Sonia’s Healthy Habits


Healthy movement –

Walk 7000 steps per day

Take part in a physical activity 3 times a week.

Healthy food –

Bring a healthy snack to school at least twice per week 

Cut back on processed food and increase real food.

Read nutritional information on food products to guide your food choices.

Healthy sleep –

No processed foods/sugar 3 hrs before bed.

Drink herbal tea and read a book/magazine 30-60min before bed.

Healthy thoughts –

Get out in nature at least 2 times a week

Follow a 5-10 minute meditation video 2-3 times a week

Try to Laugh daily

Truth in the Arts


  1. Summarize what the main point(s) of the two essays into one short paragraph each.

In the first essay of Art vs. Science by Martine Powers, the main point conveyed is that every area of the Arts possesses the capacity to “tell the truth” in its own profound and insightful way. Literature is straightforward and easier to understand, and it has been the main way people have communicated and conveyed the truth. Literature is universal. Although art may not be able to explain the truth in clear-cut sentences and phrase, it is often able to describe reality in ways that are as authentic or even more authentic, than literature. Art and science is also compared. Powers says: Though social and natural sciences may, by themselves, produce accurate facts and figures, they cannot, in
isolation, deal with the truths that are most important at the end of the day. Only the arts can wholly address these fundamental truths.

In the second essay of Art and Truth, the main point addressed is what is the truth? As art is so subjective, the main point explored is if there is really only one truth. The conclusion is that why is there a need to find truth and art, and why does everything have to be black or white. There is more to art than just telling the truth, instead, it is understanding and seeing a different perspective.

How do both of these essays reflect what is presented in chapter reading about truth in art?

In the chapter reading, the idea of ‘truth’ is explored. This idea is explored deeper, as the essay had only discussed past examples. By thinking deeply about the technological aspects of art, there is a difference between the real truth and an altered reality. The concept of realistic art is explored, where the conclusion that a work of art seems to be able to help us understand some truths even though the work itself does not directly tell the truth. This point contradicts what was said in the first essay of Art vs Science.

“Without the group to verify it, knowledge is not possible.”

“Without the group to verify it, knowledge is not possible.” Discuss.

Without the group to verify it, knowledge is not possible. To me, I would agree with this claim but only to a certain extent. Knowledge is possible without group verification, but to what extent is this knowledge reliable? The purpose of group verification is to confirm and make sure that what has been found is correct or, reliable. Just because something is not verified by a group, does not mean that it is not knowledge, but instead it only means that it is not reliable knowledge.

Intro. to the arts

Unlike The Arts, Science tells us something valuable about the world.

Supporting Argument:

The sciences do tell us something valuable about the world, whereas the arts do not. When there are scientific discoveries, they are deemed as groundbreaking, and even life-changing to some, whereas art is just something people can enjoy and relate to. Science knowledge is factual, it is testable, whereas -sometimes- art is not straightforward. Art does not affect us, rather it informs us. This can be deemed as invaluable, as it does not change the way we live or change the way we are. Science discoveries such as cures of sicknesses are more valuable than a painting of the sunset.

Counter Argument:

While art can not drastically change the way we live, it can affect us. Art can influence people in ways that science is unable to. People who read, look at art or listen to music are able to see the artists point of view, therefore understanding the way they look at life. Science is factual information, but art informs and makes people feel a certain way, gaining empathy. For example, of the topic of comfort women during the Japanese-Korean war, we are able to see the point of view of these women through their stories, writing, whereas science would only show the statistics, and how they were physically affected.

Science and Pseudoscience

The Claim: The distinction between science and pseudoscience is unclear.

To prove whether or not this is true, we should first understand what science and pseudoscience is. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, in simpler words, it is a branch of knowledge, where knowledge is built and organized in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.

The claim above states that the distinction between science and pseudoscience is unclear. This means that there is no clear difference between science and pseudoscience. To begin with, the name of both topics are similar, with the exception of pseudo. The definition of pseudo is not genuine, a sham, used to mark something that superficially appears to be (or behaves like) one thing, but is something else. In other words, pseudoscience is not genuine science.

The main argument for the claim that the distinction between science and pseudoscience is clear, is because science is based on scientific experiments and data. In science, in order for something to be considered a theory or a law, it is proved through continuous testing. For example, the cell theory came to be through endless testing, and through these testings, there had been a basic pattern which is how the cell theory came to be. Science is based on well-established, repeating patterns and regularities in nature, and most importantly, consistency. Pseudoscience is a collection of assertions that do not satisfy the requirements and practices of true science, therefore there is a clear distinction between the two topics. Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper had both made very solid claims with their idea of falsification. No amount of data can really prove a theory, but that even a single key data point can potentially disprove it. Popper advocated falsification as a tool to distinguish science from non-science (and from nonsense). This is what could have distinguished science from pseudoscience. Those that did not follow the general pattern or results are disregarded as proper science.

While it may seem simple, the difference between science and pseudoscience, we are in the day and age where science is developing so quickly. With so many experiments done, it is hard to catch up with all of the new data. Amidst all these experiments, there are many papers, many data that go against each other. If we followed Kuhn and Popper’s idea of falsification, these papers and ideas would immediately be disregarded. Popper’s idea that ‘no amount of data can confirm a theory’ can be called irrational, due to the many current theories we currently have. Nowadays, scientists usually do not need to confirm a theory one hundred percent in order to trust and use it, in more cases, a theory only needs to be good enough.  While this may go against the basic science standard of consistency, there is a reason behind every (most) ‘failure’ experiments, such as a flawed apparatus, or the statistics have gone wrong.

In conclusion, through the two arguments, I believe that there is a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience. Firstly, pseudoscience is a collection of assertations that have not been backed up by any experimental data whatsoever. It is simple claims that have come to be hypothetical ideas. Though science may not always be one hundred percent consistent, it just has to be ‘correct enough’, and be backed up by enough evidence to prove the theory true. The idea of falsification in science is an interesting idea that can be used as a guideline, but it should not be used to base whether or not a theory or law is true. Falsification does not blur the lines between science and pseudoscience, as pseudoscience is based of claims and not evidence. While falsification many prove some theories otherwise, we should only take this information with a grain of salt. In which science covers a wide range of ideas, it is important to know the clear difference between science and pseudoscience.

Competing hypotheses in NS

The question: How can scientists decide between competing hypotheses?

In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation. Science experiments are based off hypotheses. To answer this question, we should understand what is a hypothesis? A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. When deciding between competing hypotheses, there are many different factors to think about.

First of all, Occam’s Razor. This is a completely subjective way to decide between hypotheses. It is when is a principle from philosophy, where the simpler option is chosen tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. While this may seem easier, as if we put into everyday situations such as following a map, but when placed into scientific problems, it is a completely different story. A ‘simpler’ solution in science cannot be measurable when such complex tasks are involved. Using terms that are so broad, should not be a justifiable reason as to why a certain hypothesis is chosen. But if we take a deeper look into the meaning of Occam’s Razor – the option with the fewest assumptions – this seems to be more reliable. This can be taken into consideration when picking a hypothesis, as the option with fewer setbacks, should be deemed as more ‘correct’. For example, to see if gravity to real, we can drop many items, such as a rock, pencil and a ball, when 2/3 of the option proves that gravity is real, then we should follow this option (if we ignore the fact that balls can bounce).

TO decide between hypotheses, many factors should be taken into consideration. While Occam’s razor may seem like the easiest way to pick a hypothesis, it does not mean it is the most accurate way. Scientists should take accuracy, consistency, and past knowledge into consideration when picking a hypothesis, and when left with few options, Occam’s razor can be taken into consideration, but it should not be the sole decision maker.


Introduction to the Natural Sciences

Consider a claim in history such as: “Napoleon was a great leader”.

Why would such a claim not be considered ‘scientific’?

This claim is not considered scientific because this is a subjective claim. To determine whether someone was a ‘great’ leader or not is very subjective, it cannot be backed up by scientific evidence, such as an experiment. This is also a claim that cannot be repeated or done again, to really see if he was a great leader. Secondly, as this is to do with politics and the public opinion of a leader, it would be not be considered scientific. ‘Great’ is also too broad of a word, great could have many different interpretations to it.

First Order and Second Order TOK Claims

Biology 1st Order Claim: All living things are made of cells

Biology 2nd Order Claim: Scientific claims must be backed up by scientific research.


  1. How will scientific claims be backed up scientific research?
  2. Do scientific claims have to be backed up by research?
  3. How are scientific claims known to be true?
  4. Can humans ever be certain?

Exploring these TOK questions will allow us to better understand the real order claim as we are able to think more about how these claims come to be. By understanding and knowing how these claims come to be, explaining and learning more deeply about these claims will be easier.



Intro to Language as a WOK

“Do the problems of language always limit the production of knowledge?”

The problems of language do limit the production of knowledge. One of the main ways we spread and gain knowledge is through verbal communication. If we are unable to use our main form of communication, we are automatically disadvantaged compared do those who are able to. When problems, questions and thoughts arise, we tend to speak to others to gain or pass information. Without the skills to verbally communicating, our ability to produce knowledge is limited. For example, during a discussion in a class, if we are unable to speak to each other, how can we share our knowledge? Sign language, writing to each other, are all languages, so how would we be able to share our knowledge if we didn’t use these ways? In a smaller scale, where using different phrases instead of others to explain something, would this limit the production of knowledge? Well it could to a certain extent, like in the virus/beast reading, different words have different connotations. This wouldn’t neccarcily limit the production of knowledge, but it would get people to think different and feel differently.

WOK and Knowledge

The arts go against the weaknesses of perception as many have different opinions on the way they view art. In order for something to be called art, the viewer has to see an artistic intention in the work, for it to be described as art. A piece of work of paint splatted on a piece of paper would be considered art for someone, while another simply sees it as sprayed paint on a sheet of paper. Many people also perceive the meaning of art differently. Art relies upon a sense of perception – in both the viewer’s observation of the piece and the personal insights of the artist.  The artist may not get his/her point across with their work, as the viewer may see something completely different than the implied meaning.

Knowledge and Explaining – Reflection

What do you think TOK is, and why does the IB make you take it?

I think TOK is questioning our knowledge about the world and trying to understand why things are the way they are. In my opinion, the IB makes us take this subject in order for us to be able to reflect on our knowledge and be aware of who we are as thinkers, leading us to truly understand the knowledge that we possess.