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?