During film class, we discussed how TOK and film are related.
Well, I’ll admit I couldn’t had be farther away from thrilled when they announced that the Bali CAS Trip, my 1st choice for a CAS trip, was canned due to the threat of a local volcano erupting.
Since me and many others had to stay behind in Hong Kong, I was put into the Hong Kong Hiking CAS trip. Having done plenty of hikes in Hong Kong already, I was pessimistic at first. However, after the first hiking day, I found myself really enjoying the trip. Let’s just say, this CAS really rocked!
One of the most unique aspects of the trip was that we were in charge of planning the hike ourselves. That’s right…ourselves! Though I joined the planning stage a bit late due to the Bali trip cancellation, having done plenty of hikes in my time in AYP and Scouts I was able to contribute different ideas for hiking trails around Hong Kong. One of my favourite proposals was to hike to Sunset Peak in Lantau. I was longing to try a new hiking trail that had nice views and I knew that one had just that. (sorry lot’s of “thats” in that sentence). Unfortunately, we did not choose to go to sunset peak as due to it’s difficulty and duration.
Though disappointed, I learnt that it was important not to let your emotions and expectations hinder your planning and that it was necessary to consider the entire group when choosing a trip. In fact, I believe one of the greatest challenges during the planning was choosing the trip. This was because we all wanted to go on certain hikes, but we had to make sure that those hikes were suitable both difficulty, time and accessibility wise. With those 3 aspects in mind, my group and I choose a trail: Lion Rock.
I was honestly excited because I wanted to go on a trail I had never been on. I have never been to Lion Rock but had always wanted to. During the hike, I had a great time as I got to spend time with my friends, make new ones, and enjoy some of the best scenery Hong Kong has to offer. One of the reasons for this good time was that the hike itself wasn’t that physically demanding for me, so I could really put my focus on enjoying the hike itself. Oh, and did I mention the view? As I stood atop Lion Rock, I could see most of Kowloon side, which was according to a sign 495 metres below. I especially loved how the rocks just overlooked the bustling city below. Seeing the beauty of Hong Kong in such a new perspective is something I will remember from this trip. One of the special things of Lion Rock is that it shows natural beauty can coexist in the middle of an urban environment. For me, taking in the breathtaking view was for sure one of the best parts of the hiking trip.
Another aspect of the trip I especially enjoyed was socialising with others.
Through the hike, I managed to have a wonderful time with my friends as we cracked puns all throughout the trail. (We did this every hike!). The hike also allowed me to meet students from different grades, which I also enjoyed doing.
So, did this hike meet my expectations? Because of the new and breathtaking views I experienced, and the unforgettable socialising, I would say without a doubt: Of course!
All in all I must say I enjoyed the Lion Rock hike, and the entire HK Hiking Trip much more than I first expected. I’m now back at school and can’t help but miss my CAS week.
To end, let’s just say that this CAS week really ROCKED!
The definition of faith is having trust or confidence in something or someone. Now, that can be useful for many scenarios. For instance, faith is what drives you to take action for, anything really, in the first place. For instance, you wouldn’t come to school if you had no faith in the teacher’s ability to deliver the necessary knowledge required for your graduation.
But you see, theres a problem with faith as a way of knowing. In the paragraph above, notice how many times I used the word “you” or “your. You see, faith is heavily dependant on the individual, rather than a larger group of people. Why is this bad? Well, if you strongly believe in something, you might ignore all other facts provided by other people, even if those facts are more accurate than your beliefs. For instance, say there is a new scientific discovery that clearly contradicts a pre conceived notion , but most scientists are too confident in previous “fact”, thus they turn down the new discovery. This in turn slows down the progress of science.
This is why it’s best to not only use faith in the pursuit of knowledge. For the best, most accurate way of finding new knowledge, a bit of faith, but also other WOKs such as reasoning and imagination can help enhance the accuracy of any new knowledge found.
Another issue with faith is that it is heavily influenced by other people. You see, faith is very physcological as it deals with what people believe in. If a large group of people believe in the same thing, it further encourages an individual to follow the same idea because they might have faith in that since many people believe in something, it has to be right. Thus, this is faith in society. However, without other ways of knowing, such as reasoning to confirm such facts, it is impossible to fully know the full picture.
All in all, though faith can be useful but because it is heavily dependant on what one believes and that it is easily influenced by others, it is best to use other AOK’s in conjunction with faith in the pursuit of knowledge.
Remember the last time you forgot to bring your phone with you when you left the house? Or you remembered a fact differently than it actually was? Or that very moment in your life that happened but you have no memory of. (Come on, don’t try to imagine something you forgot, it’s not possible is it?)
Well, both our imagination and memory are flawed. We are human after all. But, no fear, the Areas of Knowledge are here! (terrible rhyme sorry)
But in all seriousness, lets talk about how AOK’s help us overcome the imperfections of memory and imagination.
First off, scientific advancements in technology have greatly benefitted our memory. Before the time of paper, in order for information in a society to be retained, it had to be spread by word. Unfortunately, such means are inaccurate as people interrupt ideas in a slightly different way, thus overtime it skews the truth. With paper, one could make his/her ideas remain immortal. Simply, paper allowed the retainment of information directly from the speaker, thus reducing the interruption skew. Yes, there are still some interpretation errors, but it is greatly improved from spreading news by word of mouth. Now we have hard drives and micro SD cards that can keep an enormous amount of data in such a small space. Oh, and theres the internet, which is… well it’s got everything.
Thus, this shows how sci-tech can help us remember things since we can document them for reference later, wether it be tomorrow or 100 years from now. Technology makes memory significantly more accurate and easier for not only science, but pretty much every other AOK because information now can be documented.
One may believe that imagination has little place in science because science requires solid hard fact. True…, but imagination is helpful because it helps people understand the information much more clearly. For example, one can gain a deeper understanding of physics if they can imagine the forces in action. Since you can’t see physical forces (Ex: gravity), imagination of them is key to mastery of the science. This is why Albert Einstein once said:
But. Theres. Just. One. Problem. Oh no!
Emotion. In terms of imagining emotion, you have to have memory of when you experienced said emotion. For instance, remember when your girlfriend broke up with you. (I don’t cause I suck at this field of dating and whatever)
Let’s take the AOK of the arts for example, specifically music.
If you were to listen to a romantic song, you might remember that feeling of heartbreak, thus can better imagine the feelings of that person, thus better understanding the message of that sad romantic song. In this case, memory and imagination of emotion is beneficial for understanding artwork. If you did not remember how any emotion felt like, joy, despair, heartbreak etc…. you might not be able to understand art to it’s full potential since art relies on emotion.
We can’t know anything for certain.
Science has always strived to find the most accurate, best way of describing the world around us. To do this, scientists would conduct experiments and see if the results repeated themselves. If it did, and for enough times, it would be considered a fact. After all, if under controlled conditions, a result is repeated, it must be a fact of the universe. Right? However, just because results repeat themselves, it does not necessarily mean it’s true. It only means it has a high validity. The definition of truth means that the fact has to be in accordance with reality. But, how do we know? Sure scientific experiments can give us a good idea, but I doubt they are the best way of measuring and finding truth. This is because scientific experimentation methods keep on changing. A fact that might have been considered “true” in the 1800s might be proved as false due to the advancements in technology. Thus, we can never know if something is completely true. But only, we can only get closer and closer to knowing the true nature of reality. We can get pretty close to knowing the true nature of reality, but there will always be a bit of uncertainty. As a result, validity, at least in the scientific sense, can not be linked to truth, simply because truth (in it’s most complete form), is not possible to know.
But hey! Don’t get yourself down. Just because we can never know if something is true, doesn’t make the information we have useless. In fact, as long as facts get in better accordance with reality, they can be useful. For instance, in the field of medicine, research has been getting more precise and reliable. Thus, doctors are now able to save many more lives than before.
Though it is never possible to know the true nature of things, due to the methods we use to detect “truth”, this does not mean that the facts are completely true because we are limited by our technology when it comes to finding truth, but the facts are pretty close, thus can be useful.
All my textbooks (not that I read them that much) have very clear and use un-interperative language when describing content. This makes sense since they want to teach me the information in the most accurate way possible. Sometimes I get frustrated while reading and wished they had made the writing simpler. But, if they dumbed it down for me, would the information retain it’s same quality? Today we’ll be discussing wether the vagueness and ambiguity of language always limits the production of knowledge.
The answer of the question depends on what kind of knowledge is being produced. If the knowledge is meant only interpreted in one way, such as topics in the Natural Sciences, I believe it’s best to use language that leaves little room for one to guess the meaning of it. For instance, a writer might use metaphors/smilies to spice up his/her text. Using metaphors/smilies however, might give the reader the wrong idea of how something works. For instance, if I say “computers process information faster than human brains” you might get the impression that computers and biological brains operate in a similar way, which is completely untrue and does not help one learn about the way the brain works. Further emotive language might skew the way we view something. For example, if I described World War 2 to be a “blood spilling mess” rather than “a war in which many lost their lives”, you might feel more strongly about the violence of World War 2.
So yes, vague language can limit our understanding of knowledge. And because you need to understand knowledge to produce it, we can safely say… BE CLEAR IN YOUR SCIENTIFIC REPORTS SCIENTSISTS!
But thats not it…
I was about to stop writing and listen to some music when I realised… singers managed to convey their message using language that is, very interpretative.
You see sometimes being clear and using un-interperative language might actually hinder our understanding of knowledge. Knowledge that relates to emotion and senses is better described in more emotive terms, rather than direct ones. Because people can relate more to emotive terms, they get a better feeling of what the writer is feeling. Look at these two statements and tell me which one you have more feeling or sense towards.
Joe walked down a road, beside him cars passed releasing smoke with foul odour.
Joe walked down a road, beside him cars rattled pass spewing out dark and black smoke that made his lungs tight.
Which statement is better for understanding how Joe is feeling?
It is for this reason, interviews, poems and music are so important to understand when studying history. Sure, you can read a bunch of reports with stats that will give you the exact situation, but you won’t fully understand what happened if you do not understand how people felt during those times.
So in conclusion, be specific and clear when dealing with information that requires preciseness, but when trying to communicate emotion, it is best to use vague language. This means vagueness and ambiguity of language do help with the production of knowledge in some cases.
First off, no I’m not leaving the IB, thats not what the title means.
From the 17th-18th of August, the entire grade 11 and I headed off to Gold Coast Hotel, Hong Kong to what they call the IB Retreat. Through a variety of activities the IB retreat is supposed to help us develop our character and learn a bit more about the DP program (which we are perilously embarking on) and going to university.
An activity I particularly enjoyed in the retreat was the “crossroads poverty simulation”. For this, we were instructed to make paper bags under a time limit. We were supposed to then simulate selling this bags in order to buy necessities for our groups. The activity, it’s methods and it’s conditions was made very realistic. During the simulation, the only thing on my mind was “MAKE PAPER BAGS OR ELSE YOU DIE”. After the sim, I couldn’t stop thinking, though I’m not in love with my life, about how great my it actually was. I couldn’t bare to imagine what it’ll be like to live a life where you have to always worry about not dying. It’s sad.
Afterwards, we had free time at the Gold Coast Hotel. This was my absolute favourite part of the trip. During this free time, my pals and I went to the playground, played many games of cards and went for a swim at the pool. To me, this is the most “IB retreat” part of the IB retreat because during this time, we managed to forget all our pains and stress caused so far by the IB. (IB is still great though, don’t take this the wrong way)
One of the most memorable moments was the dinner. We went outside the hotel and settled on a restaurant that looked good. I ordered a nice juicy beef burger. (don’t tell my mom please) The food turned out fantastic.
The next day we had a series of lectures and activities relating to philosophy (TOK), preparing for IBDP and going to uni prepared for us. The one I found the most useful was when we got to talk the CDNIS alumni. Here I managed to learn a lot about IBDP life because I got to ask many questions from someone who actually had done it before. One of the greatest things I remember from this was when my alumni told me that “IB is not that bad, you just have to get on top of things and stop procrastinating”. (not her exact words,but close!) As I thought about it this idea turned out to be very true. Most of the times I’m stressed is because I haven’t done the work I’m supposed to. I’ll try to do otherwise from now on. On a side note, I’m considering to come back to Gold Coast 2 years later and give the future Grade 11’s a talk, just like the alumni did for us. (If I’m allowed!)
I’m even planning to come back to the IB retreat when I graduate to give those who are just starting some of my “good” advice. If they let me!
Another activity I found useful was a talk about Universities. This helped me “find my path” because I got a better idea of what life in university was like and how to choose a good one. Beforehand, I thought that the most important quality of a university was it’s world ranking. Now, though ranking is important, I realised I should choose a university based on what kind of experience I want.
To sum it all up,I found the IB retreat a great way to take a break from the grind of school life while still learning about the IB. Cheers!
One of my favourites quotes of all time is:
The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it -Neil deGrasse Tyson
I love this quote because, the thing is we humans tend to believe in things because it makes us feel good. The quote says that science doesn’t care how you feel, if it’s true it’s true. Today I’ll be discussing wether the sciences are all about using reason to understand the world and if there is no place for emotion in science.
Let’s start with emotionless science. To do science, to create scientific knowledge requires no emotion. You just follow the scientific method, which in a nutshell is research and experiment until you yield the same results every time, thus proving that it is true. Because you are following logical steps only when doing pure science, emotion is not required. Sure scientists can make mistakes when they are in a bad mood, but that that just means they are not doing 100% pure science. Proof that there is no place for emotion in science can be found when discussing it with revision. If you click here, you’ll be shown a graph that shows technological advancement of the human race. (Cant include the picture here because of copyright) Looking closely, we see a spike of advancement starting from around the 1700s, which was also the time science became more widely accepted and practiced. Beforehand religion was a dominating force in the way we understand our world. Religion is very emotion based, many practice it because it makes them feel a certain way. Science is practiced because it works. As we can see, since the 1700s, the technological advancement has skyrocketed, thanks to science.
The answer seems obvious. There is no place for emotion in science. Well, that was what I believed when I originally was told to write about this question. But I’m glad my TOK teacher made me consider both sides of the argument because now, after thinking about it, I believe emotion dominates the way we do science.
If you ask any person in who is or was in the science industry why he/she choose that profession, you’ll probably get an answer such as “oh it is my passion and I’m very interested” or “it pays well”. We humans choose what to study not because it is logical, but because it either entertains are curiosity (we after all are curious by nature), or we can gain some sort of profit from studying it. For instance, the famous astrophysicists Neil deGrasse Tyson, author of the quote Put above, choose to study astrophysicist because he finds it interesting. Was it a logical choice to study astrophysics? Maybe not exactly, but he does it anyways.
Another example of scientific advancement is a result of human motivation is during the Second World War. Take a look at these two aircraft.
During the Second World War, many technologies especially military aviation advanced at a rapid pace for both the Axis and Allies. This was because the waring countries were in fear of loosing the war, thus this was the motivation for the technological advancements. These advancements allowed people to build much more sophisticated aircraft, even after the war was over. The results of this fear is clear. We went from piston driven propellor aircraft to jets that nearly fly at the speed of sound in only 9 years, simply because people were motivated to not allow their country to loose the Second World War.
Students are willing to spend 4 years or more and pay thousands of dollars to study their science because they find it interesting. If not, people are motivated to do science because of the personal profits they gain from their jobs.
Curiosity and greed are the motivation factors that decide wether we choose to study something or not. This means that reason is not the reason why we understand the world, it’s simply because someone wanted to study it.
I choose this side because, though you shouldn’t have any emotion while doing science, emotion chooses wether we do science at all.
My point is, emotion is the key motivating factor that decides what we want to learn about the world. No, science is not ice cold hearted. It’s advancements were mainly because of the passionate and ambitious hearts of individuals who wanted to practice it.
There is a prominent place for emotion in science, in fact, it drives it.
You and I are bound by our biological limitations. We get tired, we get hungry, sometimes our vision is blurry or we miss a word our friend said. After all, we’re only human.
But the question is, even though we have some issues with our perceptual systems, is it still completely unreliable.
I would say sort of, maybe even yes but only if you do not require accuracy.
Don’t worry, you should still trust your senses.
Thousands of years ago, our ancestors could only learn about the world only through their perceptual senses. There was no equipment or way of measuring this brave new world. Our ancestors learned many things though. The feeling of hunger, the roar of a lion, the efficiency of using a stick to bash a animal. Knowledge of all of this helped them survive, which proves that their perceptual senses were working well, at least to some degree.
These days, our perceptual senses allow us to experience the world. Sure, the way we experience the world might be different from someone else, but there are some aspects of life almost every human can agree on to some degree. I live in Hong Kong and its been uncomfortably hot and humid recently. That’s why I wear only t-shirts and shorts outside and when I’m inside…well lets not talk about that. When I go out, I see most people also choose to opt for a shirt and shorts. This shows that are senses are reliable because multiple people have done the same thing, which is that we have agreed that it is hot, and we want to cool down.
Now, using only our perceptual senses works, but for better “results”, you need more accuracy. After all, you wouldn’t have self-driving cars, supercomputers in your pocket, that perfect fitting blue suit you wear to work with the result of just human senses. You need accuracy. This is where math and the natural sciences comes in. Machines, made possible by the sciences allowed our world to become even better. To illustrate this, let me tell you a story.
One day 2 pilots were flying their plane. One of them remarked that since they were nearing a mountain range, they had to go higher. So they did, but still hit the mountain range.
Where did they go wrong? They did not decide on how much “higher” they had to go. Humans do not have an organ for that tells them how high in the sky they are, and because of this it is hard to judge how much higher you are.
If you walk into any aircraft cockpit you’ll find an altitude meter because jobs such as flying require pinpoint preciseness, much more precise than what humans could sense, otherwise the whole endeavour would crash and burn.
So to conclude, yes our human senses are not completely unreliable, but if you want to have better results, you must be much more precise.
When I google up the definition of right, I found 2 definitions of what it means to be right. One is that right something has to be acceptable on moral level and the other is something right has to be factually correct.
Today lets discuss wether someone can be both and right at the same time.
We’ll analyse this question via the 2 definitions.
First definition: Morally Correct
This one’s a bit tricky. We first have to ask ourselves, what is morally correct? I believe for something to be moral, every sane human being has to agree that it is moral. Otherwise it won’t be right?
What I would define is moral is that:
1. Ensures Survival
2.Eliminates, or at very least reduce Cruelty
I choose these 2 standards because they are essential to human life and happiness, which should be the reason morals are in place. Also, all mentally stable humans would like to survive and would not like to be treated cruelly.
Morals vary from culture to culture. For instance, a vegetarian from 2017 might be so because he/she believes eating animals is cruel, while a tribesman in the middle of the Amazon rainforest might believe that there is nothing wrong with eating animals. Can both be right? I’ld say yes. You see, though morals vary from culture to culture, they also vary from person to person. The vegetarian does not want to be cruel to animals and the tribesman just needs the food to survive. Each person has their own reason for what is right and wrong. So in this case both the vegetarian and tribesman are correct.
Second Defintion: Factually Correct
Now we all know that it is impossible to know for sure if something is 100% correct. After all, facts keep changing as science progresses. For example, hundreds of years ago people believed the Earth was flat. Modern science has proven this notion wrong, and suggested the Earth is spherical (or close to it) instead. With this simple example, it shows that there can only be 1 right answer. Keep in mind, even if the answer given for anything (Ex: scientific discoveries) is the most up to date, it is not necessarily the correct answer. Even though what we think is right, and even if we have the evidence, it can never be 100% confirmed. But that’s ok, things only have to be right “enough” for life to work. What I mean is that we don’t have to be 100% correct. Take for instance math. We will never know if it’s entirely true, but all of the scientific progress that improved the quality of our lives was heavily based on mathematics. In this case, math works, even if we don’t know if it’s 100% true.
So in conclusion, morally right can vary from person to person while factually right can only have one answer.