Scientific Paradigms

We are going to do a presentation on how scientists have changed the way that society and the world perceive the world. I am working with a partner and we are talking about Madame Currie. Madame Currie sacrificed her health and eventually her life to persue scientific discovery on radiation and therefore was able to show the world the harmful effects of radiation. Imagine learning one day that the pretty glowing rocks used in everyday products was actually causing cancer and slowly killing you through invisible rays? The theory of such a reality only being learned in an instant after using radioactive materials in make-up, clothing, jewellery, and everyday products. The idea that something we use everyday could actually have invisible dangers is a freaky concept to consider.

Scientific VS Ethics

Now then, I personally have the idea that science and ethics are connected, but not necessarily in a good way. Scientists (thinking only logically and rationally) have a way of upsetting the ethical protesters in very strong ways. Think about it for a second, a scientist believes in knowledge and facts, and will not hesitate to examine anything that is curious to them, even if it means pushing some of the ethical boundaries we set for ourselves.

One example is stem cell research, scientists see the possibility for vast knowledge of cells, the process of cell differentiation and medical advances beyond our comprehension. Ethical people see scientists dissecting babies in a lab mechanically. Now, both sides may be a little dramatised but there are constant arguments on whether the benefits of major medical advances merits killing unborn babies. Scientists argue that the babies are not even alive and in most cases, would have died anyways, while ethical people believe that every person has a right to their own body and therefore babies are people too, even if they are not conscious at the time.

Another example is cloning, scientists see possibilities of experimenting on human duplicates and medical advances. Ethical people see the violation of human rights and also (if they are religious) the distortion of the natural order of things. Scientists will argue that the ability to use clones to provide easy access to organs. Ethical people say that clones are humans too and that the replication of a natural organism is distorting the natural order of the world.

Science Unit Intro

Science is all around us, we have to learn it in school, use it for research, every bit of technology was developed by a scientist. So what is the difference between a scientific perspective and one following a religious belief or ethical person? Can you be religious and ethical and still do science? Those questions are just some which we will learn the answers to through our science unit.

What do we see when we think of a scientist. When I think of one, I see messy hair, a stained lab coat, a microscope, pale skin, male, and glasses. Perhaps the main reason for such an image is because some of the most famous scientists we have seen follow that description. Albert Einstein is one example. The glasses are probably from spending too much time reading and examining things (plus people always say that a person with glasses is probably smarter). The lab coat and microscope are just because of usual equipment used. The messy hair is probably because when you are thinking logically, why would you care about your outward appearance? The one point that perhaps is the most stereotypical and I dislike the most is the male and pale skin points. I am not sexist but you must admit that the male dominated means of scientific research have caused a large imprint in our perspectives. But that is just my first image, I would not be surprised to see a woman scientist. The pale skin was because my idea is that a scientist will not spend much time outside, rather, that tehy will stay in a lab with artifical light. But there is also the imprint that most scientists are caucasian, something which, when i think about it, is so far from the truth it is almost comical. It's funny how the society we are brought up in can so significantly change our unconcious perspectives and stereotypes.

Ethics Research Essay

The Radical Nietzsche Theory is one of many controversies. It rejects the idea of solidarity with others, compassion and pity. On the other hand, it focuses on self reliance and strength. He believes that humans are currently like tamed animals, forced to be passive and meek. He believes that humans have unlocked potential greatness and through freeing ourselves from the chains of society, we can become our true nature. He believes that society is dictating these moral codes in order to control us and our natures. Nietzsche's moral heroes are supermen whom have the ability to reject conventual moral codes and therefore become beyond good and evil.

Therefore, let's say that you were one of these "supermen" (or women) and you saw a young child crying over a popped balloon. You would probably ignore the child because you believe that the child would need to grow up and become stronger, rather than cry over such a small thing.

Another example would be if you were hungry but you had not food in the house, you would go outside and just get some, because its what you want, whether or not it is legal to go out to someone else's house and eat their food, or hunt in the backyard for birds, or steal from the supermarket in order to find something to eat. You basically go back to your primal perspective on life and push away reason and logic and just focus on instinct.

Although this moral theory is quite empowering, I personally have to disagree with it's overall perspectives. I believe that because humans have the ability for thought, reason and logic, we should use that ability to our advantage. The way that we conduct ourselves is more to show how we want to be treated and if the entire would was as primal as what this moral code would take us to, our society would simply become animals and therefore there would be no real need for any our abilities, which I personally think are a waste. I would not like to go back to an animal when I have already experienced the joy of understanding. But that is just me.

Ethics, ethics, everywhere!

We started a new unit of ethics, which is all about how we come up with ethics and why we believe in them. It poses an interesting question, why do we think certain values are important. I mean, we never really think why we believe stuff like; killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, drugs are bad. I mean, there is the obvious reasons, some are bad for your health, some are against our human rights, but still, we never really consider the motives behind our internal moral compass. I guess it depends on the society or culture we are immersed in and our personal beliefs, which are often instilled in us through our family's beliefs and instincts. I guess in a way, most moral dilemmas are really just roundabout reasoning, like we learned before, it is circular reasoning to believe in something because your reasoning relies on that reasoning. I mean, our morals are instilled in us because that is the general concensus and we then create the concensus for everyone else. It really is a strange concept if you think about it and I wonder if it is really trustworthy to believe in morals just because everyone else does. I guess each person needs to sit down and think, like I have, and decide what they believe is good or bad. Some of the morals around me I find are not really as extreme or singular as others tend to believe while some are important, and should be paid more attention to.

Reason Comes From Emotion?

The article by Dr. Richard van de Lagemaat was about how emotions provide us with a reason for doing everything we do. Emotions give us goals, give us directions and priorities. He said that those who do not have emotions are those who are completely indifferent. Without emotions we would have no reason to live or die. No reason to learn or think. We do not want. He believes that those we consider without emotion, completely rational beings with logical thinking, are simply those in control of their emotions. This poses an interesting question. Is emotion the motivation or reason to do everything we do? I guess in some way, what we do, even our most primal instincts, are based on things that feel good. Eating feels good, drinking feels good, being healthy feels good, etc. While being sick feels bad, thirsty feels bad, hungry feels bad... So in someway, our emotions are directing our way of thinking to believe that what we do is important if it feels good. If it feels good, it is necessary for our bodies. There are a few exceptions of course, but that is mostly because our instincts have not developed to the same capacity and the range of substances and things we have become adapted to. We (in primal times) were unable to really take good things in excess. Now that we have access to the things that we enjoy, we sometimes take things too far and that leads to things being bad for us. But if we were a the more prehistoric lifestyles, we would not have such access and would not be to an access. I personally agree that emotions are important to life, and that if we control some of our more wayward and unnecessary emotions in order to not do things we do not want to do or think completely irrationally because we want to do something, then that is the best form of emotions. I also think that emotions are INCREDIBLY difficult to control, and if you take the effort and have the ability to control such complex emotions to think about things rationally before acting, that is the perfect balance and you should be commended for your efforts.

Emotions Final Essay

Emotions are detrimental to the human race because of five reasons (although this is actually not my belief).

The first reason is because they make people make stupid decisions that sometimes lead to ruin because they are swayed by emotion. A person will sometimes sacrifice millions of innocent lives to save one person who may not be particularly good because they are important to that person, simply because their emotions are tied to a particular person and are therefore choose selfishly. This causes problems with doing the logical things, as people will do what they feel like doing, rather than what is reasonable.

The second reason is because people allow emotions to affect how they see other people and react to those people. Many a conflict was started because someone felt negatively towards that person from something they said or seemed like, which would lead to them acting with bias and sometimes starting wars simply to get ‘revenge’. Conflicts lead to death and people getting hurt, and therefore are simply selfish acts, because the only people who enjoy conflicts (for a time) are those triggering them.

The third reason is the different things that are caused by emotions, such as the 7 deadly sins; greed, lust, gluttony, wrath, sloth, pride, and envy. All of these ‘sins’ are caused by negative emotions and selfishness. We want to feel better so we go into an access something in order to feel those good emotions and end up causing more problems with that. You could assume that selfishness is caused by emotion, because by wanting to feel better or feel good emotions, you will try to do stuff just for you. Selfishness itself is the root of many problems such as but not exclusive to, the 7 deadly sins.

The fourth reason is that emotion is unnecessary for life. If you remove emotions from the way you think and act, you are still thinking and acting. You are only being entirely logical rather than using emotions as an excuse to alter your thinking. Without emotions, humans can function properly and effectively. In fact, efficiency will increase because people will not become bored, tired, or lazy. You can get a lot more done in life without emotions and it will still be possible to live.

The fifth reason is that emotions are sometimes negative and can lead people to lose their ability to properly think because of things like depression, stress and extreme anger. People allow negative emotions to sway their behaviors. In fact, people will sometimes allow negative emotions to end their lives, which is completely irrational and wrong. Suicide because you are depressed should be removed from possibilities and if people are without emotion, they will not do such drastic things. In fact, they wouldn’t have need to, because they would never feel sad again. You would never have to feel depressed because something went wrong in your life and stressed because you had a lot to do. IT would make people more rational and less de-motivated.

Although this is not my true belief, these are reasons to perhaps why people would believe that emotions are not necessary or we would be better off without them, like the leader in the film “Equilibrium”.

Dating Data

This article was about a 47-year old woman with autism. She writes about her experiences with support from studies on autism. She mentions several times that those who are autistic often have trouble understanding emotions. This causes a contrast to the fact that most of our actions are indirectly effected by our feelings. She looked at every experience in her life as an observer, a logical perspective on her actions rather than a person who has little idea of what they are REALLY thinking.

I consider myself as a fairly logical person, I feel that I think about my actions before I do something and analyze things around me level-headedly. But that does not exempt me from emotions. Often I am ruled by my emotions, and am only able to look at it impartially after the event. I find this rather annoying :) simply because it is uncomfortable for me to have no control over myself. Nonetheless, I have accepted my emotions as a part of who I am and rather than try to hide or prevent them, I spend more time trying to understand them. That way I know why I am doing something or feeling something, rather than trying to stop myself without knowing why. I think that those with autism must have to spend a lot of time doing that as well, but instead of trying to understand their own emotions, they have to understand everyone else's. To me that is one of the hardest things to do, simply because you usually don't have enough information to really know what a person is thinking. In that way I can sympathise with those with autism. To be completely logical in a world where everyone around you is ruled by complex emotions you cannot understand, I find that to be something truly difficult, but I think that we should all try to understand eachother better like those with autism have to. This is because I think that everyone has a reason for feeling some way, and if we can understand that, we can understand the person much better, which will help us know truly how we feel about that person and what type of person that really is. I think that we should look inward as well, because knowing yourself is probably the most important thing we can hope to achieve in our lives.

Emotions

How many emotions are there? Psychologists think there are six primary emotions – happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, disgust. Are these like the three primary colours in light, where all others can be made of combinations of these six? Do you agree with the idea of “primary emotions”?

I do not agree with the idea of primary emotions entirely. I think that emotions are very subtle and there are many more than just six main emotions. Although it is possible to think of very common emotions and feelings, I think that there are a lot of emotions that you cannot categorize of get from mixing together those six emotions above. Where would you put complicated emotions such as love and hate? You could say that they are a mixture of the above emotions but there is more to it than that I think. Personally, I think that emotions are one of the hardest things to categorize and it is nearly impossible to find the root feelings from each emotion, therefore it is nearly impossible to find the primary emotions. I also feel that it is unnecessary to find the root of each emotion. Emotions are not something I think SHOULD be categorized at all. The whole point of emotions is to go beyond reason and feel something without being logical in most cases, therefore what is the point of trying to turn something specifically un-logical into a logical order and category? It seems a bit hypocritical and useless to me. Emotions in my mind are something beyond reason, that can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but therefore you must just trust in them instead of analyze them as if they were something you could truly control. Emotions are not entirely controllable. You can still feel them (without the use of narcotics or brainwashing) and therefore unpredictable so STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THAT!

End of Logic Final Essay

1) What are the different types of reasoning? In your opinion, is one type more valid or reliable? Explain why, using terms and examples.

There are several types of reasoning and they are; deductive reasoning which includes syllogisms and truth vs. validity, inductive reasoning which includes confirmation bias (a.k.a. generalization, prejudice and scientific law), and informal reasoning which includes circular reasoning, equivocating, arguing using ad ignorantiam, binary thinking, and loaded questions.

Deductive reasoning is the process of moving from one general truth to a particular subject to get a conclusion. Some of the types of deductive reasoning are syllogisms and truth vs. validity. Syllogisms are a series of statements with two premises and a conclusion which have three terms that occur twice as well as quantifiers. An example of this is: all carrots have an orange colour, my salad has carrots, and therefore my salad has an orange colour. Truth vs. Validity is the fact that although a statement can be false it can still be valid. The reason for this is because a statement that is valid has two true premises but it may not have a true conclusion. Reasoning understands this while logic would consider all valid statements to be true. An example of a valid yet untrue statement is: cats are small, lions are a type of cat, and therefore lions are small. This statement is valid as there is a truth to the logic and premises, but it is not a true conclusion as lions are not small by most standards.

Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive reasoning, instead of moving from a general truth to a particular subject, it is the process of moving from a truth about a particular subject to a general conclusion. This is also an example of stereotyping. One of the types of inductive reasoning is confirmation bias, examples of which are generalization, prejudice and scientific law. Confirmation bias is the fact that we usually believe and remember what supports our beliefs and perceptions more so than those that contradict them. This is probably one of the problems that have lead to culture clashes and arguments the most as people are unwilling to accept truths that do not agree with what they already believe. Generalizations are when you come up with a general principle about something from examples of particulars. An example of this would be if I only knew birds that sung, I would then believe that all birds sing. This is probably not true as the amount of examples that I was deriving my generalization was relatively small in comparison to the actual population of the subject. The best way to validity a generalization is to come up with it from examining a large percentage of the population of the subject or culture you are generalizing. This will ensure that the generalization is more accurate. Prejudice is when you already have an idea in your head about a particular subject and that affects your thinking and perceptions on that subject. An example of this would be that if you thought all blondes were dumb, you would be much more receptive to the less intelligent statements a blonde made and not pay as much attention to the examples of intelligence she actually gives. Scientific law is the direct link between the cause and effect of a phenomenon deduced from experiments and/or observations. An example of this would be if I experimented on water and found that it contained certain amounts of chlorine, I would believe that it was pool water because pool water contains that amount of chlorine. This system could be applicable to events such as the Big Bang, which the theory of was hypothesised from the experiments done on such conditions.

Informal reasoning is reasoning where you make a quick decision given on the information you are given, which is often used against you by deliberately manipulating the way in which you will most likely respond to the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means mistaking something following another thing to be the cause for the first thing. An example of this would be; McDonald’s sales are up this year, so is the obesity rate. Equivocating is using a word or idea in two different meanings in order to support your argument. An example of this would be; Smoking kills and criminals kill, so criminals must smoke. Circular reasoning is assuming that part of your argument is true without proving it first. An example of this would be; I am cool, because I say so, and I never lie. Arguing ad ignorantiam means believing something is true just because we cannot prove it isn’t true. An example of this is believing in ghosts because there is no way to prove there are no ghosts. Binary thinking believes in black in white sides of an argument, therefore thinking that one extreme will happen if you do/do not do something. An example of this is; I need to wear make-up or everyone will hate me. A loaded question is when you ask a question that even if you answer yes or no, will make your response mean a certain connotation. An example of this would be; Are you always ugly or is it just today?

Out of all of the different types of reasoning, it seems to me that the most accurate form of reasoning is deductive reasoning because it is generally more accurate to believe that if something usually happens, then most likely the same will be true in a particular case. There are always exceptions, but an exception is the oddity to in most cases you will be correct. Therefore that seems to be the most accurate type of reasoning. Inductive reasoning is less reliable in my opinion as it moves from particular cases into a general idea, and it is usually best to avoid stereotyping and generalizing because it can lead to issues if your generalizations are untrue and can lead to offending the parties that are being stereotyped. Informal reasoning is the manipulation of reasoning to give untrue conclusions in most cases, therefore I believe it is by far the least accurate type of reasoning and often lead to untrue and misunderstood conclusions.

It's Not What You Think, It's What You Think You Think

Confirmation Bias:

Generalizations: Most actors are on drugs.
Prejudice: Actors are drug addicts.
Scientific Law: The world is round.

*These are not necessarily true, just examples of the different types of bias.*

The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword

Do words have power? How does language enhance/facilitate knowledge?
I think that words really do have a sort of power, but only because we put power into them. You can give words power by putting meaning and importance into the communication of the words, leading to the other person believing they are powerful. I think that people will put importance into words, because they feel that their ideas are important, and will try and convey that importance and message through words. This means that those words you use, were given power. We put the power into those words because of how we perceive them as important. Messages that we feel are important, like raw feelings and emotions, like I ‘hate’ or ‘love’ you are perceived as being very powerful words, simply because the feelings we express through them are strong and we mean them to be important. Another example of powerful words are extremes like ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and usually these are only powerful when the answer is very important to the giver and receiver of the message. If someone asks something really important to another person, like ‘will you marry me’ the answer of yes or no has much more power because it is something very important to both parties of the communication. If it was a mundane question like ‘do you want fries with that?’ then the answer would be much less powerful. It is still necessary, but the words would not hold much meaning, especially to the receiver of the message.

What are some problems with language? How does language impede/prevent knowledge?
Some problems with language are the perceptions that come along with it. When you use language, you are subjecting yourself to trying to express complex ideas and emotions through a set of strict barriers in order to send a clear message to the person you are communicating with. There are so many different barriers, in order to keep the message the same for both parties and in a lot of cases, the meaning of one sentence will be different between the receiver and giver of the message. This can lead to misunderstandings and double meanings as well as a loss of communication leading to false information and knowledge. Not to mention, language is subjected to changes because sometimes when you give the message to two different audiences, you must edit the content to match the type of audience, because some receivers will understand one type of double meaning, while others will not. Not to mention the variances due to ambiguity and irony as well as sarcasm, which will greatly affect what the audience actually understands from the communicator. It is difficult to portray the same thinking of the giver to the receiver without losing information in the translation of the thoughts to words. This process also occasionally happens within the brain of the giver, as you communicate with yourself in thoughts that often are portrayed in words, meaning your brain is communicating to you too. Therefore, there will always be an impediment in the knowledge transference between two parties.

Language Police !!!

"Language has rules, but we break them all the time"

I agree with one part of this phrase and disagree with another (like always, sigh) but I must be honest; I think that we constantly push the boundaries of language in order to express our creativity and show our feelings and emotions beyond what the formal language can express. It gives us new ways to express ourselves and communicate with the people around us. But I disagree with the idea that we are "breaking" rules, I truly think that language has no real rules, because it is constantly changing, evolving and it is more just a standardized means of communication in order to simplify the way we perceive language, but I think that there are no real rules. It is more of a possible way of formatting our thoughts in order to ensure that our opinions are properly understood (with exceptions of course) but if we wanted to suddenly change our language, as long as we were somehow able to inform the other person what it was that we were trying to say, it is still a language of sorts, and communication still works.

Politically Correct?! Please!

"Should we avoid all words that might offend a certain group?"

Personally, I can understand what the merits are of being politically correct, it is just a way of ensuring that no one gets offended from the language someone uses, unintentionally. But I also have to say that I believe that everyone has the right to say what they want. Sometimes I feel that people are overly sensitive to 'sexism' and 'racism'. Of course, sometimes I feel that people are completely out of line, like the popular phrase to women "b****, go make me a sandwich", which is just rude. But I think that if someone really did not intentionally say something sexist or racist, like saying the phrase whiter than white, what is the harm. Sometimes it is not even a racist slur, it is simply a phrase about the colour. That is when I think that political correctness can go out of control. Although I internally wince if I hear the phrases that put normal accomplishments as 'male' actions, I really think that we shouldn't really take that too badly. Of course, language was originally made in a culture where men were considered higher than women, and white was considered better than black. Nowadays, I am happy to say, it is not as much an issue, but I think that these phrases needed to be accepted as how they are, perhaps outdated, but still simply ways of expressing opinions and ideas, that was originally created in a time where it was common practice to be racist or sexist. I still am not sure on my complete view on this, but I do believe that certain phrases take it too far, especially when they are said with malicious intent, but harmless idioms, I think, can be accepted, at least, I accept them as part of the way things are, and not the person's true perspective.

Speak Your Mind, Or Mind Your Speak

Does LANGUAGE say ideas or does it create ideas?

I am often conflicted when faced with the idea of whether or not language creates your speech and opinions, or whether your opinions are translated into language. I have always believed that language, be it any dialect, changes how what we say is communicated to others. I also believe that our thoughts are changed to fit the descriptions and restrictions that words and grammar provide. It is always difficult to find the perfect word that describes exactly what you are thinking. Not to mention, words have different meanings when translated. In some cultures, certain words have more emphasis in the native language than in others, as well as some words have double meanings. But sometimes words are just used to express the original idea you have, and if it you think of the process of turning your thinking into words as translating it into language, it just means that although some of the words may not fully express the idea you are trying to stress or communicate, it does keep the original message you had. And it is more effective on changing your ideas when communicating with others, as you can easily create meanings for non-existant words and still know what you are saying, while others will have no idea of what you are talking about. So language, rather than changing the ideas, changes the way we communicate them, and how our ideas are percieved by others. At least, that's what I think.

Final Thoughts on Perception

Well readers (or reader), we are done the first unit of TOK, which is Perception. Our final lesson was today, and I am going to miss it (not really - it made my head hurt) :) but some interesting points were discussed. We had to write a paragraph on a different aspect related to perception. My choice was Language. The question simply discussed whether or not I believed that language and the way we describe something, can affect how we actually see it. Personally, as someone who loves English, and is always describing things in elaborate ways, it was something that I had already considered. I had always believed that by catagorizing an object, and coming up with plain old words to try and project an image into someones head, always leaves a small loss in the translation. It loses some of it's impressions and, in some ways, it's real-ness. It becomes an object, organised in your head. For example, a red chair. You could think of that chair in so many ways, but it would be increadibly difficult, in language and its barriers, to truly and fully describe that chair to match the exact way you see it. That can lead to you seeing that chair as how you described it. It may not be an exact type of red, somewhere between crimson and burgundy, but you cant really tell which, but you go for the best relation, leading you to forget almost, that that chair isnt really a burgundy crimson colour, but something else entirely, something without a name, or at least, not one you know. Not to mention, the language you use actually means a lot of what you percieve. Ever heard of 'idioms'; words or phrases that mean something different than the literal translation? All these barriers can prevent you from seeing the bigger picture, and imagine you were so busy trying to come up with words to describe an animal that crossed your path, trying to catagorize into a specific type of thing, and then it runs away too fast. You would probably think that animal was something that it looked like, but it may have been a totally new species, but because you could only define it your way, and put that particular name on it, you will constantly view that animal as being the same thing as that other species, and not how it REALLY was. A word is a powerful thing.