The Power of Failure

Title: The Power of Failure
Author: William D. Cohan
Publication: New York Times
Date: November 26^th, 2010
Category: Outside of Class

sureboy.blogspot.com

            This article from the New York Times describes the economic mistakes that Wall Street has faced continuously over the past years. It mentions how we have this image of Wall Street being so great, therefore praising it through writing about it in books, filming it in movies, and overpaying the people that work there. This excessive praise towards Wall Street has gotten people to wonder why we are still viewing Wall Street with this image even though they have made so many mistakes in the past. Some people say it is in our nature to fail. We’re not perfect, and so we are bound to make mistakes and fail. Nevertheless, it’s what we do with these failures that matter. Nowadays, we have the need to be perfect ever since we are born. I find this to be true in my life. I feel the need to be perfect, because this will allow me to be viewed as an accomplished individual. Because of this need, it’s hard to accept my failures, and deal with it and learn from it. Great leaders of the world state the importance of making failures, and that failures can be the thing that creates an epiphany in one’s life. There is no need for us to be perfect, it is simply a want, an image or reputation we want to have; however, there is a need for us to make failures although we may not want it.

            While reading this article, I began to think about what it meant to be perfect. The idea of being “perfect” is different for everyone is it not? If people are striving to be “perfect” while having different ideas of what being “perfect” is, then how can one know that people will view them as being “perfect”? The same applies to what is to be considered as “failures”. What are failures? Do failures mean different things to different people? If so, is it possible that a person considers something to be a failure while another person does not? If this is true, then why are we so afraid of people judging us from our failures when there is a great possibility that people may not even consider our failures to be failures at all? Who decides what should be considered as “perfect” or “failures”? Who has this authority? Do all people agree with this authority? If so, does this figure have the power to control what should be accepted by the mass (common knowledge)?

Veil of Perception

Title: Veil of Perception
Date: October 27^th, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

            The concept of the Veil of Perception states that there is a barrier between what we see, and what is really there, this barrier being the veil. There are different ideas that aroused from this concept of the veil of perception such as naïve realism, direct realism, indirect realism and idealism. Although these ideas were formed by intelligent people from previous eras, significant knowledge issues arise for each concept.

scientificamerican.com

            Naïve realism is also known as common sense realism. It basically states that what we see or perceive is real. This is what most people tend to believe because it helps us live our life (this thus being a pragmatic truth because we believe it because we know that it will benefit us by doing so). Some problems that arise from this idea is, what is people are colorblind? Does that mean that the color they perceive (black and white) is reality? Does that mean that the world is solely black and white? But if this is true, then is the world in color false? What about the presence of temperature? We can’t necessarily see temperature; does this mean that temperature does not exist? Then what is the feeling of warming up? Or feeling cold? Naïve realism does not take account the things we cannot see. However, if we can’t see it, then how do we know it is actually there?

            Direct realism’s founder was a man named Thomas Reid. He stated that there is a direct relationship between what we perceive and the real world. If we constantly see something as being the way it is, direct realism says it is okay for us to conclude that the thing is actually the way we see it. This falls into the category of pragmatic truth. Because it will benefit us in living if we trust our perceptions, we believe that the perceptions are real. Some knowledge issues that are found with this idea is this: what if there is no outside world? If there is no reality, and reality is only within the mind, then how valid is this concept? Again, what if we are colorblind? If we were colorblind, then we would always perceive the world to be black and white, does that mean that the world is black and white after all?

            Indirect realism was thought of by a man named John Locke. He stated that we cannot really know how something really is; we can only know how we perceive it to be. We can only understand the representation of the object, not the real object itself. The question with this idea is how do we know what the representation looks like? Is there a specific way it should appear? For example, if we look at books, they are all supposed to have a cover, and pages with writing or drawing on these pages. We know this as a fact. However, how do we know that all books should be like this? Is this because we always see it like this, and so we believe it? Is it considered as common sense and so accepted by the society? If this is true, then it leads back to the idea of naïve realism.

            Idealism originated from a person called George Berkeley. He claimed that there is nothing behind the veil. He said everything is an idea, and solely an idea. He claimed that there was no material world, and that reality is within the mind. He quoted, “To exist is to be perceived”. If what he said was true, then this would also be true: if we stopped looking at something, then it would cease to exist. What about this: If a tree falls but no one hears it, did it really fall?

            All of these ideas originated from the idea of the veil of perception questions reality’s identity. Is reality what we perceive? Is it solely in the mind? Does it even matter what it is? If we are able to live knowing reality is something when it really isn’t, does this affect us? And if so, how does it affect us?

Modern Dance

Title: Modern Dance
Date: December 1^st, 2010
Category: Outside of Class

dancersalary.com

            Since the annual Dance Competition was coming up, I had been practicing with my partner Sol. Our concept of the dance we were to perform is to create a combination mixing both ballets inspired from modern dance and hip hop. To get my inspiration, I searched on YouTube for videos of modern dance. Upon watching the videos, I began to think of what the term modern dance really meant. The term “modern” meant that it was new and fitting with the world today. However, when I see most of the dances in our society, I usually see varied forms of hip-hop rather than modern dance. How is this type of dance, then modern in the sense that it corresponds to our lifestyle in our society? It could be that the term “modern” signified that this type of dancing was created during our era, near the 21^st century. If this was the case, then how do we know whether this type of dance evolved during our era? Could it be that people from the previous eras had danced this form of dance, but had never shown it? Who decides what is modern and what is considered “old” or “vintage”? Who has this authority? Do all people agree with this authority figure or are we forced into doing so? Would it make a difference if we knew who decided what was modern? Would the dance then be called “modern dance”?

Map Study

Title: Map Study
Date: October 6^th, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class
             Do different types of maps change the way we perceive the world? There is an immense amount of world maps out there in the world, emphasizing different aspects of the world. The varieties of projections allow us to view the world in many different points of views that we may or may not have considered before. For example, there is the Population World Map where countries with a greater population is emphasized and privileged, or there is the Hobo Dyer World Map where southern countries such as Australia and Brazil are being focused, or the Winkle Tripel World Map where Africa is emphasized as it is in the center and the least distorted. These maps are shown below:



Hobo Dyer Projection
www1.worldbank.org



Population World Map
rs.resalliance.org

Winkle Tripel Projection
personal.psu.edu

            Nevertheless, how reliable are these maps? Could it be that the map-makers were biased and privileged their own country, making it bigger or altering its boundaries slightly? If this was the case and the mass viewed this certain map that was modified by the map-maker, how does this affect the way we view the world? Would we then believe that the modified boundaries were the real boundaries if the mass believed that the modified boundaries were real? How would we know whether it had been altered or not?  How would we know what has been altered regarding the land shape, or land size, or boundaries etc? How do we know that the Hobo Dyer projection is illustrated in an upside-down manner? Could it be possible that the Hobo Dyer projection is really the right-side up and that the “normal” projection is the one being upside-down? Who decides which projection is the right-side up? How is this authority given? Does our perception of the world depend on these people who create maps? 

A Tiny Fruit That Tricks the Tongue

Title: A Tiny Fruit That Tricks the Tongue
Author: Patrick Farrell and Kassie Bracken
Date: May 28^th, 2008
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

daleysfruit.com.au

            According to the article, this fruit that originated in West Africa had the capability to alter our gustatory perceptions of acidic flavors into sweet flavors. Some examples that were given were of lemon sorbet mixed with Guinness which altered the perceived taste to a chocolate shake, and Tabasco which was perceived as hot doughnut glaze. The fruit had deteriorated the boundaries for what we considered to be edible and not edible. With this miracle fruit, people were able to eat or drink what they could not have before by itself, such as Tabasco. According to the article, this miracle fruit could almost be a substitute for sugar as it did not seem to have any health disadvantages when experimented by Dr. Bartoshuk. However, the miracle fruit did not always work to our advantage. In some cases, the miracle fruit would cause a reaction such as a person exclaiming “What did you do to my mouth?” The reactions to this fruit were tested at Mr. Aliquo’s “flavor tripping event”. Because people were attending this party, did they have expectations about this fruit changing the way they perceived what they ate? If so, would this have influenced them into believing that their gustatory perceptions had changed when in reality it hadn’t? Since only one person is able to experience this change in perception and this change is different for every person, how do we know what the people claim is true? Do we have to experience it to believe it? But even then, we would have expectations that would influence the way we perceive and think about its effects. Is it then, the miracle fruit that is altering our gustatory perception or is it our minds itself?

Sometimes, people had difficulty trusting Mr. Aliquo as they did not have a close connection if a connection at all. The people who were coming to these events had gotten invites on the internet and had never met Mr. Aliquo before. One woman asked him to eat the miracle fruit first before she dared to try one because she faced such difficulty in trusting him. Another person at the party was able to convince her that it was safe to trust him because she “met him on the internet, so it’s safe”. This statement to me seems illogical. It seems to imply that all people on the internet are trustworthy yet how do we know this? In fact, in many cases, people are attacked through cyber bullying, deceit, interference to privacy etc. by people they meet on the internet. To this person who claims this to be true, he is using inductive reasoning if he has never met anyone who had harmed him through the internet, but how much does this claim correspond to the events that happen in reality? How reliable is his inductive reasoning? How much experience does this person have to support his claim?

The Power of Touch

Title: The Power of Touch
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class



goodnews.ws



            In our Theory of Knowledge class, we were assigned into groups and had to read an article regarding one type of senses. My group had the opportunity to read about the sense of touch. According to the article, the pleasure we feel from the sense of touch was evolutionary. It states that since we were babies, we had an appeal to the sense of touch. This explained our need to suck our thumbs –because we wanted to “feel them with their highly sensitive lips and tongues”. Because we found so much comfort in this sense of touch, we developed a belief that stated that the sense of touch could heal. In the article, it mentions a story of a Boston doctor going to Germany to compare orphanages to that of America. According to the article, in Germany, if all medicines did not work, the baby was taken to “Old Anna” who would comfort them by giving them piggy-back rides and carrying them. This apparently always healed the children, showing the power of the sense of touch.

            Some knowledge issues that arise from this idea that the sense of touch can heal, are as follows: how do we know that it is the actual sense of heal that is healing the children? Could it be plainly coincidence? How do we know other factors are not a significant contributor to the healing? How do we know these children are really being healed by the sense of touch? Could it be that we simply believe that they are being healed when in reality, they are still of the same health? Do they seem to be of better health because we believe them to be and want them to be? This would then be a pragmatic truth. Because we think the sense of touch will benefit us physically, we use the method of the sense of touch to heal others. How reliable are pragmatic truths? How much do they correspond with reality?  

At First Sight

Title: At First Sight
Date: October 6, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class



divxturka.net



            During our Theory of Knowledge Class, we watched a short YouTube clip taken from a movie where the main character is able to see for the first time in his life. He had been blind his whole life, and after a successful eye surgery, he is able to see the world. Although he is able to see, he is not able to understand what he sees and therefore feels that something is wrong due to this drastic change in his life. He fears what he has not experienced before such as movement and light. This makes him want to go back to not seeing, and touching in order to perceive. To calm him down, the doctor brings a coke can to his hands and allows him to perceive it through his cutaneous perception. He understands what he perceives when he physically touches it because he is used to this way of perceiving. The character slowly begins to understand what certain things look like by perceiving it first with his sense of touch, then opening his eyes to understand what he is seeing. By doing this, his fingers were telling his brain what he was perceiving, his brains was telling his eyes and then he was able to perceive through sight.

            Because he was able to see for the first time, he did not have any picture or image in his mind before perceiving something. He did not have any expectations to how something should appear. In this sense, he had the beginner’s mind, a mind empty of all stereotypes, previous thoughts and ideas towards something. Since he has no idea of what something should look like, is he able to judge by appearance? Does the appearance of physical objects cause one to judge? Can we judge without knowing what something looks like? Is he able to tell what is beautiful and what is not? What is being “beautiful”? Does the idea of beauty depend on each person? Do people agree with what is considered to be beautiful? Is beauty then, relative or absolute?

A Beautiful Mind

Title: A Beautiful Mind
Class: Economics IB HL
Category: Other Classes

wallpapergate.com

                During our IB Economics class, we watched the movie “A Beautiful Mind”, a movie about the famous mathematician (John Nash)’s life. He was a noble-prize winner and a graduate from Princeton University, was famous for discovering the Game Theory used in economics and had schizophrenia. Due to this illness, he was able to perceive certain things (in his case, other people) that were not there in reality. With these constant visions, he developed a whole new life in his mind. He thought that he was a spy trying to decode the new bomb location. He thought he was sharing a dorm with another guy who later on became his best friend in his mind. He did not know how to differentiate his visions from reality because they all seemed real to him. He could perceive the people in his visions through different types of perceptions, mainly auditory, cutaneous and visual perceptions.

How was he to know what was real and what was solely his vision? How did he separate the two? Is it possible that he is normal and that we are not capable of perceiving what he perceives? If there is a possibility of this being true, then why is he diagnosed as having a mental disease called schizophrenia? Why does he have to take medications to help with his visions if there is a possibility that we may not be able to see these visions that may be true? Is it because he is not part of the mass? Does this mean that common knowledge is always considered to be true? Do the mass always determine what is to be considered as being true? If this is the case, then how reliable is truth itself?

Full Molecular Equation vs. Complete Ionic Equation

Title: Full Molecular Equation vs. Complete Ionic Equation
Date: November 17, 2010
Class: Chemistry IB HL
Category: Other Classes

            When exploring the reactions of different chemicals, we were taught of the different types of equations we could form using the same reactions. We could either write a full molecular equation (which illustrates the “big picture” or the overall reaction), or a complete ionic equation (which shows how each compound is broken up into individual ions in a reaction), or a net ionic equation (which only focuses on the solution components that face a change, by creating a new product, or changing its state of matter etc.). For example in a reaction between potassium chromate and barium nitrate, the full molecular equation would be written as: K₂CrO_4(aq) + Ba(NO₃)_{2 (aq)} à 2KNO_{3 (aq)} + BaCrO_{4 (s)}. The complete ionic equation for this same reaction would be written as: 2K+ + CrO₄^-2 + Ba⁺² + 2NO₃ àBaCrO₄(s) + 2K+ +2NO₃^-. As can be seen here, the same reaction is written in different ways to show different aspects of the reaction.

When introduced of this topic, we were told that the full molecular equation is not what really happens in the reaction, and that the complete ionic equation shows what is actually going on. When I heard this, I thought, ‘How does one know whether the complete ionic equation shows what is really going on in the reaction? How do we know that the full molecular equation doesn’t show the real happenings in the reaction?’ Scientists who came up with this idea most likely had had conducted great amounts of experiments to test this out, and had lots of information to support their idea of how these equations should be written. Nevertheless, how does one know whether he/she has enough information to make what they claim, true? If we see the reaction in microscopes containing great detail, and we see that the reaction does follow the complete ionic equation rather than the full molecular equation, how does one know that the microscope is reliable? How does one know that what they perceive is reliable? How do we determine what is reliable? Can we state that it is reliable because it is true most of the times? What is considered to be “most of the times”? If what they perceive is not reliable, and we draw conclusions from our perceptions, doesn’t this mean that our conclusion is then also unreliable? How do we even know that what we perceive is actually the complete ionic equation rather than the full molecular equation? How do we distinguish these different equations in a microscope if they are the same reaction? How do we know which equation is more fitting to the actual reaction? How do we know what the actual reaction is?

Optical/Visual Illusions

Illusions Title: Goblin and the Two Faces, Hermann Grid, Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile, Inverted Faces-Thompson’s “The Thatcher Illusion”, Face in the Beans
Date: Oct. 4, 10
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

           Our mind is capable of fooling us through our perceptions; often referred to as optical or visual illusions. In class, we took a look at some of these optical illusions and tried to find patterns and make conclusions in how our mind processed these images. One optical illusion I looked at, was the Goblin and the Two Faces. The goblin was in black (positive), and to see the face, we had to focus on the white or the negatives of the image. The majority of the class admitted that they saw the goblin before seeing the faces and were not able to see the faces unless pointed out by someone else. However, once someone pointed it out to us, it was impossible to miss again. This could be seen throughout all of the optical illusions. For example, another optical illusion I looked at was the Face in the Beans. The image consisted of many coffee beans in no particular order, all jumbled up together. The description told us that there was a face hidden among these beans. I looked and looked but could not find it. I took a look at the hints the description gave and only then, I was able to see the head peeking through the mixture of coffee beans. However, I realized that when I was explaining this to my friends, I could not miss this man among the coffee beans. I could not go back to the state when I was not able to see the man.

Common optical illusions also included a change in the faces when laid side by side. The ones I could see this happening were Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile and Inverted Faces-Thompson’s “The Thatcher Illusion”. In the optical illusion called Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile, two faces were laid side by side and blur effects were imposed on these two faces to portray a different image. When there was little blur, the left image looked manly and angry while the right image looked happy and calm. However, when the blur effect was added to these images, the right image began to look manly and angry while the right image looked happy and calm. Similarly the illusion called Inverted Faces was very interesting because when laid side by side and upside-down, the faces looked identical. However, when these faces were turned right-side-up, the one on the left looked pretty and happy while the right image looked as if the woman was angry and her face had been distorted.

The last optical illusion I saw was called Hermann Grid. It was an image of black blocks with thick white lines in between them creating intersections which looked like street lines. When I stared at the intersections, I would also see black dots forming in all the other intersections except for the intersection I was staring at. How did this happen? It was no magical intersection that this applied to. Any intersection I stared at, I would see black dots in the other intersections.

Through the study of optical illusions, I was taught that humans often tend to see humans or a face in another object even though it may not be there. Is this because we want to make connections to ourselves physically? I also realized that if we know something has to be there in the image, we unintentionally focus harder and we are more open to new ideas. We may choose to look at the bigger picture or narrow down into details. I found this true in my case as I was looking for the face in the Face in the Beans illusion. We also tended to look at the positives or the dark images rather than the whites. This is why when I saw the Goblin and the Two Faces illusion, the goblin stood out to me more.

But why does our brain make these decisions to interpret images in these manners? Is this a technique related to survival skills? Is it because in real life, many living organisms are not white, but closer to having a color, or being black? And so the brain thinks that if we interpret these positive images, we are more likely to survive? If we were in a forest, and we saw a dark figure moving, we interpret as a threat or possible danger and so we would dodge or try to escape from the situation because we want to live; this is our instinct. Is this why the brain sees the black more than the white? How do we know that the brain does not also process the white, but we just choose to ignore it unintentionally? What are some justifications that can help convince that our brain really does see and focus on darker images more than the white images?

Being fooled by our visual perception through optical illusions, how can we trust that what we are seeing is really there and not another optical illusion? What if our whole world was an illusion? Something we are fooled into thinking is present when it really isn’t there? Some people such as Kelly Clarkson in her new song “Naked Eye” states that “Seeing is believing.” With these optical illusions, can we justify that this statement is false? If we justify this as being false, if seeing is not believing, then what do we believe? What then, becomes the determinant of what we believe?

Try some yourself:



nobeliefs.com



michaelbach.de/ot/lum_herGrid/index.html















For More Check Out: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

Taking Account the Possible Errors

Title: Taking Account the Possible Errors
Class: Chemistry IB HL
Category: Other Classes



gmasononline.com



            When writing a lab for science class, we must always think about the sources of errors. When calculating the result of something, we must always determine the absolute error or percentage error of the calculation. We do this so the numbers or the data we present can be as accurate as possible. However, how do we know if our calculations or data is accurate even with the error calculations? Is it possible to take into account all of the errors? How do we know if we have made these errors? If we didn’t make these errors, isn’t it more accurate when we don’t include the error calculations? Is it safe to assume that we have made these errors? Or that our calculations and data are reliable with the errors calculated? Will information ever be reliable? How does one determine whether a source is reliable? With math class, it’s easy to figure out whether our answer is correct or not through the answers in the textbook. However, in reality, there is no answer book. So how do we verify our answers, our decisions, our thoughts? Would it benefit us if we were able to make the correct decisions all the time? How would we know if we are making the correct decisions in the first place?

Lord of the Flies

Title: Lord of the Flies
Author: William Golding
Date: August 31, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

fantasticfiction.co.uk

            In the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, a beast is mentioned. No one knows whether this beast is real or not, but the children claim that they have seen it at night when they were sleeping. However, the leader Jack does not believe them and claims that there is no beast on the island. The children are scared of being on the island without any adults and this fear causes them to think that there is a beast. Because of this strong emotion of fear, they believe that it is there and so they claim that it is true and that they have actually seen it although in reality, they did not. This is an example where a strong emotion (such as fear) causes us to imagine something as being true, in this case being the beast.

            If strong emotions can control our mind to perceive things that are not really there, does it mean that our mind is not able to think clearly when we are having strong emotions? Is our perception unreliable once we start having strong feelings? Are emotions stronger than our strength to control our minds? How capable are we of controlling our own minds? 

Naked Eye by Kelly Clarkson

Title: Naked Eye
Singer: Kelly Clarkson
Category: Song/ Outside of Class

somanymp3s.com

            The song “Naked Eye” by Kelly Clarkson has a few interesting points to make. The song is about a girl realizing and trying to convince her boyfriend that there is no more connection between herself and her boyfriend. She uses the phrase “seeing is believing” and states that she saw the connection and emotions disappearing with her naked eyes.

To some people lyrics may not matter so much and that this is just a song. However, when I heard this song I began to wonder, ‘Is seeing really believing?’ Do we believe everything we see? Yes, we perceive by seeing. It is also true that most of us tend to believe everything we see. However, just because we see it and believe it, does it make this true? We could force ourselves to believe in something as in 1984 when Winston is forced into believing that O’Brien is holding up 5 fingers when he actually sees 4. Does this mean that what we believe in depends on what we want to believe in? And if we believe by seeing, does this mean we see what we want to see? Is it fair for the girl in the song, to say that the connection is lost in her relationship with her boyfriend? She could be forcing herself to believe that this connection is no longer there, but is it true? Was the connection even there in the first place, or did they just believe it was there?

Blindness of Change

Title: Blindness of Change
Date: September 24, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

            I never noticed how oblivious we are to change in our lives. When we think about it, it seems very easy to recognize change; however, experiments show that we usually don’t recognize changes even if they are as drastic as changing the person who you are speaking to. In class, we watched a couple of Youtube videos so we could actually see this as being the case. We watched a video where we saw the color of the cards changing along with many other changes. However, the majority of the class only recognized the color change in the cards when there was a drastic change in the clothes the people were wearing, the table cloth on the table, and the backdrop. Blindness of change occurs when we focus on one particular subject and so we miss the other changes going around us. People normally focus selectively and cannot pay attention to many things at once. This is why most of us could only detect one change in the video, because we were focusing on this one change rather than the whole.

            Why is this true when we are able to perceive in eight different ways (visual perception, olfactory perception, cutaneous perception, gustatory perception, auditory perception, kinesthetic perception, vestibular perception, and organic perception)? Shouldn’t we be able to recognize changes simultaneously as we have so many ways of taking in information about our surroundings? What traits determine what change we are able to recognize? If a person who we are talking to changes, is it the change in the person’s clothes that I notice? Or the change in similar traits I shared with the person being swapped? The person’s gender? The body shape?

 What if our senses actually recognize these various changes but we are just not aware of it because our brain is only capable of processing one data at a time? Does this mean that people who claim that they are able to multitask is fooling themselves? Do they say they are able to multitask as an excuse to do what they do for fun, at the same time as doing work?

What if people notice the change, but they are really just scared of the rest of the world disagreeing with them? And so they decide to remain quiet as if they did not notice the change like the others. If this is the case, are people just fooling themselves into thinking that we are only able to focus on one thing at a time? Perhaps in our previous generations, people were able to multitask, but after we began to believe we were only able to focus selectively, perhaps this became a habit and thus now, we believe we are not able to recognize different changes at the same time. Are we really only able to focus on one subject? Or is this just a belief? Will we ever know?

For related videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pklq0bXUaA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDLLf_WCyZ4

A Talk with My Daddy

Title: A Talk with My Daddy
Date: September 26, 2010
Category: Outside of Class

discoveringdad.net

            While eating noodles for lunch, my dad and I began to talk about the color change in the noodles. I hadn’t noticed that the noodles had changed colors from the last time we ordered it from green to white until he pointed this out to me. He didn’t just state this in a neutral tone. He liked the change to white because he believed that noodles should be white, not green. I disagreed and said it didn’t matter what color the noodles were, as long as they were noodles. Trying to convince me that noodles should be white and that everyone thought so, he explained to me that Coca-Cola had once made their cokes white. He told me that this change in color reduced their sales drastically because people believed that coke was supposed to look dark. I tried arguing that I would buy the white coke even if it was a different color, but sadly he eventually won in the end.  

            Should things always remain constant or be susceptible to change? Do we have an exact idea of how certain things should be? And if altered, does this change our idea or how we view the product? Is this how stereotype began? By having a certain image of how things should be, we tend to think of things different to our image as being unusual, strange, or even wrong. Perhaps this is how discrimination began, due to our lack of open-mindedness and because we had an image of certain things being the way they were. Does this mean that we shouldn’t have any ideas about how things are? Wouldn’t that mean that we would be completely without thought? With these questions arouse another –will discrimination ever end if we keep having a certain idea about how things should be? 

Does Your Language Shape How You Think?

Title: Does your language shape how you think?
Author: Guy Deutscher
Publication Company: The New York Times
Publication Date: August 26, 2010
Class: English IB HL
Category: Other Class

colleges.ksu.edu.sa

            This article from the New York Times suggests that language restricts us in what we are forced to think about. Languages are set up in different manners from other languages, and so this causes people to have different habits when speaking to another. This may also account for why people pay attention to different things. For example, in Chinese, there is no past tense or future tense, you just simply use present tense and put the word “yesterday” or “tomorrow” in front of the sentence. However, in Spanish, the verb changes according to when it was put into action. Therefore, people who grew up speaking Spanish may pay more attention to time than the people who grew up speaking Chinese. In the same manner, in some languages, we are forced to think about certain aspects such as time, gender etc. which can shape the way we think in our daily lives.

            But how do we prove this? This may just be a huge generalization, and be completely false, or it could be absolutely correct. How do we know? And also, what about the people who have grown up in other countries all their life? Do they still think in their mother tongue, or do they adapt to new languages? I know I’ve been living in Vietnam for basically my whole life and I rarely think in my mother tongue –Korean. I don’t think in Vietnamese either because my Vietnamese is very limited in what I can express. I think in English because it is the language I am most comfortable with, it’s the language I have been learning in for my whole life. Does this mean that we think in the language we learn in? Does it differ for different people? How will we know if the people are actually thinking about things such as time, or gender of the subject when talking or if it is just a habit they have formed?  Will we ever know the answer to all of this?

            After reading this article, we discussed about the importance of language in our English class. We talked about the significance of language. Language determines what we are able to express and allows us to share our thoughts and knowledge with other people. The more words there are the more effective we are able to communicate. Communication is very important because it allows for a society to build within our population; it lets us connect with other people and interact with one another. However, in the novel 1984 by George Orwell, language is restricted by the government, and the language is constantly being cut down into fewer words, all with good connotations. This restricted the people in how they expressed themselves. They were forced to be optimistic, and forced to praise rather than criticize. As language began to be shortened, they began to lose memories of what other words had meant. So does language really shape how we think? Does it determine what we are capable of thinking about or just how we describe such things? Could we communicate in other ways than using language? Would this be as effective? How would we know?

For more information: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=2&emc=eta1

1984

Title: 1984
Author: George Orwell
Publication Date: 1949
Publication Company: Harcourt Brace & company
Class: English IB HL
Category: Other classes



12sw.wordpress.com



           The book 1984 by George Orwell directly relates to theory of knowledge as Winston (the protagonist of the novel) tries to overthrow the Party by joining the Brotherhood which may or may not exist. When Winston is caught by the Party for trying to overthrow them, Winston is sent to the Ministry of Love to be “cured” into loving and supporting the Party and Big Brother. In Part III of the novel, it states “Anything could be true. The so-called laws of nature were nonsense. The law of gravity was nonsense. ‘If I wished,’ O’Brien had said, ‘I could float off this floor like a soap bubble.’ Winston worked it out. ‘If he thinks he floats off the floor, and if I simultaneously think I see him do it, then the thing happens.’…. ‘It doesn’t really happen. We imagine it. It’s hallucination.’….All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in all minds, truly happens” (Orwell, 229).

            Is this correct? Is reality only in the mind? Is there a world outside our mind? Do we really imagine and hallucinate every second of our life? Does this mean reality is different for every person? We cannot possibly imagine the same exact scenario, can we? How do we know if someone is thinking the same thing we are, and perceiving the world in the same manner we do? Of course, we could ask them. But how do we know the words coming out of their mouths mean the same thing we interpret it to mean? If every word means different things to different people, it makes us question how effective is our communication system? If everything is a hallucination, are we really communicating with another person or is this, also a hallucination and not reality? Does reality even exist? Or is it just a concept that we all believe in? Will we ever know? Is knowing the answer to reality existing outside our minds possible if we can only think within our minds and not anything beyond it?

A Sightless Experience

Title: A Sightless Experience
Date: September 20, 2010.
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

callcentrehelper.com

            During this field trip to the park nearby our school, we were able to witness what it was like to lose the sense of sight. In pairs, one of us had to be blindfolded and the other person had to guide us through a certain route. The guiding person could not touch us or be in any physical contact with us, he/she had to guide us through his/her voice.

                As a guide, I had the responsibility of guiding my partner and protecting him. I had to constantly talk to him because he depended on me for instructions. Sometimes, this was frustrating because he did not trust me in the beginning and I wanted him to. I thought to myself, ‘Why is it so hard for him to trust me?’ But when we switched roles, I soon found out why –because another person was in full control of my safety and I was not used to being so dependent on someone else. This was why the first couple of steps were the hardest. I could tell he didn’t really trust me yet he still followed my directions because he was forced to; he relied on me. Without being able to see, he could have avoided dangerous situations. There was one moment where he could have almost walked into a tree because for one moment I was not fully focused on him. If he was able to see, he would have avoided this situation because he would see the tree in front of him and would change directions to avoid the tree in his next step.

Through this experience, I was able to once again realize the importance of our ability to see. Being able to see meant that one was able to understand and know what type of situation he/she was in. For example, in the dangerous situation, because he was not able to see, he did not know or understand why he had to change directions. He just did it because he trusted that what I was saying would benefit him in some way. In addition to this, it would be difficult to describe certain things in daily life such as a cat, or riding a bike because the blind person would have never been able to witness these things through sight. We could describe these things to them but the blind person would not be able to visualize these things perfectly. For example, if I was to describe a cat, I could say that they have large eyes, a triangular nose with two nostrils, whiskers, lots of fur, when fully-grown about 70cm long and so on. However, these blind people would not know that tigers and lions are also considered cats because they look alike. Of course again, someone could the blind people these information but it wouldn’t be the same as seeing cats in real life. Likewise, if I was to describe riding a bike, the blind person would not necessarily think of bike rides the same way as I do. This is true because riding a bike varies from one person to another. For example, if I was a bad bike rider, I could describe the bike ride as being wobbly and scary. On the other hand, if I was a great bike rider, I would describe the bike rides as being exciting, fast, and windy. The blind people would not be able to know what type of bike rider they are because bike riding without the ability to see can be very dangerous, even fatal if one was in a bad accident.

I realized that when I was guiding my partner, I thought this would be a fairly simple task (following the instructions of my partner). Yes, this was true; following instructions was simple. The difficult part was in trusting my partner. When I had to wear the blindfold, my heart started pounding, and my steps were smaller and were more hesitant than my original walk. This experience forced me to trust my partner because he was the only one I could rely on for direction. In the beginning, I could not trust him. I thought he would walk me into a tree, and so I became paranoid. I began to rely on my other senses-my hands and feet to feel my surroundings and my ears to hear my guide’s voice. For example, I felt the pavement under my foot to make sure I was going in the right direction and I reached out my arms so I could prevent myself from walking into a tree.  I realized sometimes we take things for granted. We take the experiences we see, for granted. People who are blind don’t get this experience and they must live by trusting, and overcoming paranoia.

How do these people know who to trust? Who are reliable? The main source of their knowledge is other people as they cannot rely on their eyesight. Are their sources reliable? Is depending on other people more reliable than if they were to see it themselves? I think that this is possible, as it can avoid them from having optical illusions, or hallucinations; but not entirely, as they would be able to understand critically if they were able to see it for themselves. I think the loss of eyesight can mean a loss of critical thinking. One is not able to observe and think for themselves; instead, they must rely on other people to tell them what to think and therefore know to be true. But do we necessarily know something is true just by thinking about it and hearing about it? Not necessarily. We could think about unicorns having one horn, and having similar features as a horse, but do we know they are true in reality? But if we heard that unicorns existed from someone, would it be true? Because blind people learn and know information through hearing from other people, does that mean their knowledge is not necessarily reliable? But then again, we also depend on knowledge from other people. Does that mean our knowledge is not necessarily reliable and true? How do we know whether the information is reliable or not?

Plato’s Cave

Title: Plato’s Cave
Date: September 22, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

mlahanas.de

            In class, we illustrated Plato’s idea of the realm of being vs. empirical world. A few students (who were supposed to be locked up in a cave since they were born) had to try and figure out what was happening as they saw silhouettes of movements on the cave wall. Some of them were able to move around in order to gain a deeper understanding of what was going on. Some are led to see the sunlight as they explore. When they come to share what they’ve seen with the others, the others deny this as being true. This is because they grew up only knowing the cave, and nothing else. The thought of another world existing outside a cave was way beyond their thoughts and so they thought it was better to consider this nonsense. They are practicing pragmatic theory because they think they will benefit if they don’t think this is true, and so they don’t believe that there is another world beyond the cave.

            This simulation relates to Plato’s idea of the realm of being and the empirical world. The realm of being was represented by the sunlight, the world outside the cave, the reality. Plato considered the realm of being to be eternal, everlasting and unchanging. Plato also thought that we were all fooled by our senses and in reality, things are always changing. Sometimes I agree with Plato, ‘What if we are fooled by our senses?’ What if the keyboard I am typing on right now, is not really there? I could just be thinking that it is there, and I think hard enough that I believe it’s there and so I believe I am touching it and typing on it right now. This is possible, but how will we know if this is the case? Or could my senses just be limited? What if this keyboard was just a tiny bit of something enormous? What if I was one of the blind men in “The Six Blind Men and the Elephant” story? This again, is possible. Like Plato, we could think that our world is concrete, and eternal, but like the movie “Inception”, our world could be just one level of our dreams, and we are just being fooled by our senses. Perhaps, but because we believe this world is real, and unchanging, we try to make the best of it and I fear that if we believe that our world is always changing, we will all give up. Does this mean I’m practicing pragmatic theory and denying reality? Or does my thinking correspond to reality? Can we ever know and how do we know if this is the case?

Three Theories of Truth

Title: Three Theories of Truth
Author: Bertrand Russell, Bland Blanshard, C.S. Peirce, William James, James Dewey
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class



leggmason.com



            The authors have come to conclude that there are three theories of truth-correspondence theory, coherence theory and pragmatic theory. They state that we use these theories to categorize what we think to be true as actually being true or just a thought. Correspondence theory of truth includes information we are able to sense and measure. Russell states that because we are able to sense and observe these things, they are correspondent to reality and therefore be true. Blanshard’s idea of the coherence theory of truth states that if there are true arguments supporting a new idea, the new idea must be true. It uses logic to explain why it is true and therefore uses rational thinking. It is frequently used in subjects such as math and science to explain why such theories are true.  Philosophers supporting the pragmatic theory of truth such as Peirce, James and Dewey state that this theory explains things as being true if people want to believe it as being true. We see pragmatic theory being practiced in our daily activities. Take medicine for example. People take medicine because they think that it will cure them. But does it really? Or do they think it works because they want it to work and because of this, they believe that it works? Is it really the medicine that cured them? Or do they just feel better because they believe that the medicine has cured them?

            All of these theories are practiced throughout our lives whether we are aware of it or not. But do all of these theories necessarily all truth? Is it truth at all? What is truth? The definition of the word “truth” is as follows: a fact that has been verified. How do we know if something is necessarily true? How do we know the verification of the truth is valid? Are these theories enough to know whether something is true or not? Is the word “truth” just an idea or does it really exist?

The Elephant and the Six Blind Men

Title: The Elephant and the Six Blind Men
Book: Fifty Famous Stories Retold
Author: James Baldwin
Date: September 6, 2010
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

ereads.com



            There are many variations of this story but the basic plot line remains constant with six blind men feeling a different part of the elephant and concluding what an elephant must be like. One states that it is like a fan (touching its ears); another man states that an elephant is like a wall (touching the elephant’s side), another claims that it is like a spear (feeling the tusks). Another disagreed and said the elephant was similar to a snake because he felt the trunk, but another argued that it was like a tree feeling its legs. The last man thought the others were all mistaken, and that the elephant was clearly like a rope by touching its tail. In the end, everyone had their own ideas about what an elephant was like and had their own vision of what it would look like.

            Everyone has their own opinions and their own ways of perceiving something. How they develop their ideas about a certain object depends on their experience. If the six men combined all of their ideas, they would be able to figure out what an elephant was really like. In this sense, we should be open to new ideas and try to collaborate with another, instead of arguing that one was right over the other. Details are important when collaborating, but we should be open to the big picture. In a way, knowledge is like a puzzle. We must put all the possible perceptions together in order to see the whole picture, rather than limiting our thought to our own opinions. However, one must wonder, ‘When will the puzzle ever be complete?’ How will we know that we are taking in the big picture, that the puzzle is complete? Is knowledge ever absolute, unchangeable? If we’re always open to ideas, doesn’t this mean that our knowledge of the certain subject is always growing and never final? How will we account for the thoughts that are nonsense, that we know is false? After all, they are all still perceptions. How do we know what is false?  

Building a Nation of Know-Nothings

Title: Building a Nation of Know-Nothings
Author: Timothy Egan
Publication date: August 25, 2010, 8:30 pm
Publication organization: New York Times
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

weblogs.cltv.com

            This article from the New York Times states that many of the Americans believe that Obama is not a U.S. citizen but instead, a Muslim. Most of the people believing in this are Republicans who were for McCain during the election. Although McCain has disproved this idea, many continue to believe this as being true. This article suggests that this is due to the media’s influence. It points out that the media is to blame for this rapidly spread idea as many people depend on the media as one of their source of knowledge. Although Obama clearly states that he is an American, and there is a birth certificate available as proof, many still believe he is not an American citizen and that he is a Muslim instead.

            To these people, is media their main source of knowledge? I begin to wonder why it is so hard for them to believe Obama when there is a birth certificate to explain that he was born in the United States. Is it because our technologies have improved so much that they think that the birth certificate is fake? Or is it because they don’t want to believe it and so they come up with reasons that support their ideas? They are practicing the pragmatic theory. Because believing that Obama is a Muslim will make them feel secure in the sense that they will be able to think that Obama is ineligible to become the president of the United States, they will believe it. Thus, they believe this to be true. But we, who also believe that Obama is American, could also be practicing pragmatic truth. We want to believe that Obama is American. We believe this because it will make us feel like we are right and the others are wrong. If everyone practices pragmatic theory, how will we ever know which is true? With everyone wanting to believe that they are correct, is it possible to know which is true? Is truth all opinions? If so, should they really be considered as something that is true?