, which I need, I have this week learned a bit more about myself, and the way I have developed the last years when it comes to philosophical thoughts. I remember the time before I started at KTH, philosophy was something I really liked, and used to discuss. I still do, but I find it much harder now to think about some certain philosophic thoughts. I still like to discuss things that don’t have a strong scientific “proof”, like “what’s happens after life? Or what happens in the end of space?” but most of all ethic and moral questions like “Is it right to kill one person in order to save several persons?”. But if the areas have a strong scientific proof, I have hard to discuss the areas in a philosophical way, without I starts thinking at the discussion get fuzzy.

I think it’s unlucky that we couldn’t have the lecture or seminar this week, due the text had several interesting questions, which I find is hard to discuss further with myself. Even if the discussion and the arguments in the text were good, I would think it could be fun to exchange my thoughts with others. Especially if many had got different thoughts about to text, and the discussions that the text brings up.

Reading the text make me realize, even if its hard, that pretty much everything could be questioned, and when there exist a “scientific proof” for something, lets contested the proof. Russell shows in the text, that almost nothing is really clear. Bringing up discussions like “is 2+2=4” or “does the things we see with our eyes really exist, or is it just illations?”, is things I don’t usually sees as questions, but rather a fact. Even if I somehow knew that everything could be contested, I almost forgot these kinds of questions, and the interesting arguments that come along with the discussion of those questions.

Reading some reflections and answers in the blogs brings up some questions. There exist several difference answers to the same question, not necessary contradictory to each other, but bring up different point of views on the text. Even if several answers to a question could be considered as true, they contain different kind of points. The questions “what is sense-data?” and “Russell introduces the notion "definite description". What does this notion mean?” is the question I think have most answer where different answers could be relatively similar to each other.  But in the other two questions, the answer wasn’t as similar as in first two questions that are mentioned above. To be honest, I think question 2 “What is the meaning of the terms "proposition" and "statement of fact"? How does propositions and statement of facts differ from other kinds of verbal expressions?” in some ways was quite difficult, and sometimes it hard to tell if an element in the answer in a blog really are true or not. For that reason it is a shame that we all missed this weeks lecture and seminar, where at least I feel it could be nice with some clarification on the concepts and ideas that the text brings up. Even if I have my own answer for all this weeks questions, I have some doubt in some of the answer, in the way that I not confident with one hundred percentage to if they speaks the truth or not, or if its exist a true answer at all.

Seminar 1

1.Sense-data

In order to make the discussions and arguments easier, Russell came up with a few terms. One of these terms is sense-data and the first time Russell bring it up is when he discuss however the physical object that we consider are real thanks to our senses, really are real or not, and if it is possible that we can find evident that the real objects really exist.

Sense-data are the thing we immediately know, thanks to our senses.  Thanks to our ears, eyes, mouth, nose and felling we are able to detect such thing like colors, shape, taste and smell etc. Russell brings up the discussion about if we could trust our sense-data and our minds. Since the relation between sense-data and the physical object varies, depending on lot of thing, like location in the space in relation to the physical object or how hard we feel on the objects, makes that we get different inputs depending on how we use our senses and are in relation to the object. We all have different kind of sense-data, thanks to we see things in different angles and interpreters things differently, depending on our experience in the past. The discussion continues with despite we have our sense-data, how could we really know the things still exist when non of our senses stop being in relation to the physical objects, and only exist in our memory?

2.Proposition and statement of fact

The book brings up a fundamental principle when they analyze the propositions containing descriptions. The principle is about that all propositions that we can understand, must wholly be composed with constituents, which we are acquainted.  This because we don’t can do any supposition or judgments about something where we don’t know what it is that we are supposing or judging about.

A proposition is an explanation or description about something, like example “Djingis khan rule most of the modern world in his time”, or “Carolus rex succeded in defending Sweden when he had three opponents attacking on the same time” etc. Some of this proposition could be consider as knowledge since it is based on logical connection made by historical books etc.  Some propositions could be considered as fact and some don’t, since it is impossible to go back in time and acquaint with all the constituents that are required for the proposition. But if we take one proposition that wholly is composed with constituents, which we acquainted, and the proposition is consider as true, then we could use the term “statement of facts” for those propositions.

3.Define description

Define description is a description where the object are expressed in define way, like ’the so-and-so’. The term came up in a discussion about the knowledge that we get by description. He makes a point of the differences that could be in the descriptions, and set up two types of descriptions, namely ambiguous descriptions and defines descriptions. Where in the ambiguous descriptions object are expressed in a non-define way, like  ‘a so-and-so’.

So if someone told us that the black cat in his home is the aggressive one. There are reason to believe that there only is one cat that are black in his home, and easier for us to avoid the aggressive cat, when we visit him. But if someone told us that a black cat in his home is aggressive. We don’t know for sure that we see the aggressive cat when we a black cat in his home, since he could have several black cats. ‘The so-and-so’ description relates to a specific object, while ‘a so-and-so’ description relates to any object.

4.Theory of knowledge

First Russell argues for knowledge can’t be true belief, when the conclusion is dedicated from false belief. Even if I answer the right answer on a question, it could not be consider as knowledge, if my reasoning to the right answer where wrong. But if the reasoning where right we could consider it knowledge, however, Russell argue for that isn’t true that knowledge only is what is deduced from the true premisses. One problem is that we always don’t know if the premisses are true or wrong. He brings up the term derivative knowledge, which are knowledge that are intuitively. Even if assumptions are being made, the important thing is that are a logical connection, and that the person in question could become aware of the connection by reflection. So we don’t always have to know if the premisses is true, in order to obtain derivative knowledge. As long we have a logical reasoning we may obtain that is called derivative knowledge.