1:3 Comments: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. Kristina NybergSeptember 13, 2016 at 4:02 AM
   The text reads fairly easily. The feeling is that the author is engaged and somewhat enthousiast about the topic. The illustrative examples of tinted glasses for Kant and photo for Socrates were used in an effective way to help the reader in visualizing the theory.
   
   It was strange that the first text mentions Kant, the author, but Socrates which is a fictive character in the second text. Better would have been to name Plato, the author.
   
   It would also have been desirable to see the author go further in examining the topics outside of the texts at hand, linking to other sources to contrast.
   
   Stylistically I find the text at a good level; good vocabulary and aimed at the target group. One remark is that the author did an attempt in remaining gender neutral at one point where referring to "him or her". I would recommend to instead use "them" in a similar context.
   ReplyDelete
2. Kristina Nyberg13. syyskuuta 2016 klo 13.21
   Some improvement suggestions. Mainly, I had the feeling a lot of text could have easily been removed especially true for the part about Kant. The first paragraph could be removed. Additions such as "– weight being on the syllable re" do not add value. The language is sometimes as if spoken rather than written, this is something I recommend the author to think about. An example is "The dialogue actually reminds me of" where the word "actually" could better be removed in writing.
   
   Content wise there were some good points, especially about Plato, e.g. the allegory about the cave and how central subjectivism and filtering processes are in this text.
   VastaaPoista
3. Kristina NybergSeptember 13, 2016 at 4:41 AM
   The text is overall well written; compact and relevant. The author clearly knows how to formulate a text with a proper introduction, body and conclusion. Content is where it could be argued that the author could have done some more work, especially in the part about Kant. The synthetic and analytic judgement distinction is mentioned but not explained in the same way as a priori / posteriori knowledge is, for one. Adding reflection on having read other sources, if so only definitions of concepts, would have added value to the text as well.
   ReplyDelete
4. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 04:53
   Language could be improved, such as "standing points" which should be "stand points". The text was hard to read and it did not intrigue me. It feels like a bit of rambling and losing the "red thread" when one bit too many the author goes into mathematics. It was also not in balance to write that much about Plato and so little of Kant, in my opinion. It could also have enhanced the text to include sources (original texts and others). The introduction, however, was good.
   SvaraRadera
5. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:02
   Grammar check would improve the text, e.g. "experiment" seem like an evident typo. On other occasions I think vocabulary and/or grammar should be improved such as repetition in the sentence "Another explanation is that seeing and hearing is also an experience an experience that you get ‘through’ your senses and not ‘with’ them."
   
   Further, some terms in the text makes the author come off as insecure and not knowing their topic. For example "As far as I understand" I would recommend to think about this in future texts - show more confidence in your writing. My main recommendation for improvement is the writing style; although vocabulary could be expanded, content wise the author captures some of the topics in a simple way. I am however missing sources, both to the main text and to other definitions that would be relevant and enrich the text.
   BeantwoordenVerwijderen
6. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:09
   Additional note: "experiment" was no typo, it was just my senses that perceived a typo that did not exist.
   Verwijderen
7. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:16
   I think the author captured some of the main thoughts from the texts, which was the purpose with this post. Although I want to give a plus to the author for including sources, they can better be linked directly in the text rather than inserted below as non-clickable links - this is a blog post and there are tools for referencing within the text (s.k. hyperlinking).
   SvaraRadera
8. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:23
   Some improvements could be made as the text looks sloppy in some places, such as "Now Kants main field of interest is that of metaphysics, for which the methodology of study might seems less clear than for that of the natural sciences." where it should be "Kant's" and "seem".
   
   However, the author reached some valid conclusions. A favorite part of this was the sentence "Our perceptions are limited by the tools with which we perceive the world." which correlates with the discussion about faculties of knowledge and the loss of certain tools leads to insanity.
   SvaraRadera
9. Kristina Nyberg13 September 2016 at 05:31
   Some improvement suggestions for the text. For exampe, in the sentence "After reading "Theaetetus" we see that according to Socrates instead of trying to find out what knowledge is, it is much more easier to define what it is not." the expression "much more" could better be removed.
   
   Plus points for including sources, but in a blog post it is better to hyperlink them than stating them below the text as you would do in a report.
   
   Content-wise this felt a bit farfetched. It was in some parts difficult to grasp what the author wanted to say. I think it would be useful for the author to create some practical examples and shorten down some sentences to improve this.
   ReplyDelete
10. Kristina Nyberg13 септември 2016 г., 5:40
    First of all, the blog should better be structured so that it is easy to, in English, navigate to the correct blog post. At present there is no way except scrolling through all posts which will become tedious later on.
    
    Second, I think the questions were answered and sources hyperlinked within the text (which is enough, no need to list a bibliograpy after a post). Perhaps the post would have been improved with a short introduction.
    ОтговорИзтриване
11. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:44
    This blog reads easily and it is fairly easy to follow the line of thought. The Copernican evolution reference was an excellent way of explaining Kant. To give ideas for improvement, hyperlink the source within the text instead of adding it within brackets.
    SvaraRadera