In ethics, everyone has personal set of axioms that they should to believe in/ follow While there may be fundamental axioms that the majority agree with/ follow, however application of axioms may vary from person to person
However, with math, the same set of axioms are believed by a majority. Furthermore, math is often not influenced by personal factors, such as memories, experiences, personal preferences, etc.
Suggest how the concepts of correspondence of coherence could have been used to support this essay.
- What is the difference between a conjecture and a theorem?
A conjecture is an unproven statement that is believed to be true, whereas a theorem is a mathematical statement that has been proven through math.
- Saenz de Cabezon claims that the truths in math are eternal. Do you think this gives math a privileged position in TOK?
I do not believe that the concept of eternal truths in math gives it privileged position in TOK.
- List any of the knowledge questions related to math that came out of your discussion in class.
– Why is knowledge in the natural sciences more flexible than knowledge in math?
“Without the group to verify it, knowledge is not possible.”
Group Verification is highly prevalent in the production of knowledge in art. First, what is the definition of “knowledge in art”? Knowledge in the arts can be defined through skill, and the understanding of the message/opinion of a piece of art in the audience. Assuming that this is the correct definition, group verification is a crucial aspect of what is, first and foremost, considered knowledge, and how it is perceived. For example, knowledge in the arts may differentiate based on what is considered visually simulating for the majority. Thus, changing the knowledge of what “skills” are, effectively modifying what knowledge is in the arts.
- How does this link to personal and shared knowledge?
- Are all claims in art open to being shared and discussed?
Knowledge within arts is not objective & therefore not meaningful.
Outline a clear argument in support
- Knowledge within the arts may be mealiness in certain area’s of knowledge due their objective nature. An example of this is knowledge in natural science
- As art, by nature, is subjective, it can not be used as knowledge in natural science. As a rue of thumb, good science should not be biased, purely based on fact. This effectively discounts knowledge that can be discovered through the arts.
Outline a clear counter-argument
- Art often reflects the world/ society around them, thus being an mode of knowledge in history. Historians often derives knowledge of previous era’s from art, analyzing pictures and paintings done in order to understand and discover culture, lifestyles, beliefs, etc. This can seen through our knowledge found on Ancient Egypt. Vivid painting are often found describing different rituals unique to Ancient Egypt.
- Human sciences
According to Popper’s theory there is one clear distinction between pseudoscience and science: FALSIFICATION. Simply put it, pseudoscience rarely, if ever, makes claims that can be proven to be incorrect. For example, a tarrot card reader may tell somebody that they are going to die that day. Of course, if it doesn’t happen, they may say that a part of their soul “died”, or something equally disprovable, Their claims are often times unable to be proven as their claims are positive claims. Positive claims are claims in which speculate on what could be possible rather than what is ____ not understand under fixed circumstances.
However, despite common believes, the lines between pseudoscience and science is more blurred than one may think. Using falsification as a distinguishing rule between the two “sciences”, may lead to people disregarding things too quickly and/or easily.
Natural Sciences is a unique category within the “AOK’s”, seen through it’s interaction with the world. It distinguishes itself from the 7 other Areas of Knowledge categories through exploration of the physical world. However, some may say that many, if not all, of the AOK’s interact with the physical world. This, of course, is true, but its the HOW that sets it apart. Natural sciences is the only area of knowledge that is defined by it’s interaction within the physical world, thus making it an unique and fascinating category. For example, if it is not tangible nor perceived through senses than it is not a natural science.
Knowledge Claim #1: Science often times has the ability to make wealth gaps even more apparent.
Knowledge Claim #2: Science should be heavily regulated in order to prevent immoral application.
- How can one weigh both the benefits and drawbacks of a scientific progression, and decide whether or not to release it to the public?
- How can science be regulated without encouraging and/or excluding the underprivileged?
- At what point do we say that an application of science is immoral, and how do we prevent it from happening?
- Who are the people who “get” to decide what is moral or not.
- Do all scientific progressions (medicine, technology, etc.) exclude the underprivileged and make the wealth gap more apparent? If so how could we rectify this?
- Due to the cycle that science has “embodied”, does this mean science is ever progressing? We create solutions, thus creating problems, then we create solutions for the new problem, and in doing so creates a problem, so on and so forth.
” The problems with language always limits the production of knowledge.”
What are the problems with language?
What are the different types of language, and the befits and limitations for each style?
what is the production of knowledge?
How do the problems vary based on the type of knowledge an language used?
- Natural Sciences
- Human Sciences
- Indigenous Knowledge Systems
There is evidence dating back to the 1800 hundreds, that humans either did not see or recognize the color blue.
- Experiences and exposure can alter one’s perception of the world.
- The extent of our perception relies on language, and the ability to communicate knowledge.
- Knowledge would not expand without different experiences and exposures.
- Knowledge changes with perception.
- If we are not able to communicate knowledge, than it does not exist.
- Language changes knowledge and our perception.
Articulating TOK claims out of order 1 (real life claims), is important as it can be applied to more than one situation, and used to further understand concepts. These TOK claims were created based off the assumption that the color blue “did not exist” until is was expressed though language. This is further supported through a experiment done by Jules Davidoff, a psychologist from Goldsmiths University of London and the Himba tribe from Namibia. The experiment was with the colors blue and green. There were 11 squares, where all except one square were green. According Jules Davidoff the majority of the tribal members found it challenging to distinguish the blue cube from the green cubes. However, interestingly enough, when shown 11 squares of green, with one square being a slightly different shade, they were able to immediately recognize it. It was hypothesized that because their language has so many different words describing the color green, they were able to recognize even the slightest differentiation between colors. Therefore, language can alter our knowledge and perception.
*Study of color, article in which further explains the history and existence of the color blue. Other good examples in which further support the TOK claims listed.