Autobiography: Me as a Knower I originally thought that knowledge was just information that I personally believe to be one hundred percent true. This meant that anything I did not believe to be one hundred percent true was just useless information. I also believed that truth can only be obtained through "evidence" or "proof". In simpler terms, I would have been classified as purely a "scientific type of knower". That meant that I required "evidence" for every piece of information I encountered in order for me to consider it as knowledge. An example of this would have been me not taking in everything my parents "tell me" as pure knowledge immediately. This meant that I would always try to verify whatever they tell me with books or with experts like doctors. Moreover, as a "scientific type of knower" I always expected "certainty" with everything that I considered as knowledge. Since, I always required "certainty" with my knowledge I believed there was only one way of acquiring knowledge and that is usually through "authorities/experts" like doctors and teachers for example. In other words, I would usually obtain what I "believed" as knowledge through scientific journals ,books, teachers at school and everything they teach me, and other professionals. I would value the "information" these people provide me as knowledge because I believe these people are well educated and
ESSAY: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states "language limits what you can think". How far do you agree with this statement? You can find a great variety of definitions for language because actually this word does not have a real definition. Language can be a system of communication using symbols, physical gestures, sounds and others means of expression. However there are three conditions that must be followed by this system to it be classified as a language. It has to be rule-governed, which means that it has to have vocabulary and grammar. It has to be intended. And it also has to be open-ended which means without limits or restrictions and allowed to future modifications. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf brought attention to the relationship between language and thought and to show their ideas to the whole world they created the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which theorizes that the thought is determined or, at least, influenced by language. The first main idea of this hypothesis is the linguistic relativism, a theory that claims that our language determines the things we can think and say. The linguistic relativism states that the language you speak determines the way that you interpret the world around you, in other words, people experience the world based on the grammatical structures they habitually use. A great example for it is that "speakers of different languages may
tok thoughts - In the following claim, it says that we cannot write ancient history because we do not have enough information and we cannot write modern history because we have too much information.
. A person can speak meaningfully about a historical fact. They can tell someone about a event that happened in history. It can make sense if the person speaking about a point and time in history if they know all or most of the facts about it. Someone can speak with certainty about anything in the past if they know the actual facts and understands what actually took place during that point and time. This person would have to learn the information before using it. They can either get their information through primary source documents or secondary source documents. It is best that the person gets the information from a primary source document because the information s factual and came from that point and time in history. We don't really know whether the historical information is a fact, especially ancient history. 2. In today's society, people rely on the internet to gain knowledge and study history. This method is mostly used by the people of today because it is easier and can be done in your own home. This effects the study of history because there can be false information on the internet; a person surfing the internet would not know which information is reliable or not. We don't really know whether the information is true or false if we have not studied the information before. For example, anyone can put information onto the internet. Websites , like Wikipedia,
The power of magic On Friday 13/11 we, the DP Grade, enjoyed an experience which I now, with hindsight, regard as being definitely off the beaten track. Spending a Theory-of-Knowledge session on a 'mystery trip', walking the few metres before the final destination blindfolded, ending up in a magician's performing room is not exactly what I would define the most usual of circumstances indeed. Nonetheless, I cannot think of anything that would have suited the topic of 'sense perception' we are covering in TOK more remarkably. To start with, the bemusement which seized us, as we all took off the blindfolds and stared speechless at the walls of the narrow room on which pictures of the most renowned conjurers were hanging, was just a taste of what was about to come next. Magician Andrea Boccia in the flesh, whom I later learnt to be one of the best in his field, introduced himself and the forthcoming show, though in a wisely vague guise, so as to let us gradually realize what we were becoming integral part of, step by step, trick after trick. As we beheld the performance, each one of us had a different response: some were skeptical, some were trying to foresee his moves, some were virtually fighting against him, some simply felt out of their depth, others were merely enthralled. But all our reactions shared one common feature: the fact of being taken in by our own 'sense
What can be meant by the panchatantra saying, knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes is it necessary to have clear ideas to see?
What can be meant by the panchatantra saying, “knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eyes” is it necessary to have clear ideas to see? When we say “sight” we all refer to our eyes due to which we human beings get to see, it is something we all have in common, ears to hear, nose to smell and breathe, tongue to taste and eyes to see. But when we think about knowledge every single human beings knowledge is made up of what every person learns through their past experiences, through what they have been told and with the help of the education system therefore every persons knowledge differs. Every human beings physical qualities are the same but mentally every person thinks and perceives the world around them differently. An example in this situation would be that a person who watches a lot of television recognizes an actress on the street but a person who doesn’t watch television will not recognize the actress but will see her nevertheless. Therefore everyone can “see” but how you perceive it is upto every individual. Therefore knowledge is the real source of sight the eyes are just the facilitator. Also if we analyze only the use of our eyes by itself through an example if your walking on the road and someone asks you for a lift and you sweetly decline because your waiting for someone but you think of the gesture to be very sweet but when you go home and
Thuy-Khue Tran Ms. Takao 21 January 2009 Theory of Knowledge Does Some Knowledge Lie Beyond Language? Language exists to convey knowledge. However, sentiments, experiences, perceptions are not all defined within language. Words and letters are the core of language; but, they are merely a succession of interconnected and defined symbols. Regardless of how elaborate and convoluted the system of signs may be, not every sensation or thought can be portrayed through the use of language for words cannot replace human experience. If language was the sole and dominate basis of knowledge, then reality would only be implied through obscure expressions and terms. Hence, the world would be a very different and distorted place. Information is communicated through speech or writing but emotions like pain and love are not effectively depicted through a jumble of words; therefore, some knowledge exists beyond language. Language is very much like a mirror. A mirror only presents a reflection, some altered image that is not seen directly. Expressing knowledge through language is quite similar to looking in a mirror. Accessing knowledge through diction is like living vicariously through a story told because then language is dependent on visualizations or the imagination. Consequently, life's experiences are substituted with illusions. These characters and metaphors attempt to enlighten
When, and to what extend, can we trust perception to give us truth? Which is more important? The truth (of reality), or what is perceived? Looked at it in another way, the questions could also be seen as between "absolute truth" and "relative truth" respectively. I believe perception is, practically speaking, more important than truth because, in fact, it's about our instincts and sometime you just have to follow them. When we perceive something, it is done with our 5 senses: sight, hear, smell, touch and taste. This is put through our mind. So we come up with a mix of those sensed perceptions. To change a perception, we can add filters to our senses (e.g. spectacles, hearing aid, thick gloves etc,.) that will instantly change reality for the person sensing it. sssHowever, when we have to deal with truth, it becomes a whole different matter totally. You can't really change the truth without making it into a whole new truth altogether. Take for example an orange. The truth is that an orange is an orange. With perception, if you're wearing "green glasses", an orange will appear green. In reality, the orange is not green, but orange still. But if you decide to paint the orange green, then the truth is that the orange is green. The same happens when, for example, trees falls and know one listens, does it still makes a
Ethics Commentary. There is a great example for changing principles for different situations; it is named the Trolley Problem
Pedro Mota Carmo TOK Commentary “These are my principles and if you don’t like them – I have others” Groucho Marx, 1890-1977 What Marx was trying to portray with this is that people might say they have the same principles in some situations, but in others they might change them. In theory changing your principles for different situations is the same thing as not having any principles to begin with because you are always changing them. There is a great example for changing principles for different situations; it is named the Trolley Problem. In this problem we have two situations. In the first situation you have a runaway trolley, you are inside this trolley and the tracks in front of you have four people working on the track, and on the other track you have just one person. You have control over the tracks the trolley is going to continue in. In this situation most people would choose to switch tracks and kill just one person instead of four, this is utilitarianism (doing the best for the majority of the society). In the second situation you also have the runaway trolley and the four people in front of it, however this time you have a bridge over the track and a fat guy which you can push over. You know that if you push him he will stop the train and save the other four people. There is just one problem he is telling you he doesn’t want to do it. In this
Gupta Ayush Gupta IB TOK 12 October 30, 2012 Word Count: 482 Faith in math Faith is a term used to show belief in a particular idea, for example faith in God. Math is a form of language which was invented by humans to study and work upon the quantitative aspect of life. Though many people argue that Math was discovered because mathematical patterns exist in nature such as a sequence, however Math is actually a language to express and further work upon such patterns. Therefore according to me Math is invented by humans only and so it depends on whether we have faith in our own creation or not. Math is a system which has its roots in numbers, mathematical operators, variables etc. These things form the fundamentals of mathematics and can be considered as words in the language English. This means that if there is certain mathematical entity in nature such as length or breath, then we use numbers to compare and express these entities and mathematical operators such as multiplication to further calculate the area, hence making work like carpentry easier. Hence the faith aspect starts from the roots of Math. If we have faith in our own creation of numbers and mathematical operators, only then we can calculate other things. It is not necessary that the final answer must be true. For example Math can be used to prove that something is not true or that something is false. In
Question 1) Are penguins more evolved than humans ? Yes I do believe that penguins are more evolved than humans because of several reason after watching 'March of the penguins', firstly is that penguins travel long distances to reach their mating spot, and they know exactly where the best place is to mate and take care of their eggs. They choose the spot where the ice is thickest so that it won't break, and every mating season they come back to the exact same spot, this is usually after around 2-3 years. This fact is extremely amazing as the animals are able to remember the exact spot where they should mate after every 2 years. I'm sure that a human will not be able to remember the spot after 2 years. Another point is that penguins, during mating season, must go on without food for 2-3 months min. Then after mating when the egg has come the females leave to collect food from the sea, and the men stay to keep the eggs warm. Through this time there are many snow storms and the temperature is below -20 degree Celsius. Here we see that penguins are use to cold conditions because of their fur. Now when the egg hatches and the mother has still not return then the father is able to feed the young with a substance that is found in the back of the mouth. This is a temporary thing so that the child does not die of hunger. Again we can see here that penguins are more evolved than