TOK FINAL #2

A Persian Proverb says, "Doubt is the key to knowledge." This can be true to most areas of knowledge. History, math, science, and language.

"Doubt is the key to knowledge." How is this true? Almost every person is trying to obtain knowledge. If someone is always finding a flaw in an other's theory, then they will try to prove them wrong. This will conclude in more and more information being found that will get us closer to gaining a greater knowledge. This cycle is never-ending though. This is because there will always be a person who will want to disprove what someone else says is true. That is a good thing, because like I said above, it will find more facts and better information to get knowledge. If any one person is willing to dig up evidence against something, more will be found. If they doubt something that they are learning, or have already learned, then more information will be discovered.

History is a great area of knowledge where this is true. History is not a subject set up on facts and proof. It is all about peoples perception and point of view who were there at the time. There is so much room for interpretation and for people to think whatever they want to. Therefore, there is a lot of room for doubt. Once the doubt is reached, then people go and research and try to prove it wrong. More information is found and, like said before, a greater knowledge is found.

Another area of knowledge were this Persian Proverb can be true is science. Science is based on theories and experiments that can always be proved or disproved. That means there is always doubt. It starts out with some guy, or girl, who does experiments to prove a theory. Then another person comes and doubts that theory and has a different one. He has a theory that disproves it and starts experimenting. This is an endless cycle that goes on and on, so new information is always being found, and there will always be more information to be found, just because one person has a doubt of what someone else has said. Human sciences is also a big one. People are always doing research and finding stuff to support what there thoughts are. This is good with psychology and how people act they way they do. Ethics and morals, stuff like that. People are always finding more facts and trying harder to understand this, Doubt probably fuels the motivatiion to do all this research and experiments.

History and the sciences are areas of knowledge that supports the ancient Persian Proverb. However, there are two subjects that does not support this proverb so well. One of these subjects is math. Math is a bunch of facts, even though some old guys just made them up a long time ago, that solve problems. Math does not have room for doubt. They are straight facts that says this does this and this does this to get this. There was probably sometime that had some doubt because there a multiple ways were you can solve a couple math problems. I do not know what that is about though. English is another area of knowledge. Creative writing, drama, or any other types of english that is out there. This is not because it is made up of facts and numbers, it is because it is all interpretation. There is som that are facts, like the rules. Puncuation, sentence structure, grammer, spelling... Most of it, though, just comes from peoples imagination. They can be structures from things that have already happened, but you are writing about you interpretation of things.

What Does "Explain" Mean?

Historians, scientists, mathematicians all explain things. Or, they say they have explained something. Explain means to make a statement plain and comprehensible, or a set of statements to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes. As an example, a mathematician explains the steps that he uses to solve a problem. In a way, they are, but that is only in their minds. The people that the historian, scientist, and mathematician are explaining to might not understand it, so it is not really explaining. I do not think that they can ever really explain, for the reason that everyone will not be able to understand any of the words that are coming out of their mouths. I do not think that it is explaining if only some people out of billions will be able to comprehend it. All of these "experts" explain differently too. Math uses a lot of examples to explain their cause, historians use lectures and the past for theirs, and science uses data. But that does not help to explain anything. So can anyone really explain anything? They think they can. And they actually are. But the historian, the scientist, and the mathematician are only really explaining to a few people. This can be because someone is not very good at explaining, or the person you are trying to explain something to just do not get it.
Lets break down the definition of explain. Make a statement clear and comprehensible. Can anyone really do that? The mathematician needs to explain how he solves one of the problems that are laid out in front of him. He explains it the best that he, or she, could. Probably how it makes sense to him. But what makes sense to him might not make sense to you, or the person next to him, or the person next to that, and so on an so on. Why he is saying what is happening it seems clear. Not to you. You see a big jumbled mess still. It is not comprehensible. The scientist and his data can mean nothing to some. In both situations it would can b difficult to fully explain how the final result was come upon.
A set of statements that describe a set of facts is also a definition for explain. Those statements have to be understandable too or all you get is an endless circle where you are explaining what you were just explaining.
This can also go in the opposite and you can explain something. By the definition, if the person, or people, you are talking to is at a full understanding of the concept you are explaining. When you reach that point then I think you have successfully explained something.

Are the mathematician, historian, and scientist all using ‘explain’ in the same way? They do not. A mathematician and a historian explain in a different way. A mathematician explains in a straight forward way. Like when that person is explaining how to solve a problem. This happens, than this happens, and so on and so on. But when you are talking to a historian it is completely different. They will explain something but it not straight facts. There can be many answers for one thing. Plus, they use their interpretations. It is hard to explain something when the other person is feeling something else and is interpreting the information in a different way. An example of what a historian can be explaining is the reasons for the Vietnam War. There are probably so many, and you can argue about if something is a cause or not. This means that, in a way, a historian cannot explain well. That is if they can even explain what they are trying to say at all. The historian does not have proof, in a way. The mathematician and scientists have that proof. The mathematician has the facts to help him or her explain, and the scientist has the data to help him or her explain. There is a huge difference between these. They are very different. If you talk to the historian and then talk to the mathematician, even the scientist, you will notice that they are completely different conversations. Again, I will say, that the historian would be more in perspective, so when he, or she, is explaining something, it would more of opinions and thoughts. This might be because of what we talked about before. Is history fact, or just interpretations of others? That is the opposite of the other subjects. That can be proved that this plus this equals this. Or, do this, and you will always get this answer. Again, it is straight forward.

A conclusion to all of this is simply put that the mathematician, the scientist, and the historian all ‘explain’ differently. They are not, in anyway, using the word explain in the same way. This is because they are all different. They are different subjects. They have different ways of giving out facts.

TOK blog #2

Different areas of knowledge cause contradictory statements. They have multiple answers for one question. It is not that the question is a complicated one; it is that finding the answer is. It is complicated because people want to know the correct answer. The thing is that there is no correct answer. An example of this is from Amitav Ghosh, who says, “This rubber tree won’t yield latex—the biologist blames the sapling, the geologist blames the soil, the contractor blames the unskilled laborer and the owner says it is fighting back at being controlled.” The hard thing is choosing which on is correct. If there is even a correct answer.To decide how we choose which one is correct, we have to find one that we believe is the most correct. Using the example listed early, the biologist. The biologist thinks it is caused by the sapling because that is what he knows. He, or she, studied things like this and believed that this is the reason for it. He is biased about his work and thinks he is correct. The geologist, who studies the ground and dirt and everything else, blames the soil. This is because he specializes in the soil and knows a lot about it. He is also biased about his work and thinks that he is correct. Same goes with the contractor. He blames unskilled workers. He, of course, also thinks that he is correct. Finally, the thing is with the owner. He says that the rubber tree is fighting back for being controlled. Even though he has no science to back him up, he still thinks that his answer is correct. So which one is it?Choosing which one is correct depends on many factors. In my opinion, they all are correct. The above statement by Amitav Ghosh says that each specialist think the reason is answered by their area of knowledge. This is because it is. Every subject can be correct. It just depends on who you are and what you believe in. We choose which one is correct on certain basis. One basis can be who seems more likely correct. Another can depend on which specialist you are talking to. Maybe the contractor is not very bright. Maybe the contractor has no idea what he is talking about. Experience is another factor. The geologist could have been studying his field longer than the biologist. The biologist could be very smart, but he does not have the same amount of years that the geologist has. He could have learned more about his subject than the others. With that information you would probably choose the geologist over the biologist.
In my opinion they can all be right. Each person knows what they are talking about. They specialize in a certain subject. The Biologist knows that the sapling can be a cause. That might not be the actual answer, but it is a really good guess to why the tree will not yield the latex. The geologist blames the soil because he knows that the soil is a great reason why. Same goes with the contractor. He can also be correct. The owner can also be correct. Choosing the right one though is difficult. All can be right, but only one can be the answer to this problem. Maybe they can try each one and see if they work. The owner would have to decide which one. He can go with his theory. He can stop controlling the tree and then maybe the tree will stop fighting back. They can go with the biologist and work do something to the sap. If that does not work, then they move into a different theory. They can deal with it on and on until they find one that works and makes the tree capable of yielding the latex. The only problem with that is that doing this takes way to long.
The best thing to do is probably just to pick the one that is most likely. Except for the point that I have been explaining that they are all very likely.
In other words, there is no way to choose which one is correct. They can all be correct and they can all be wrong. It just depends on the person. It depends on the person choosing the method of dealing with it.

Science and Senses

Science is always conflicting with our senses. Using the example in the topic, tables, we figure this out. Imagine that you are sitting in class and you are just staring and staring at the table in front of you. According to science, the table is made up of empty space. According to our senses, the table is a solid object.
Our senses think that a table is a solid object for many reasons. One reason being that it is because we can touch it, and put things on top of it. But are our senses just messing with us? Our senses are just making us think this way. Our brains are finding the most logical way to interpret something. It is not the science logic they are using, but a way that seems most logical to the way we, the people, perceive things. Science states that the table is made up of molecules. All the molecules are not close together, but in fact are always moving around in the scientific mind, this means that when the molecules are moving really fast around each other it is creating empty space and not a solid thing.
These are why they are contracting ideas. No one can really tell which one is true. It just depends on who the person is. Everyone thinks different and everyone believes in different things. Some people believe in their senses and say that the table is solid. Others, who think that facts are important and that these facts can prove anything, will say that science is correct. This question can lead to cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is when you believe something and do actions that go against it. This changes the way you behave and think. It is also a motivator. It is a way of persuading ourselves what to do. An example of cognitive dissonance, taken from a website, is that you say that you are a good person, but you do a bad thing. The guilt or anxiety you feel is cognitive dissonance. Some guy named Festinger figured this out and did an experiment. He made students lie about a boring task. He paid the students one dollar to lie about it. Festinger figured out the students who were paid one dollar felt really terrible about lying. It also happens when you have to contrasting ideas in your head at the same time, but both ideas cannot possibly be true. It gives you a feeling of being uncomfortable. The two contrasting ideas here are if we believe our senses and say that the table is solid, or if we believe in science and say that the table is actually empty space.
The question is not if the table is empty space or a solid figure, but if these two contradicting ideas can be resolved. The real question is if believing in science or believing in your senses can be resolved. Can both science and senses be said to be the same thing? To some people they are the same. But that is only because they think that science is correct. I think in order for the people who believe that their senses are correct then something has to change. That thing can be their senses. They can start to think that science is right and that their senses were just messing with them. Or science can change. I have said before that science is always changing, and people are always trying to prove new theories. These people are also trying to disprove old theories that other people came up with. So someone might come a long and try to disprove this theory. The will have an idea and test it and maybe years into the future they will find evidence that prove it wrong. And then science and our senses will be the same. But I doubt that will happen. So back to the question of whether or not the two can be resolved. I already said that to some people they might be able to. That is their opinion. I am not saying if their opinion is right or wrong, but I think the opposite. In my opinion, these two questions will always be going against each other. This is because science and senses are two different things.

They might start out the same. For example, let us say that you are sitting there and then you get an idea. Your senses tell you that this idea is awesome and it is correct. Just in case, you decide to test this idea, but science proves you wrong. They are the same because at first you thought that was the answer. Now you know differently but your senses still say that you were right before.

That is why I think that these two contrasting ideas cannot be resolved. As I stated before, some people might think so and those same people probably think that science is correct in every which way. But that is another reason why the two cannot be resolved. Only some people think that. Not every person in the entire world. My point being is that science and our senses are different. And they both probably always will.

TOK FINAL

Every person perceives the world in a different way. There are different factors that make you see things in a different way. These factors are called filters, and range from where you grew up to who you are friends with. In some ways, the filters are the reason you act the way you do, or why you think the way you do. They are the basis of what makes you as a person. To find out how things really are, one most examine these filters.
I will begin with where you grew up, what your surroundings where. This one filter determines a lot of things that determine how you live your life. If you lived in a big house, in a quite little suburb, than your thinking process is going to be different than a person that lived there life opposite of that. This is because you spent your whole life viewing a place where everything is clean, and nice, and even the people are great. Someone else saw something completely different. You are unaware of some of the bad things in life. You were completely sheltered as a kid and are unaware of some of the things that go on around you. For example, your and your friends are walking down the street and you see some one getting robbed, or something to that extent. You do not know what to do because up until that point, nothing like that has happened before. To that some one else who came from a different place it is different. They might have seen stuff that is in comparison to that multiple times before. They might know what to do. They perceive the world in a different way than you and acted in a different way than you just because of the place they lived.
A filter that is just equally important is how you were raised. Every person is different. That means that they raise their children with different morals, ethics, and everything else they should teach you. This filter has a great impact on how you act because it has always been around you. When you are around something, like in this case an attitude, you are going to start having the same sort of attitude towards things. You are going to most of the same morals as your mom and dad did because that is the way they taught you. Your morals are different from everyone else in the world because of that reason. You were taught that something was wrong but someone else’s parents did not. For example, like the saying, "If you do not have anything nice to say, do not say anything at all." You might have been told this and followed it many, many, times before. Somebody else who was taught that it is better to speak your mind will say that they think someone is a complete idiot. You would sit there and think that person is being rude, but that is just because they do not share the same values as you do.
Filter number three is who you hang out with. You see these people just as much as you see your only family. They are there in your life a lot and you do a lot of things with them. Stuff you do not even do with the people you live with. They influence your life tremendously. I am talking about peer pressure, in a way. But not all peer pressure is bad. Some people might influence you in a good way. Like stop you from stealing, breaking stuff or doing all those other stuff that will break the law or get you into trouble. Bad peer presure is a supposed friend tells you to do something that will get you into trouble. It does not even have to be something major. For example, say you are hanging out at an amusment park and you and the group of people you are with go see one of those shows they have. When it is over and everyone has left a girl turns to you and tells you to run across the stage. You do and some guy who works there yells at you all to get out. Thats not to bad. Another example is when that friend tells you to press a big red button that is in your science room, and once you do lights start flashing. Things like that are the things you should not listen to and should not do. Depending on who your friends are, depends on how you view some of the world.

Another factor is your orientation. This factor mostly depends on the generation. Our generation, the one that is still in high school or just left it, think that it is o.k. to be gay. We see nothing wrong with it. People who are much older than us think the exact opposite. Their view on this is different and they think it is wrong. This can be because they grew up in a different time. The younger generations are growing up with people being this way all around them. We think nothing of it. To us, it is just the way people are, no big deal. Before, it was less common. This can fit into the factor of how you are raised. Some children are raised by their parents to think that loving someone of the same sex is wrong. They grow up thinking that it is wrong.

The last filter that I am going to go into depth about is the expierences you encounter. These experiences determine a lot on how you think and what you think about the world. Some experiences you can create yourself. Like going hiking, rock climbing, or even white water rafting. These activities you do create an experience which you think is fun, and if your life is filled with experiences like these, you might start to think that the world is a place where you have loads of fun. Other experiences are those that are spontanious and you do not like very much. These can define you as a person. Let us say that you are in a bank and you are filling out some sort of sheet at the exact moment that it is robbed. A lot of different things happen, an example is that someone gets shot, and it starts to make you think of the world differently than you did before. You now view the world as a place that makes mistakes, that is not all good, and that bad things happen in it.

There are endless factors, filters, that can determine how someone views the world. All these factors make a person view the world on different ways. These filters determine who you are as a person, what your actions are through your life, and why you think a certain way.

Emotions

Emotion might enhance and/or undermine reasoning as a Way of Knowing because everything we do is based on how we feel. Everything we do is based on what emotion we are feeling at that moment, and that can change at any moment. It is what we base everything on. Mood, feeling, and emotion are just synonyms of each other. All three categorize what you, well, feel. When the emotion you are feeling is anxious, then you have this feeling in your stomach, and you it is because you are anticipating something. If you are sad then you can tell because you are frowning and you just do not feel right. When you are happy you just cannot stop smiling. Anger is when you are so upset that all you really want to do is throw a chair at someone. No matter what it emotion it is, you are still feeling something, and that can enhance, undermine, or even both, your reasoning.

Happy is a really bland way of putting an emotion, but it goes along with being excited, cheerful, and ecstatic, etc. All these emotions make you get up and do something. When someone is in a good mood they are mostly in good reasoning. It will probably be easier to make decisions, and make a good one, because they are feeling happy, and because the reasoning behind your choice is strong. Plus, if you are having a great day you will want to get out of the house with some friends and go to the mall, or shopping, or something like that. This emotion of feeling cheerful and excited, or however you want to describe it, might enhance a way of knowing.

This is different from when you are sad and just want to lie in bed all day, be alone, and do absolutely nothing. This feeling makes you miserable and not care about anything. That influences the way you think. You do not care so you are not really thinking about it, so you are not going to make the best decision. The best chance is that you are making the wrong one. You will probably regret it. Sadness and depression undermine anything that will do with reasoning and knowledge.

Anger is one of these emotions that will be undermining, and it is an important one. This can really cloud your judgment. It is very common because people always find things to get angry about, and there is really not a good reason. It is mostly for something small. Obviously anger makes you very upset. The usual case is that this causes you, most of the time, to make bad decisions. You do whatever will screw everyone over and make them as upset as you. The next day, after you had time to cool down, you are over it and you regret whatever you did. Anger, alongside sadness, undermines the reasoning you need to obtain knowledge. You can even think about frustration, anger, and aggravation as a good thing. To me, in some cases being this mad about something shows how much you care about it. That can push to obtain as much knowledge as you can about it. It is not even just that one emotion. Any emotion, whether it is happy, sad, mad, can help you become smarter and attract more knowledge.

Your mood also determines how you think about things. A certain subject can make you feel happy, sad, angry, depressed, so on and so on. Emotions can either enhance or undermine reasoning as a Way of Knowing. Emotions can be a good thing because I think you should sometimes follow what you feel. Like the saying, "follow your gut feeling." If you feel that something will turn out terrible than you should listen to what you feel and stop doing whatever it is. That gut feeling is your emotion. It can also be catagorized as your intuition. That is what it is called when you have a bad feeling and think that something bad is about to happen. This is an important feeling to trust and mostly follow. Intuition can also be bad. You can have this feeling for almost everything you do. If you always follow what you feel than your always going to worry.

It really just depends on who you are. I can say that being happy, joyous, cheerfull, angry, are enhancing emotions. I might also say that emotions that are connected to being sad are undermining. To another person it can be reversed, and they can think happy in an emotion that might undermine reasoning. I think it just depends on how the person thinks about that emotion. All in all, any emotion, feeling, or mood you can think of, can either enhance and or undermine reasoning in a way of knowing.