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."
Sunday, November 30, 2008
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?
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?
Monday, November 17, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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."
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?
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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."
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."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 3, 2008
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)