Sonia’s Healthy Habits

Goals:

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

Comparing Human and Natural Science

1 question developed from NS: 

What effects do molten lava erupted from a volcano have on the water system in the homes of those living in Heimaey, Vestmannaeyjar? (What happens when water and lava meets?)

1 question developed from HS:

Due to the geographical location of Heimaey, Vestmannaeyjar, are Volcanos are a natural occurrence in this region of Iceland?

Hypothesis: When molten lava from a volcano come into with the water system in Vestmannaeyjar, a phreatomagmatic eruption will occur. This causes ash and fragmentation to be produced through the eruption, thus the intended lava flow will be replaced with an explosion, causing deteriorating effects to the surrounding environment.

Method/Tools of Collection: Artifical lava can be made and combined with water from the water system in Vestmannaeyjar. This allows the explosion to be observed.

Techniques for Analyzing Data: 

  1. Quantitative: Determine the energy of explosion through Brode’s method. This can be done by measuring the pressure before and after the explosion.
  2. Qualitative: Compare the explosion and the effects with other trials of explosion. Note the effects of the explosion.

Compare the reliability/certainty of the knowledge your experts will acquire. 

1. In HS, we see the theoretical effects of an explosion from a volcano. What is expected to happen, versus what would actually happen

2. In NS, due to experimentation, we can see what would most likely happen.

Identify the factors that contribute to (or take away from) reliability/certainty.

  1. In NS, we don’t take into account of external factors as variables are controlled in experiments.

 

 

 

 

Math Question to Answer

 

If Ethics and Maths both employ logical thinking and argumentation to produce knowledge, can claims in ethics be as well justified as those in Math? Discuss.

I believe that claims in ethics can be as well justified as those in maths. People have ethics that are based off their life experiences and expectations, which will have to employ logical thinking and argumentation to produce this knowledge. I feel that as long as their ethics can be backed up by solid evidence and proof, then it can be as well justified as those in maths. Lawmakers are like the mathematicians of ethics. In order for a law to pass through, it has to have solid evidence as to why it should be passed through, while mathematicians make axioms through constant evidence.

TOK Essay – Using Concepts of Coherence and Correspondence

To begin with, an understanding of the theory of coherence and correspondence is needed. The theory of coherence states that the truth of any (true) proposition consists in its coherence with some specified set of propositions. While the theory of correspondence states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes that world.

In the essay that we read, the conclusion that the writer reached was that math follows the theory of correspondence. When doing math, complete certainty can be achieved with the help of rigorous proof from the system, whereas once math is brought into another system, the ‘real world’, math fails. Math is only absolute when used in its own system, thus math only states the full truth when relating back to the subject of math, and not in the real world. This can be said in economics, when theories are developed, such as the law of demand or the law of supply, these theories only work when it is in an ideal economic environment, hence ceteris paribus. This does not mean that the laws are incorrect, instead it follows the theory of correspondence, where the law would only work when it is related to the ideal economic world.

Intro to Mathematics

  1. What is the difference between a conjecture and a theorem?

A conjecture is a theory that was formed about something that has not been completely proven to be true. While a theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of confirmed statements/ideas, such as other theorems/theories and generally accepted statements. A theorem is formed from the logical thinking based on accepted statements. The difference between a theorem and a conjecture is that conjectures are not to be proven completely true, while theorems have evidence and proof to be truthful. A theorem may be formed from conjectures, and conjectures can be further proved to become a theorem.

2. In THE VIDEO  Eduardo Saenz de Cabezon uses the example of people being surprised that folding a normal piece of paper 50 times, will reach a thickness as high as the sun. He challenges us to ‘do the math’ and see that he is correct. What do you think meant when he said that Maths dominates intuition and tames creativity? Do you agree with this?

Math is typically known to be using theorems to prove an equation. When thinking creatively, anything can be possible, but when math proves otherwise, our creativity is tamed and proven to be false, which ultimately causes the creative mind to be tamed. Intuition is something that someone knows based on their predictions or feelings. Math can dominate intuition, as intuitions are based on guesses, while math can prove whether something is true or not. From Cabezon’s statement, I agree with him that maths can dominate intuition and tame creativity.

Truth in the Arts

ART vs SCIENCE ART and TRUTH

  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.