"We see and understand things not as they are, but as we are." This statement is fathomable to an extent since we as individuals are moulded by society. There are two ways of knowning I would like to illustrate, belief and truth. In a human's mind there is a very fine line between the two, and with progressive reexamining of facts even "truth" is being altered. To a believer, the belief is a truth and that is how myths become legendary. Also perception is an important element of our gained "knowledge". Two different individuals who have had very dissmiliar experiences will have various opinions regarding a vast amount of things this is why some people have arachnophobia but others are completely comfortable around spiders. This shows that perception plays a great role in the making of the foundations of our society. The example I would like to throw light upon is the contreversial subject of cannibalism. Suprisingly, the single most influential factor that drives people into becoming a cannibal is social pressure. But we as a produce of a civilised society think of this as a devastating and savage act but in certain tribes of Africa it is seen as aintegral part of a ritual and also humans that are devoured are only eaten as a form of punishment. The tribe leaders equate this to cannibalism and also use the theory of evolution where members of various classes eat the same
So, my question today will be whether Is it moral to lie in order to make things better or preserve good? First thing we have to suppose in order to be able to talk about moral is that we are not determined or more precise that we are not hard-determinist. Because if we would be determined, it would mean we would have no free will and as we do not have free will, we are unable to make our own choices. So a basic condition to talk about morality is that we have a free will. In every day life we encounter many situations, which require us to make a choice. These situations vary a great lot and with them the choices we have to make. Sometimes we simply have to choose between two actions, or if to do it in the first place. But every now and then we make some decisions that might not be beneficial for us in the long run. I would like to give you a real life example that will illustrate the situation in which we have to make a choice. Lets imagine that Mike has a girlfriend since 6 years. They are very happy together and enjoy each others company. Both of them have gotten so used to each other and they started hanging out most of the time. But after six years Mike cheated on her because he got drunk and wanted to have fun. After the great night he woke up sober and was confronted with an ethical dilemma. Now he has two possibilities. Either telling his girlfriend the truth or
Today I'm going to talk weather or not prostitution should be legalized. Prostitution is also known as the world's oldest profession and it has appeared in almost every culture all over the world. First, what benefits does it provide to man's life? Obviously, it fulfills one of his man's strongest urges as a human being - sex. It's easy to observe that men go to prostitutes to have a good time, and enjoy the experience. On the other side, the prostitutes provide their services voluntarily and make a decent living in the process. Both sides benefit, and the fact that hookers work in nearly every country in the world suggest that there is a great demand (and proportionally a great perceived benefit) for their service. But everything is not that nice. In America, where prostitution is illegal in most places and no government oversight of abuses exists, prostitutes face serious physical, financial, health, and legal challenges in the process of providing their services. However, is this a necessary aspect of prostitution? As with every other controversial topic two sides are formed. One supports the prostitution and other is against it. When I was doing research into this topic I found one interesting quote I want to introduce to you: Prostitution is a combination of sex and the free market. Which one are you against? This side belief, that prostitutes are not committing an
To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics? As human beings, we are constantly searching for this higher level of knowledge, truth, whether it is in the sciences, in our own lives, or in religion. For example, if I want to know how I can find the area of a triangle given two sides and an angle, I just refer to the trigonometry section of my math SL textbook, which gives the equation meeting those criteria as well as the proof. But by helping derive and justify the equation A =0.5absinC, the proof confirms this mathematical truth. For this question, I will step further into truth and our perception of truth, exploring the question: To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts, and ethics? First, I feel it necessary to distinguish between the different truths that may exist simultaneously. Truth, in my opinion, can be classified into two categories: "hard" and "soft" truths. "Hard" truths are universally-accepted facts that can always be proven to be accurate and they are found most often in the areas of mathematics, natural sciences and history. Even in the arts and ethics, there are universal truths, such as the fact that Beethoven composed the Moonlight Sonata, A.R Rahman composed "JAI HO" or even the fact that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the "MONA LISA". However, the specific truths one seeks in a piece of music, a work of art, or a
Using history and at least one other area of knowledge, examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection.
Using history and at least one other area of knowledge, examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection. The study of whether a source can be trusted in light of its origin, reliability and subjective nature is one that is consistently employed by historians and writers who intend to create as an objective an account of events as possible. In this essay I intend to discuss the negative impact that bias can cause but also how it can be limited or used to the historians' advantage when analysing a certain period in history. I will also explore the effect that bias and selection has on the natural sciences which can be linked to historical circumstances in a bid to argue that knowledge can be obtained despite these problems. As my primary point, I would like to stress that bias and selection in themselves do not necessarily impede our knowledge of this period. Just because someone is more favourable to one figure or set of events at the expense of another does not make our source worthless. From my personal viewpoint of studying Medieval History at a higher level within the IB syllabus, I fully understand the implications that bias holds in distorting the truth, however this distortion in itself can provide useful information. For example, the reign of King John of England created many sources negative to his style of kingship.
What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?
Candidate name: Tam Wai Kit, Jonathan Candidate code: 001225-020 School: Yew Chung International School International Baccalaureate Diploma - Theory of Knowledge (ToK) What are the differences between "I am certain" and "it is certain", and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge? The difference between "I am certain" and "It is certain" deals with the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, in terms of expressing and justifying knowledge. "I am certain" involves personal interpretation in a particular event (subjective), whereas "It is certain" tries to avoid such a problem. To the observer, subjective observations are equally as real as objective observations, with the fact that objective observations are common to all subjects where subjective ones vary among different observers. Subjectivity often involves personal emotion, and therefore it is likely to be affected and misled by the subject thus it differs from the reality. In Economics, we have a similar concept: positive and normative statements. Positive economics are objective, and therefore can be tested by available evidence. Normative statements are subjective and express an opinion1. Normative statements are subjective. For example, an economist might say, "I am certain that the cyclical employment is due to the low efficiency of the government in terms of its fiscal
Human life and human personality have been studied thoroughly throughout many years, but there are different ways of studying these aspects of humanity. Human personality may be defined as the pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person. One way to analyze human life and personality is through the use of scientific psychology. Psychology is the science that seeks to understand behavior and mental processes, and to apply that understanding in the service of human welfare. This is an unbiased observation of the human personality and life. The other method of analyzing human life and personality is through novels. A Novel is a book-length fictional story usually involving relationships between characters, their emotional crises and events concerning them. Novels usually have meanings involved in them that the author is trying to make the reader aware of. The extent in which we learn more from novels than from scientific psychology is due to the emotional attachment from the author to pinpoint useful meanings of life and human personality, while scientific psychology has no emotional connection with these meanings. Although psychology has a thorough insight of the mind and mental processes, it does not bind meanings to its analysis. Novels supply the reader with a lot of information about human life and human personality.
TOK Essay 2/2011 Question: What is it about the theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing? Name: Valerie Ng Suying TOK group: P1b (Mr Eric Lau) Index Number: 20 It is widely assumed that natural and human sciences provide a reliable form of knowledge about the world, whether about natural phenomena or the behavior of individuals or a society. Statistics have shown that people have a high level of confidence in the scientific community. Scientists and their scientific theories are usually placed above leaders of other institutions such as business leaders, religious leaders, or elected officials (americanprogress.org). However, scientific theories are not completely certain and may not always provide an accurate view of the world. They are fallible and are subjected to change. So what is it in the theories of the human and natural sciences that makes them so convincing? Why do people have such high regard for them to the extent that some have begun to take them for granted as being true? This essay will attempt to discuss theories in the natural sciences followed by theories in the human sciences. To begin, it is important to define the key terms, namely 'scientific theories' and 'convincing'. Scientific theories are a set of logical explanatory statements with well-supported evidence that explain observations and can be used to
What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing? Our lives are becoming more reliant on scientific theories and we have placed scientist leaders above many other business and political leaders. We take scientific theories as ‘the dominant cognitive paradigm’ of knowledge’ and we see an idea to be ‘definitely true’ should it be ‘scientifically proven’. This raises the knowledge issue: to what extent is scientific theories held in a higher regard in relation to others? And to what extent do these areas of knowledge - natural and social sciences - use observation, evidence and the scientific method - in establishing scientific theories? Finally, we ought to ask to what extent can we depend on scientific method for true, reliable, and ‘convincing’ theories? I define a ‘convincing’ theory as one that is capable of overriding opposition and effectively earning the trust of others. As Feynman defines, the premise of science is based on inductivism, where the scientific method of observations, reasons and experiments ensures controllability, measurability and repeatability. Deductive logic is key to the theories in the natural sciences, its apparently watertight syllogism allows a claim to be undermined and disputed; hence, a scientific claim is characterized to "lend itself to scrutiny and rigorous testing…