Rough Draft of TOK Essay

Laura Fenney
Theory of Knowledge Rough Draft

Theory of Knowledge prescribed titles:

2. When should we trust our senses to give us truth?

Senses have been relied on too often to give us truth. Unfortunately it is regularly forgotten that much can be lost through relying on sensory perceptions. This is because senses are not reliable at all times, since we can miss things in just the blink of an eye. When people are under pressure or extreme stress they may think that they are seeing something for what it is, but there are often holes in what they perceive. Therefore senses provide a first account of an event, but should not be only used to determine truth. Instead, truth should be sought through not only senses, but also through logic and reason.
In Seven Seconds in the Bronx: The Delicate Art of Mind Reading, the case of sensory perception regarding Amadou Diallo is addressed. In this case, three men in the special division of the New York Police Apartment spotted Diallo, a black male suspiciously sitting on a porch area in the middle of the night. The police officers were certain that Diallo was up to something, so they decided to go after him. Diallo did not speak English and figured that the undercover police officers were trying to rob him in his apartment, so he ran. When Diallo reached into his pocket for his wallet, attempting to either pay the robbers or to identify himself, the police officers assumed that he had a gun and began shooting.
The undercover officers might have used their priori knowledge, knowledge based on previous experience and decided that they should shoot Diallo to defend themselves. They claimed that they singled out Diallo, since he fit the description of a rapist in the area of the Bronx. The officers probably thought that he was acting as a lookout, since he was standing out on the porch late into the night. The officers also thought that Diallo was brazen and so he appeared dangerous as he reached for his wallet. Their senses had dictated to them that he was reaching for his gun because they did not have time to wait around to find out if he was armed or not. Diallo said nothing because he spoke no English. Therefore, the officers reacted by shooting to defend themselves.
The actions of the police officers cannot be fully justified, since they shot Diallo with forty one rounds. It was not one police officer who was in a pressured situation, but it was three police officers. Even if they all believed that Diallo was armed with a gun, forty one rounds would not be necessary to defend themselves. Their reaction goes far beyond thinking that someone was dangerous, since Diallo did not ever show a weapon.
Another explanation for the officers’ reactions is found in the section titled “Arguing with a Dog,” which describes the idea of “temporary autism.” When extreme stress ensues under high pressured situations the results can be tunnel vision, extreme visual clarity, diminished sound, and the feeling that time is actually slowing down. These symptoms are described as a form of “temporary autism,” which shows how sound, memory, and broader social understanding are sacrificed for heightened awareness of the threat directly in front of us.
Dave Grossman states that at the optimal state of arousal, stress improves performance when our heart rate is between 115 and 145 beats per minute. However after 145 beats per minute, complex motor skills deteriorate. Furthermore at 175 the forebrain and the mid-brain, the same part of your brain as a dog’s, shuts down. Therefore, this gives some credibility to why after a police chase officers go into dangerous states of arousal. For example, three of the major race riots have been caused by what the cops did at the end of the chase. This reflects the theory that heightened arousal leaves us mind blind with “temporary autism.”
Senses are not meant to be the only element to prove truth. They serve as great importance and help determine what exactly history and other events are dictated as. However as is shown through the case of Amadou Diallo, sensory perception can prove to be fatal. The police officers’ thought that they Diallo pulling a gun out and reacted without a second thought. If they had time to reason out everything, then this case might not have proved to be so disastrous. Therefore when people are trying to determine truth, they should use their senses, but should try to think before they act. Moreover, thinking before executing a form of defense will always prove difficult for police officers, since they do not have the time to plan their moves. However for people not under dangerously high levels of stress, they have the chance to perceive, reason out, and then decide what to do. Logic and perception are two elements that should go together in regard to determining truth.
There should never be recorded historical truth or any established truth that is based solely on senses. Humans are limited to their five senses, which can be deceiving. Primary sources have been praised to be the most valuable sources of information, but are limited. Biased viewpoints, information left out, and things not perceived are all issues that surround primary sources. Reliability is a key issue to finding truth, but it is difficult to determine what exactly makes a source “reliable” for truth. Therefore, it is important to take first hand accounts written by people with their empirical knowledge and combine them with logical reasoning. Even though truth is nearly impossible to determine, it is easier to reach a conclusion when information has been analyzed from all sides of an issue.

Knowledge and Emotion


People often associate the knowledge that they acquire and emotions together, even though they may not recognize this. Emotions play a central role in acquiring knowledge. However, there are ways of gaining knowledge without using emotion. This is shown through when people learn about subjects such as math, which do not require in depth emotion. Although when someone hears devastating information, then they will always associate emotions with the news.

TOK Essay

Laura Fenney
Theory of Knowledge

Is science, or ought it to be, value free? What implications does your answer have for the regulation of science? Considering the fight over Intelligent Design vs. Evolution (as well as Research Scandals and Bayer Study), who should decide whether particular directions in research are pursued?

Value free science implies that science remains untainted by any moral or religious beliefs. I think that these religious beliefs and morals should not be fit in with scientific theories. In today's world church and state should remain separated not together as one. The question of mixing science with religion has long been battled out in the education system. Finally the controversy caused it to become outlawed in public schools across the United States. However, even in today’s world, religion has been repeatedly intertwined with education. It seems rational to separate religion and school, since young people are so easily influenced by knowledge of authority, which includes teachers and parents. Therefore, it should be up to the parents to establish moral guidelines and religion if they wish, not teachers.
The problem with the "theory" of Intelligent Design is that it is not actually a proven theory, and seems too similar to Creationism, which is based solely on religious beliefs not scientific evidence. Creationism is reflected in the Bible, in which Christians believe that a god created the world. On the opposite end is the process of Evolution, contradictory to Creationism, since Darwin believed that humans evolved slowly to adapt to their environment. Darwin’s Evolution is opposite to Creationism, since he believed that humans evolved and were not simply placed on earth fully equipped with all their unique traits.
Intelligent Design states that a higher “being” created the universe. Its book definition manages to differentiate its definition from Creationism because it does not state that a god made the universe. The problem is that Creationism and Intelligent Design are nearly the same with the exception of their names. Intelligent Design’s definition is phrased differently, in the hope of not being identified with Creationism. Therefore by changing Intelligent Design’s definition slightly, this “theory” was just far enough away from being religious that it was allowed into textbooks in Dover, Pennsylvania. The controversy over religion in public schools ensued afterwards.
It is impossible to prove religion using science. After all scientists do not have the power to create a formula to determine if a god created the universe. Believing in a higher being is faith not science. In science, often people who want to uncover religious truth will use Confirmation Bias because otherwise there is overwhelming evidence undermining the religious evidence that they believe they have. It is a constant struggle to prove religion in science because religion takes a leap of faith and can not be broken down into a scientific formula.
Darwin’s Inductive Theory of Evolution can not be proven and remains defined as just a theory. Although I believe that there is more evidence in that theory than in Intelligent Design. Evolution has always been a mystery to scientists because there is no exact proof that can undermine the religious claims or Intelligent Design’s claims involving a “higher being” creating the universe. However, there has been much more research in the field of Evolution than in Intelligent Design. Still it is impossible to know exactly how humans came to inhabit the earth, but for now all we can do is hypothesize potential theories of how they originated. Based on the evidence that is presented from both sides of Intelligent Design and Evolution, Evolution has a stronger argument about humans evolving for the idea of “survival of the fittest” as opposed to humans being placed on earth by a “higher being.”
It is difficult to know what direction scientific research should head because truth is nearly impossible to determine because it varies from one person to the next. I believe that particular directions in research should be determined by scientists who have great expertise in a certain area of science, whether in the hard or soft sciences. If religious scientists are dictating what religious endeavors should be pursued, then this undermines what truth might be uncovered through scientific research.
In the case of Intelligent Design in Dover, parents and teachers, who were religious, advocated that this "theory" be covered in textbooks. However, there were other teachers and parents who were religious, but saw the fault in including Intelligent Design in the classroom. The concept of mixing church and state is lethal when it comes to public schools. When the Dover textbooks began discussing Intelligent Design, then they were just advocating the religious theory of Creationism, which is the foundation of Christianity. Moreover, it is not good to forcibly teach high school students, even elementary school students this form of religious "science," which has not even been researched enough to have sufficient evidence.
Since Intelligent Design has not been researched as thoroughly as Evolution, it appears invalid to me. It seems as though it was used as a ploy to undermine Darwin's theory of Evolution in school. Even though Darwin's theory of Evolution is only a theory, as Intelligent Design advocates have frequently repeated, there is some underlying substance that has enriched the scientific field. Also there has been enough research conducted among scientists to prove that it is a worthy theory and not something just thrown together to appeal to the religious teachers and members of society.
One of Intelligent Design’s arguments was that science textbooks should include other alternative theories to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, since Evolution has been taught as though it is a fact. Therefore people in favor of Intelligent Design argued that there should be nothing wrong with putting other scientific theories about the creation of humanity into textbooks. I think that it can be positive to expose students to different ideas and theories in science and all areas of life, as well. However, I believe that Intelligent Design advocates had other motives than just trying to show students different ways of hypothesizing how humans came to be. Intelligent Design advocates tried to incorporate their own religious beliefs about a god creating the universe into the textbooks. This is a negative message because it means that any theory is valid. If Intelligent Design, virtually Creationism in disguise, is a scientific theory with little proof except for individual faith, then does that mean that anyone can just make up theories and throw them into textbooks?
Fortunately today religion and science are forced to be kept apart in the public education system. However, there are the occasional slips of certain schools, which include the case of the Dover school. Occasionally religion even plays a role in scientific investigations. This is shown through how sometimes very religious scientists will use Confirmation Bias and only look for the "god" in their investigation. This is understandable because Evolution, for example, would undermine their belief in Intelligent Design. Therefore, the scientists avoid the significance of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Confirmation Bias occurs often in areas of research, whether religious or not, because people do not want to have to throw out their theories, of which they have invested much time and effort in proving them valid.
In conclusion, when it comes to deciding where scientific research should turn, people should forget their moral and religious beliefs, and instead they should focus on the evidence in front of them. Religion is something that varies among individuals, and so I think that it should not have a place in the scientific field. Science should discard all values held by a person and instead should be about what is seen or proven. An idea should only become an established theory if it has been thoroughly investigated and has ridden itself of all religious ties. After all if religion was always incorporated into science, then half of today’s theories would have been thrown out for alternative religious interpretations.

Part 1: Essay on prescribed title

A. Understanding knowledge issues
5: Some effective links are drawn between areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing.

B. Knower’s perspective
6: There has not been enough of an attempt to discuss different perspectives.

C. Quality of analysis of knowledge issues
3: There is some justification of main points and a coherent argument. Counterclaims have not been addressed.

D. Organization of Ideas
6: It is satisfactorily structured and organized. The word limit has been met.

20/40

Prescribed Title #1

Please select ONE Question from the May 2009 Prescribed Titles .Then, please research your question by looking at The Christian Science Monitor Website.Just click on link:http://www.csmonitor.com/

"There can be no knowledge without emotion...until we have felt the force of the knowledge, it is not ours" (adapted from Arnold Bennett). Discuss this vision of the relationship between knowlege and emotion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0909/p13s02-lecl.html

History textbooks cope with still-unfolding events

Textbook publishers face a daunting task in writing about 9/11 for posterity. That may explain why major publishers are taking different approaches to analyzing what happened, and why.
In "The War on Terrorism" - first published as a supplement and later included as a separate chapter in "The Americans" and "Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction" - McDougal Littell takes a cautious approach. The chapter for middle and high school students steers clear of suggesting what motivated the perpetrators or the US response. "The goal ... is the destruction of what they consider the forces of evil," it asserts.
By contrast, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill's "The American Vision" offers more explanation in its seven succinct pages. It begins by saying oil discoveries in the Middle East dating to the 1920s brought more contact with the West and great wealth to only a select few in the Arab world, "but most of the people remained poor."
"As Western ideas spread through the region, many Muslims - followers of the region's dominant religion - feared that their traditional values and beliefs were being weakened. New movements arose calling for a strict interpretation of the Quran ... and a return to traditional Muslim religious laws. These Muslim movements wanted to overthrow pro-Western governments in the Middle East and create a pure Islamic society.... Although the vast majority of Muslims believe terrorism is contrary to their faith, militants began using terrorism to achieve their goals."

Social Sciences

Please respond to the question after reading the first chapter of Freakanomics:

In what ways might social, political, cultural and religious factors affect the types of human science research that are financed and undertaken, or rejected?

Social, political, cultural, and religious factors affect the types of human science research that are financed, undertaken, and rejected. This is because there are limitations to areas of people's exploration. Personal motivations usually play a central role as to why research can be undertaken or rejected. For example, people with religious motives will downright refuse to believe that a god did not create the universe. Moral beliefs can often take over science. In politics, politicians will only show the negative side of the opposite candidate to further their own career and chance of winning a particular political race. In general people become so invested in a particular theory that they simply disregard any other information that could disprove that theory. There is also a possibility of a reward for proving a theory, so why would anyone want to disprove their own theory? There is a level of confirmation bias when people's own interests in furthering their own career takes over the actual scientific evidence presented. People are also clever in the way that they present their data. They can change language to make something wrong seem correct. The power of emotive language can completely change how people view a theory. People often will not disagree with numbers, so sometimes only data with numbers is shown. However, when others actually have to interpret the data there could be vast problems.


How might your group have responded to the crime issue of the 1990s?

How would they have reacted to the findings?

Questions and Journal Entry

1. What is Karl Popper's main argument?

Popper was not a scientist, but a political philosopher who proposed that science works by "falsifiability." This means that scientists discover facts; they create a theory to explain them; and the theory is accepted until it is falsified by the discovery of incompatible facts that then inspire a new theory.

2. Who was his primary enemy?

Freud was his primary enemy. Freud asserted that in our minds an ego mediates between an id and a superego, but because those entities are subconscious their existence cannot be tested. Popper said, therefore, that Freud's assertion was not scientific and was therefore invalid.

3. Is Popper correct?

McClure looked at students' brains using magnetic resonance, and he found that when making rational decisions they used parts of the brain that are unique to the human being and that evolved recently. McClure helped map the battles between Freud's id (short-term greed) and superego (long-term sanity) meditated by the ego. Therefore maybe Freud was a scientist and maybe Popper was doubly misled.

Journal entry: Write a response to the title question (who says science is about facts and/or facts only get in the way of a good theory in science.) Cite at least three examples (personal experience, historical examples, examples of current work in science.)

Scientists do not always include every finding in their data. They do not want to have outliers, which could potentially disprove their theories. Therefore, it is difficult to know if scientists are discussing everything they are finding, or if they are keeping their mouths shut on important information. This is similar to how doctors ignore drug company's warnings about potential harm.

People in general have tendencies to ignore things that do not fit their argument. Theories are always being disproven in science. Scientists want to keep their credibility with their theories, so sometimes they will avoid disproving their theories at all costs. They have reputations to uphold and do not want to have all their time invested in an experiment thrown out when someone else discovers something new.

The most accurate science includes all the data that is collected, not just the data that "fits" the experiment. It is important that scientists not leave out information because otherwise the information left out could have been valid to science in general. Therefore, scientists should properly include outliers, even if they could hurt their theories. In a way, facts do get in the way of a "good theory." This is because without facts, theories can not be disproven. This draws back to the issue of "falsification" addressed in the article regarding the article about Karl Popper.

Grendel Chapter 4 (in class notes)

Grendel

Dualism- good and bad
2 independent divine beings or eternal principles, (principles that can not change)

The term Grendel means "grinder" or "destroyer."

Adam and Eve
Cain and Abel
Snakes
Rumplestiltskin- (pg. 49) "he reshapes the world" (if you can not name your problem; you can not solve your problem.

Crab represents Dualism.

It's better to be bad and belong than to be good and have no attachments.

The Shaper- makes things seem better than they are; make a pattern

"the projected possible" (pg. 49) another phrase for "hope."

"imagination"- important term

At the end of Chapter 4 (page 55,) Grendel breaks from his mother. He calls her a "waste."

Abel's Social Sciences (in class notes)

Verstehen Position vs. Abel's Position

1. Experiments are a crucial part of Natural Sciences, but can't conduct experiments in Social Sciences.

Experiment- in future...we predict based on theory

Observation- hypothesis- experiments- Analysis- Law- Theory

Independent vs. Dependent
Independent is what is changed; the manipulated variable changes the dependent variable

But...Natural Sciences- really conduct experiments?

• Astronomy
• Geology
• Ecology
• Animal Behavior-Biology-Zoology-Primatology

2. Natural Sciences repeat experiments in order to generalize.

It is impossible to generalize.

1 gallon of H20= 1 gal.

But...

Is water really the same in Falmouth as in New Zealand?

3. Natural scientists can predict because all variables are controlled.

But...

both sciences disregard certain variables

physics- law of falling objects

4. Verstehen position is: no social scientist can predict with any certainty. Abel position is: Social scientists can make predictions based on obvious things like the fact that no woman will be the elected Pope in 2010.

5. No constants in Social Sciences.

exaggeration- Law of Diminishing Returns- ex.) mortality constant

Abel Outline

Chapter 11: Social Sciences Outline

Philosophers argue that the actions of human beings comprise a unique and ultimate category of events, and that therefore such fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and political science can not be studied by the methods of the natural sciences (by which they usually mean physics.)

Verstehen- "to understand," denotes the position of those who claim that the social scientist can and must make use of his own inner experience.

The student of human actions is part of his own subject matter. He must use the methods of introspection and empathy, which have nothing in common with the procedures of natural science.

Isaiah Berlin- "a man who lacks common intelligence can be a physicist of genius, but not even a mediocre historian" (108).

Claims of the Verstehen Position:

1. In the natural sciences, a hypothesis is verified by experiment, but the social sciences can not experiment. The ability to experiment is essential to the testing of explanations in the natural sciences.

2. The natural sciences can repeat experiments in order to verify their hypotheses, and can generalize their results. The social sciences deal with situations that are not uniform: no two persons and no two social contexts are exactly alike.

3. The natural scientist, it is claimed, can isolate what his hypothesis applies to, so that his predictions are not upset by outside variables. In both the natural and social sciences, we always assume that we may disregard certain elements as irrelevant or trivial. Some areas of physics, such as cloud formation and hydrodynamic turbulence, seem to be as complex as any phenomena the social sciences study.

4. It is claimed by the Verstehen position that no social scientist can predict with any assurance.

5. The hypotheses of the natural scientist can be stated with precision and universality because he operates with certain constants that hold true throughout the universe.

6. The physical scientist can verify his hypotheses by observation. For example, he can see the eclipse and the falling apple; but the social scientist can see only the smallest part of "social reality." He relies on introspection and empathy to uncover the motives of human behavior, which are unobservable and inaccessible.

I am not one of those historians who must submerge themselves in masses of documents to form an opinion. As soon as I know the facts, I enter into the psychology of the men who were important to the events...I read their works; I study their actions; then, ...interpreting from experience, I try to form an opinion, and finally I work out an hypothesis which I verify by research.
-Guglielmo Ferrero

If the social scientist correctly predicts voting behavior, that is, if his hypothesis is verified by what happens, then his empathy with presumed laziness or disgust or rebelliousness or whatever, is beside the point.

7. The raw material of the natural sciences can be measured with precision, but concepts in the social sciences (e.g. army morale, equality of opportunity, free enterprise. national character) are inherently vague and qualitative (or intensive.) The social sciences are increasingly relying on mathematics. To call a sound high-pitched and to identify its wavelength is to refer to the same "piece of the world" in different ways. Quality and quantity are not antithetical; any quanitity is of a quality.

8. In the natural sciences, phenomena may be studied without regard to their past (an inclined plane is just what it is,) whereas human beings and societies are only what they have come to be.

Grendel Chapters 4 and 5

Please read Grendel Chapters 4 & 5.In Chapter 4, the Crab is intended to represent the concept of Dualism or Good vs. Evil. Do you agree?In Chapter 5, The Dragon is intended to represent Nihilism or Materialism. Do you agree?Please use quotes to support your answer. be prepared to discuss the week on Oct. 26-31.

Chapter 4: "The sun backs away from the world like a crab and the days grow shorter, the nights grow longer, more dark and dangerous" (46).

This quote is found on the opening page of Chapter 4. This simile has much symbolism. The sun backing away from the world is compared to a crab, which shows how it is evil. The sun represents something good and life giving, while the crab represents something evil, since it drives the sun away.

"My heart was light with Hrothgar's goodness, and leaden with grief at my own bloodthirsty ways. I backed away, crablike, further into darkness- like a crab retreating in pain when you strike two stones at the mouth of his underwater den" (48).

Grendel compares himself to a crab, and like crabs when he is hurt he goes back underwater to his cave for protection. This shows how perhaps the crab is not evil, but just misunderstood. It looks evil, but when it is hurt it backs away. Therefore, the crab represents both good and evil, since it appears evil, but really has good intentions at times like Grendel.

Chapter 5: "Vanishing away across invisible floors, there were things of gold, gems, jewels, silver vessels the color of blood in the undulant, dragon-red light" (57).

"The color of his sharp scales darkened and brightened as the dragon inhaled and exhaled slowly, drawing new air across his vast internal furnace; his razorsharp tusks gleamed and glinted as if they too, like the mountain beneath him, were formed of precious stones and metals" (57).

"He cackled so hard a brilliant tear like a giant diamond rolled down his cheek" (59).

"I snatched up an emerald the size of a fist..." (60).

Throughout Chapter 5, there is much imagery of possessions shown through the metaphor and simile above: "diamond," "emerald." The dragon also warns Grendel not to touch his things, which have great value: "Seek out gold-but not my gold-and guard it!" The dragon is greedy and Gardner makes a point of highlighting his materialism. Even the way that the dragon is described show how it represents Materialism: "his razorsharp tusks gleamed and glinted."

Grendel Chapter 2

Grendel's first encounter with humans:

In Chapter 2 of Grendel, Grendel's upbringing is shown. His first human interactions are exposed, as well as his relationship with his mother. After he goes out of his cave and explores the world above, he realizes that he is alone. The underground creatures down in the cave do not really see him, but instead look through him.

Grendel finally looks at his mother and realizes that he has the fate of becomming just like her. She is the creature, who forces Grendel to stay below the outside world. He continues to go back to her, even though she does not do much for him. She only comforts him by pressing him to her chest.

Grendel encounters a newborn calf in Chapter 2 after he wanders away from his cave. He gets stuck up in a tree, and cries out for his mother to come, but she does not. Then a bull charges at Grendel, which is symbolic of how Grendel is in the outside world where he is unprotected. Grendel learns that the world is violent after this incident. The human world is a cruel place, and Grendel knows that he has to be independent. Since his mother does not save him now in his time of need; no one will.

Grendel encounters men later after he had just awoken from sleeping. He sees that the men are not so different from himself because they speak his own language, even though it sounds strange to him. Later it is apparent that the humans can not truly understand Grendel, after they try to attack him for mistaking his intentions. Overall, Grendel is misunderstood in the human world.

Symbolism of Aries (the ram) and Taurus (the bull):

Aries – The Ram Aries is the first sign of the zodiac. As such, the Ram represents someone who is like a new born infant. An Aries person is always demanding attention. His needs always come first. He is aggressive and committed to his cause. He is firm and independent and an idealist. As the Ram is the symbol of Aries, you may often find the Aries person to have sharp features with well marked brows. The horns on the Ram symbolize that he means business. Since his ruling planet is Mars, this person is absolutely direct and to-the-point about everything that he wants.

Taurus – The Bull Taurus is the second sign of the zodiac. Like their symbol, the Bull, Taureans are always steadfast and solid. He likes to be left alone. If pushed, he can be obstinate. And if he is pushed a little more, then he will charge like a raging Bull. Taureans normally don’t speak much, and if they do, they make do with small and crisp sentences. They can be brooding and stoic, but never nervous. With Venus as the ruling planet, Taureans love grand things and doing things in grand style.

History

Please take a few minutes and comment on the Cheques activity we did in class. As you reflect upon your role as a Historian, what did you learn about the discipline? What are the strengths and weaknesses of gaining Knowledge through the study of History?

When we did the Cheques activity, we acted as historians because we looked over our evidence and tried to create a hypothesis. Even though we did not know the back story, we used the facts that were presented through the form of cheques in order to come up with a story.

Throughout history, historians have made up their own conclusions based on the facts that they have been presented. Historial accounts vary from one historian to the next because data can always be interpreted in a variety of ways.

Another important piece of historical accounts is that: historians have had to put stories together that everyone could agree upon. Some historians thought that certain evidence was important and not others. If some information does not fit the story, then it is thrown out as an "outlier."

• These questions need to be addressed: What is relevant? What is subjective? What is important?

Other questions play a large role in historical accounts: How do you react to new information? Do we ever have all the information? What happens if you are invested in a theory? Confirmation Bias? Can mob mentality influence history? What is "crucial" information?

The power of argument is evident in history. One can literally make anything sound convincing, and sometimes it is difficult to accept the other interpretation.

When we were presenting our final hypothesis in my Theory of Knowledge class, it became evident that most people in my class were really invested in the Cheques activity. Arguments arose among classmates, which reflects back on the idea that once people become really invested in a theory; they do not want someone to disprove it. This makes sense because if one spends years researching in order to prove a theory and has it suddenly disproven, it is an upsetting defeat. Therefore, I can see how people often use Confirmation Bias when researching a specific area. After all, who would include the outliers, when they are trying to prove something, not disprove it.

It is nearly impossible to know exactly what correct history is. Every historian will think that they are correct in their assumptions, however they could be mistaken. It is difficult to know how to judge sources: Is a primary source the most accurate source of all? Primary Sources are important because they give a biased firsthand viewpoint of events as they were seen through the eyes of people. However, so much can happen in the blink of an eye. Primary sources might at first seem like they should be prized above all, but they can be just as deceving. So should only educated historians write history? That is difficult to decide, as well because they lack the empirical knowledge of people, who witnessed the events. However, historians do have the credentials: education, awards, etc. Does that make them entitled to write history though? I think that all historical accounts should be judged equally. After all, who is to say what is the correct view of the historical event. No one can ever be sure exactly what happened. It is impossible for everyone to agree on one viewpoint. All historical versions should be judged equally.

Grendel Chapter 3

What can Grendel Chapter 3 inform us about how we study History? Please use specific quotes from the chapter to support your argument.

In Chapter 3 of Grendel, lies are exposed regarding history. In today's society it is well known that history has been recorded from many different points of view. Authority has dictated the way history has been written for thousands of years. Authority has had the power to control the media: newspapers, television, books, magazines, etc. This power has led to certain versions of history. Chapter 3 of Grendel reflects the lies that have been written into history.

Grendel's raw emotions become exposed after he hears the Shaper's version of the history of the Danes. He flees upset from the Meadhall and journeys away back to familiar territory. The Shaper had told a story of Sycld Shefing, who was King Hrothgar's ancestor and also the man who founded the Syclding line or Danish people. Grendel seems to be the only creature aware of the lies that the Shaper is telling. While the Danish people are filled with joy and military accomplishment, Grendel feels detached, since he knows the truth.

Grendel's reaction to the Shaper's fabrication of the history of the Danes is significant because it relates to all fabrications seen throughout human history. Grendel represents the honest truth, which gets crushed by members of higher authority.

In past history leaders have sheltered the public from the real truth in wars and other important historical events. Sheltering the people is a way to avoid chaos. Using propaganda, leaders have idealized the good of going into war to defeat the "unjust" enemy. The truth, shown through the people who fought the wars, has been suppressed. Sometimes it does not become exposed till years later; until it seems like it's too late to make a change.

History dictates that we tend to want to believe what authoriy says, knowledge by authority. We want to believe that our country is doing the "right," "just" thing by taking part in catastrophic events. Leaders build up the just idea of taking part in wars in order to create a sense of nationalism among people for further support. People do not always see the lies that exist, and instead choose to only look at everything from a strong nationalistic sense.

Diamond Questions

Laura Fenney
Theory of Knowledge

1. Please describe the background of the dispute between Dr. Samuel Huntington and Dr. Serge Lang.

Lang attacked Huntington regarding social science in NAS. Huntington and Lang’s dispute comes down to one science question: Do the so-called soft sciences, like political science and psychology, really constitute science at all, and do they deserve to stand beside “hard sciences,” like chemistry and physics?

2. How did Lang respond to Huntington’s “pseudo mathematics?”

Lang sent all NAS members several thick mailings attacking Huntington, enclosing photocopies of letters describing what scholar A said in response to scholar B’s attack on scholar C. Lang also asked members for money to help pay the postage and copying bills.

3. What aspects of the dispute between Lang and Huntington are “political?” How does the author, Jared Diamond, feel about “Academic Freedom?”

The political aspect is how Huntington did several things that are now anathema in US academia: he received CIA support for some research such as doing a study for the State Department in 1967 on political stability in South Vietnam. He is said to have been an early supporter of Vietnam. Election to NAS is supposed to be based only on scholarly qualifications, but not political views. Diamond says, “American academics are virtually unanimous in rushing to defend academic freedom whenever a university president or outsider criticizes a scholar because of his politics.”

4. Why does the NAS exist? Why does this make that attacks against Huntington seem peculiar?

Congress established the academy in 1863 to act as official adviser to the US government on questions of science and technology. NAS established the National Research Council or NRC. NAS and NRC committees still provide reports about a wide range of matters from nutrition to future army materials. Attacks against Huntington seem peculiar because he did exactly what NAS was originally made to do: advise the government. However, NAS members still wanted to tear Huntington down.

5. Why does Diamond find fault in the traditional perceptions of the hard sciences?

Diamond says that there are many stereotypes regarding hard and soft sciences. Hard sciences have a better reputation because they use firm evidence that controlled experiments and highly accurate measurements can provide. However, people today only view “hard sciences” as the only types of science. “Soft sciences” can not be measured by decimal places, but they are important to understand such as: animal behavior, psychology- human behavior, cultural anthropology, economics, history, and government. The difference between hard and soft sciences is usually misunderstood by hard scientists, who usually tend to look down on soft sciences and reserve special contempt for social sciences.

6. Why are soft sciences difficult to study?

Soft sciences are difficult to study because you can not control all the variables or maybe any variable for that matter. Sometimes it is even difficult to decide what exactly the variables are. Soft sciences can not be measured out like hard sciences can accurately.

7. How did the NAS need to change in the early 1970s?

8. What are the problems in “operationalizing” a concept?

To compare evidence with theory requires that you measure the ingredients of your theory. For ingredients like weight or speed it’s clear what to measure, but what would you measure if you wanted to understand political instability? Somehow, you would have to design a series of actual operations that yield a suitable measurement- you must “operationalize” the ingredients of theory.

9. Briefly describe how Diamond illustrates operationalizing in:

Mathematics- One cave woman said, “Let’s pick this tree over here, because it has many bananas.” The other cave woman said, “No, let’s pick that tree over there, because it has more bananas.” Without a number system to operationalize their concept of ‘many,’ the two cave women could never prove to each other which tree offered better pickings.
Chemistry- When Diamond and his colleagues were studying the physiology of hummingbirds, they knew that the hummingbirds liked to drink sweet nectar, but they argued about how sweet it was and operationalized the concept by measuring sugar concentrations off a spectrophotometer.
Ecology – Diamond questioned why more species of birds are found in a rain forest than a marsh. An ecologist, Robert MacArthur, measured how far a board at a certain height above the ground had to be moved in a random direction away from an observer standing in the forest or marsh before it became half obscured by the foliage. The distance is inversely proportional to the density of the foliage at that height. In a marsh all the foliage is concentrated within a few feet of the ground, whereas in a rain forest it’s spread fairly equally from the ground to the canopy. Habit complexity is operationalized as what’s called a foliage height diversity index, a single number. MacArthur’s simple operationalization of these foliage differences among habitats proved to explain a big part of habitat’s differences in numbers of bird species.
Psychology- Marie questioned why some doctors are more frank with their patients than others, and some doctors appear to withhold more information from some patients than others. She operationalized doctors’ attitudes and she discovered that doctors most convinced about the value of early diagnosis and aggressive treatment of cancer are the ones most likely to be frank with their patients.

10. What were Huntington’s operationalized concepts that provoked the wrath of Lang?
The book by Huntington that provoked Lang’s wrath discussed such operationalized concepts as: economic well being, political instability, and social and economic modernization.

11. Why is the task of operationalizing more difficult and less exact in the soft sciences? Why does it lead to the ridicule of the soft sciences?

It is more difficult and less exact because there are so many uncontrolled variables in soft sciences. Operationalizing leads itself to ridicule in the social sciences because the concepts being studied usually are familiar ones that most people think that they’re experts on. Anybody, scientists or not, think that they are entitled to talk about politics and psychology.

12. Why does Diamond believe that Lang might be ignorant of the measurements taken by social scientists like Huntington?

No political scientist at NAS has ever challenged a mathematical candidate in hard sciences by saying, “How does he measure things like ‘many’? Does he have a many-meter?’ People would laugh over the questioner’s ignorance of mathematics. Therefore Lang’s question of “How does Huntington measure things like social frustration,” betrays an equal ignorance of how the social sciences make measurements.

13. Does Diamond believe the labels associated with the sciences be replaced? Explain.

Diamond says that the ingrained labels such as “soft science” and “hard science” could be replaced by hard (difficult) and easy science. Even though ecology, psychology, and the other social sciences are more difficult to some people, and even can be more intellectually challenging than mathematics and chemistry.

14. Does Diamond believe the soft sciences to be more valuable than hard sciences? Do you agree? Explain.

Diamond believes that soft sciences are more important to humanity’s future, since our survival depends on whether we progress with understanding how people behave, why some societies become frustrated, and whether their governments tend to become unstable. I think that both soft and hard sciences are important to understand. However, I do agree more with Diamond’s idea that people need to have a better grasp of soft sciences, so that they can understand human patterns in society. People need to truly understand human behavior because otherwise they will continue to make the same mistakes and will not learn from them. Studying history and human behavior gives people a better grasp of the world around them, as opposed to just relying on scientific numbers and formulas in hard sciences.

SHIVA

Why does he carry a Neptune trident?

Whats with the tiger and leopard skin?

What a snake….around the neck?

What is the ice mountain?

Whats with the ridiculous amounts of beads?

What the heck is hanging from the trident?

What is with the jar?

Question: why is Shiva sitting on top of a tiger rug?

Tiger skin: a tiger skin symbolizes potential energy. Lord Shiva, sitting on or wearing a tiger skin, illustrates the idea that He is the source of the creative energy that remains in potential form during the dissolution state of the universe. Of His own Divine Will, the Lord activates the potential form of the creative energy to project the universe in endless cycles.

http://somnathmandirblm.com/dwnload/wallpapers/shiva/shiva_01.jpg

PLATO NOTES

BOOK I
Social Darwinism (pg. 21)- the person who rules has advantages.
Justice is up to the person in charge.
"Might Makes Right."
1/3 of all US businesses don't pay taxes.
Unjust= smarter, happier- Ignorance is bliss? (positive connotation of words)
Just= poor (martyrs?)
Spoils System- relatives want money
Pure Confirmation Bias
Sardonic
Syllogism- Musical people are prudent. Prudent people are good. Musical people are good.
Homer's gods kill you, play tricks on you- if "Divine Will."
Socrates believes in god, but does not necessarily belive in Homer's gods (they wage war!) etc.
Juvenal- description of Tyrant
vi:223
"What I want, I take. Let my will take the place of reasoned argument."
unjust men- get what they want through dishonesty. Therefore they are "unjust."
just city- just soul and virtues
(pg. 25): "What Thrasymachus now says is in my own opinion a far bigger thing- he asserts that the life of the unjust man is stronger than that of the just man."
Socrates doesn't agree with Thrasymachus.
(pg. 28): Socrates attempts to change his argument. "Surely the musical man is prudent and the unmusical man thoughtless."
(pg. 29): "The just man is like the wise and good, but the unjust man like the bad and unlearned." Socrates got Thrasymachus to admit that the just man is wise and the unjust man is bad.
"And the gods, too, my friend, are just?" (Socrates, 31)
References to: eyes- see; ears- hear (pg. 32)
Therefore, each thing has its own purpose.
Pursuing a virtue as it acts in pure form: "Is there then a virtue of eyes, too?" (32)
Vice stands in way of virtue.
Soul- exists, living, guides in decision making
-deliberate
-rule
-think
"And, further, what about living? Shall we not say that it is the work of a soul?" (33)
If you let your soul be guided by virtue, then vice is eliminated.
Virtuous soul pursues justice.
Vice soul pursues unjustice.
What happens if your virtue is to be a robber?
-That is not your soul's virtue.

BOOK II
Bad stories about gods must be eradicated, so children get the right ideas about the gods.
"Children are plastic-" (pliable)
-want kids to be virtuous for a just city
Guardians/Philosopher's Kings lead city- will be taught gymnastics for their bodies and music for their souls.
Gymnastics- Greek culture- civilized
"You include speeches in music, don't you?" I said. -speech=logos translated to mean: speech, thought, idea- "logic." (54)
Socrates is against Homer's tales because Homer portrays the gods as "war mongers."
You must represent how things are and not use imagination. Do not expose children to harsh images: "When a man in speech makes a bad representation of what gods and heroes are like, just as a painter who paints something that doesn't resemble the things whose likeness he wished to paint." (55)
"First," I said, "the man who told the biggest lie about the biggest things didn't tell a fine lie- how Uranus did what Hesoid says he did"- (Uranus ate children.) (55)
You can not teach Homer to kids because kids must not figure things out on own.
Eradicate people who tell bad tales.
"Of the bad things, some other causes must be sought and not the god" (57) ("gods are good")
You can't tell lies to children because they will grow up believing them.

BOOK III
Philosopher Kings- have gold inside them- led by wisdom
Auxilaries- defend city- Generals/soldiers
Farmers/Craftsmen- iron/bronze
"Proving himself to possess rhythm and harmony on all these occassions- such a man would certainly be most useful to himself and the city" (93).
Test the children- see if they are useful to himself and city.
You're either born with it or not.
The different classes of people must be separated into military camps.
Parents must be removed because they get in way of their children.
Societies should not mix.
(95): Marx- opposed to Utopian ideas
Communism (95-96): "The sustenance, as much as is needed by moderate and courageous men who are champions of war, they'll receive in fixed installments from the other citizens as a wage for their guarding, in such quantity that there will be no surplus for them in a year and no lack either."

BOOK IV
auxiliaries- led by courage
farmers/craftsmen- led by moderation
just city = just soul
The dye is fixed in them- (gold/silver)
"There are still two left that must be seen in the city, moderation and that for the sake of which we are making the whole search, justice" (108).
"Meddling among the classes, of which there are three, and exchange with one another is the greatest harm for the city and would most correctly be called extreme evil-doing" (113)
Classes can not mix.
The soul is divided in 3 ways. (121)
"Isn't it proper for the calculating part to rule, since it is wise and has forethought about all of the soul, and for the spirited part to be obedient to it and its ally?" (121)
"But in truth justice was, as it seems, something of this sort; however, not with respect to a man's minding his external business, but with respect to what is within, with respect to what truly concerns him and his own. He doesn't let each part in him mind other people's business or the three classes in the soul meddle with each other, but really sets his own house in good order and rules himself; he arranges himself, becomes his own friend, and harmonizes the three parts, exactly like three notes in a harmonic scale, lowest, highest, and middle" (123)

BOOK V
Role of women in society
"Now music and gymnastic were given to the men."
"Yes."
"Then these two arts, and what has to do with war, must be assigned to the women also, and they must be used in the same ways." (130)
Women can be guardians. They are included in Plato's Republic.
*Human emotion is led by desire- won't get too attached- no self-involvement, communal living, overcome desire= just city. (Buddhism)

BOOK VI
Guardians rule city- wisdom- calculate
Auxilaries- courage- irrational- function on everyone's survival
Farmers/Craftsmen- moderation- spirit
(pg. 119): 3 parts to a soul
-calculating- guardians
-irrational- auxilaries
-spirit- farmers/craftsmen

BOOK VII
How you educate the Guardians
"make an image of our nature in its education and want of education, likening it to a condition of the following kind. See human beings as though they were in an underground cavelike dwelling with its entrance, a long one, open to the light across the whole width of the cave. They are in it from childhood with their legs and necks in bonds so that they are fixed, seeing only in front of them, unable because of the bond to turn their heads all the way around. Their light is from a fire burning far above and behind them. Between the fire the prisoners there is a road above, along which see a wall, built like the partitions puppet-handlers set in front of the human beings and over which they show the puppets." (193)
The people underground laugh/mock the person who has gone above ground and discovered new life. The underground people are ignorant- (is ignorance bliss?) Therefore they are comfortable down in their underground layer. However, once you have knowledge you do not go back to being ignorant. You want to explore what is above and beyond your past realm of knowledge.
(pg. 193) The chained people only see the shadow of the wall
Once a guardian has gone on a certain path, he/she can not go back.

Plato

By Thursday, September 26, please outline the main points (bullet points is fine) of Plato's Republic. (Books I-VII)Extra credit will be rewarded for adding specific references discussed in class.

Grendel Chapter 2

From what you have read thus far, why does Grendel say "The World is all pointless accident...I exist, nothing else." You may want to refer specifically to pg. 21-22. How would you describe Grendel's first interactions with humans?Finally, The Astrological sign represented in the First Chapter was Aries (The Ram). The Second Chapter introduced Taurus (The Bull). Please do some research on these signs and explain why they may have been included in these chapters.

Death At An Early Age

After reading the Kozol piece, consider what he might say regarding "Monsters." Are they created by society, or do Monsters responsible for their behavior? Do you agree with Kozol? Why or why not?

In "Death at an Early Age," Jonathan Kozol describes the life of Stephen, who is a boy with poor reading, math, and social skills. No one complains about Stephen's condition because he dose not have any parents and resides in foster care. Kozol goes on to describe how no one is encouraging in Stephen's life, even his Art Teacher berates him for not being able to draw pictures like the other children.

Kozol would probably argue that society creates monsters. In Stephen's case, he had no parents, no family, and no authoritarians in his life that truly cared for him. Therefore, it is inevitable that Stephen grows up to become a "monster." Kozol makes the point to include in the article that the Art Teacher did not even encourage him, but instead put him down for his different artistic ability. She did not treat him any differently than the other children, though Kozol says that it was apparent that he was abused. Perhaps if the Art Teacher had cared enough to be a little kinder to Stephen without discouraging him, he might have had a little more motivation and therefore that could have driven him to be a little more self confident. However can it really be the Art Teacher's fault if she was simply trying to carry out a lesson plan? Should she be expected to treat Stephen differently than his peers? I say yes because Kozol says that it was apparent that Stephen was abused. Therefore the Art Teacher should have seen the signs that something was wrong, and should have done something about that.

I agree with Kozol that monsters are created in part by society. Personality and other psychiatric problems contribute as to why humans become "monsters," but environment definately has an overwhelming impact. Even though Stephen has learning disabilities, if he was cared and not abused, he might have had a chance to really live as a normal child. However, society kept him back and never gave him a chance. Instead he was forced to live within society's expectations, which are far too limited for someone of Stephen's ability. Therefore it is likely that Stephen turned into another one of society's criminalistic monsters.

Grendel Chapter 1

What were your impressions of the First Chapter from Grendel? Why does Grendel describe his life as "the deadly progression of moon and stars" (p. 8) , "depressed" (p.10), " and "life's curse" (p.11). How does he describe his mother? Can you think of anyone in our society that might describe their own life in the same way? Why?

In Chapter 1 of Grendel by John Gardner, Grendel's feelings are immediately shown through his first person perspective. Grendel seems tired of his ordinary life. His life is one big cycle and he is well aware of it. Grendel understands that he kills men and even is used to their funeral rituals. The first animal zodiac in Chapter 1 is the ram. Cycles are continually shown: "spinning a web of words, pale walls of dreams, between myself and all I see" (8). Grendel describes his life as "the deadly progression of moon and stars" (8) because he feels as though he is trapped in his life and he has no hope for a different future. Loneliness is eminent through his constant repetition of his awareness of his same old life. Grendel describes life as "grim," and describes his house as "under the ground where I live, where no light breaks but the red of my fires and nothing stirs but the flickering shadows on my wet rock walls" (9). He has a very pessimistic view of life and that seems fitting, since he has nothing to look forward to, but the same old routine day by day.

Grendel describes his mother on page 9: "or my mother's fat, foul bulk rolling over, restless again- molested by nightmares, old memories- I am aware in my chest of tuberstirrings in the blacksweet duff of the forest overhead." In the following sentence Grendel describes his mother in disgust. He says, "I feel anger coming back, building up like invisible fire, and at last, when my soul can no longer resist, I go up- as mechanical as anything else- fists clenched against my lack of will, my belly growling, mindless as wind, for blood." Therefore, Grendel grows tired with his life with his mother down under the ground, so he angrily rejects that by going above ground to kill. His need for blood reflects his inner struggle for something better in life. Grendel knows that his mother is not going to get anything for him and will just remain down underground, so he goes off in search of something to satisfy himself. However, his quest for blood never really does satisfy his needs.

Someone in today's society, who might describe their life in the same way would be any murderer, who has ever had a bad relationship with their mother. This is because if children are not nurtured to a certain extent by family, then they will not be motivated to be "good" members of society. Therefore, they are more likely to commit criminal acts, since they have nothing better in life to look forward to. They simply subject themselves to the life that society expects them to live, even when it is a bad one.

Honor Killings in Turkey

How does your character justify his/her actions in the story? How does your character know what they know? In order to support your claim, please use an image (photograph, video clip, paiting) or a piece of writing (literature, textbook, poem) for each way of knowing.

Molly Moore wrote the article titled "Honor Killings in Turkey." Perception, language, reason, and emotion all play are important as to why she wrote this article.

It is evident in this article that Molly Moore is biased against honor killings. One reason why could be her western religious background. Therefore this would impact her view of honor killings as wrong. The image that I found regarding why she may have this perception is a picture of the ten commandments. One of the ten commandments reads "thou shalt not kill." This could possibly reflect her religious beliefs that killing under any circumstances is in fact wrong. Molly Moore uses strong emotive language throughout the article. For example, she uses the phrase "blood soaked." Her emotion is apparent throughout the article through the emotive language, which has a negative connotation. If Molly Moore was not biased against honor killings, then she probably would have chosen different words to describe the situation. Lastly Molly Moore could have had many different reasons for writing the article. One could be that she is writing it for money, since she works for the Washington Post. Journalism is her job, so she knows that she must sell newspapers. Therefore, she could have chosen to use the title "Honor Killings in Turkey" to grab Americans' attention. Another reason for Molly choosing to write the article could be the fact that she wants to get her viewpoint across that honor killings are wrong. She may be trying to address this problem. Most likely though, I think that this article only reflects her beliefs to a lesser extent, since her other journalistic endeavours listed on the Washington Post's website are not as in depth as this article.

Monster

How would you define the word Monster? What images or words do you think of when that term is used? How does someone become a Monster? To what extent is a Monster created by his/her surroundings? Is the Monster responsible for their actions?

Monster is a term that is used to describe the lowliest of people. For example, criminals are often called "monsters" after they have committed an act such as murdering. When I think of a "monster" an image of a psychotic killer comes to mind. I would consider a serial killer as a "monster." Some would argue that people are born monsters, while others would argue that people become monsters. I think that environment plays a huge part as to why people turn into monsters. If children are not cared for and given some moral guidelines, then they will not know the difference between "right" and "wrong." Therefore, they are more likely to committ crimes as they grow older. I think that monsters are responsible for what they do because everyone should be held responsible for himself. It is simply personal responsibility. However, other factors can be held accountable for the way someone turns out such as environment, since that impacts individuals to a great extent. People are less likely to become "monsters" if they are given motivation and not put down by parents, peers, and other authoritarians in society. If society expects certain people to become monsters, then they are more likely to be monsters.