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.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)