Art as an Area of Knowledge

Title: Art as an Area of Knowledge
Date: 28 November 2011
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

http://artlinefurniture.com/

            Art is an area of knowledge. However, to what extent is this claim and commonly accepted truth, valid? How do we justify art as being an area of knowledge? [Knowledge Issues] In our society, art is seen everywhere of different quality, style and use. Some may consider their antique dinner table as being an artwork, being that it was carved with the upmost precision and care. Others however, may view this as simply being a piece of furniture. How do people decide what should be considered as art? Who has a say in this? Does art favor those who have a reputation? By this I mean to ask, would Picasso’s doodle be considered as art just because it was drawn by Picasso? Would a street artist receive the same acknowledgement? [Knowledge Issues/ Wondering]  I guess that this will not be the case. Why is it that people give more merit to the works of artists who has attained a reputation? Who decides which artist is worthy of a reputation as an artist? Is one success enough to make the following works of art valuable? How is “success” determined? I personally feel that the monetary value of the work reflects the artist’s work. However, other knowledge issues and wondering arises from this perspective. Who places a price on the work and do the artists always agree? Does it even matter? How are the prices chosen? If one exhibition sells a work for $10 and another sells the same work for $200, does it mean that the second exhibition board values the work more? Or is it simply their way of hoping to raise profit?

This question can be linked with ethics as an area of knowledge. [Connection to ethics as an AOK] A person may buy the work of art simply because they can, not necessarily because the artwork speaks to him/her. For this person, the collection of art may be a way to show off his/her wealth. If this person went to the first exhibition mentioned in the example above, would this person buy the art piece, given that it’s only worth $10? Would this person buy the art piece in the second exhibition then, at a higher price? Is it fair to make judgments for other people about what they should value? Is it fair to price highly on someone else’s work in order to raise more profit, even if the artist may disagree? How do we decide?[Knowledge Issues/Wondering]

Math as an Area of Knowledge

Title: Math as an Area of Knowledge
Date: 28 November 2011
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

http://www.ingeniosus.net/

      In class we watched a TED talk regarding math as an area of knowledge (AOK). The speaker was a French mathematician, giving the sense that he is a reliable source for information (Appeal to authority). During his talk, he explored the two questions of whether math was invented or discovered and whether math is a reliable area of knowledge. I found his latter exploration to be quite fascinating. He used fractals found in nature (specifically cauliflowers) to reason that math was discovered. He stated that by cutting bits of cauliflower, these bits resembled the shape of the cauliflower of the whole. Therefore, an obvious geometric pattern could be observed. By observing and making claims about math as an area of knowledge, he used sense perception to reason his claim as being valid.

            However, his claim brings about several knowledge issues. Many have placed the title that geometry is a part of math. However, who decides what is and should be considered as math? How do they determine this? [Knowledge Issues] I feel like in the past, people did not necessarily have a name for “math”. I think that people used counting systems, and this was the only necessary form of math. If this hypothesis is correct, when did this simple counting system branch into other forms such as calculus and statistics? [Wondering] In the modern day, people can major in mathematics, and mathematics is a core subject for education from elementary to university education. How did people decide that math was so important that it should be taught so frequently and consistently? On a broader scale, how did people decide what is important enough to be taught as a core subject? Who has a say in this? Why is it that this is universally agreed upon? [Knowledge Issues/Wondering]

Title: Freud’s Theories
Date: 6 October 2011
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/

            Freud claimed that each individual had three personalities which he called the id, the superego and the ego. The id indicates the person’s natural pleasure zone, the superego is always battling with the id and the ego is what the person shows to the public. However, this concept remains as a theory because this cannot be proven with today’s technology and studies. How does one test the subconscious mind? Is mathematics and science enough to gain this knowledge about our mind [Connection to mathematics and science as an area of knowledge]? How reliable is this claim? What makes this theory plausible? [Knowledge Issues]

            What particularly interests me is the ego. This relates to the idea of knower’s perspective and the observer effect. Freud is claiming that the way people appear to others is not the same as their true self. Yet, how does one know which is the true self if the ego is simply a mask? [Knowledge Issue] Another issue that can be raised is, does the ego always remain the same or does it change according to the situation given? Does the ego change depending on the number of people watching the person? [Connection to the observer effect/ Wonderings] Freud makes this claim even though his claim is dubious. This reinforces the statement that claims do not necessarily need to be true.

Title: Rorschach Test
Date: 6 October 2011
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In Class

http://www.crosswordfiend.com/

            Psychologists usually utilize the Rorschach test to diagnose someone with a psychotic illness. This test is created by putting paint on the fold on a piece of paper. These images are already created and thus, the psychologists show these images to the patients and ask him/her what the result of the fold, produces. However, how reliable is the information suggested by the results of this test? [Knowledge Issue] Psychologists usually associate this test with the patient’s sexual desires. They claim that the images contain sexual references and if the person is able to indicate this, they contain a psychotic illness pertaining to their id (their pleasure zone).

            The problem with this test is that it is subjective. As everyone has different perspectives, it’s difficult to diagnose someone based on the “normal” responses. However, who decides what is considered to be “normal”? How many people must have this response for it to be considered as being normal? Is this test then discouraging different perspectives if people are being labeled as being mentally sick if they do not state the normal responses? [Knowledge Issues] Another problem is that the psychologists wait until the person makes sexual connections to the image. Having tried this test, I felt that this is not an effective method as I was inclined to think of different ways in which the image was able to be interpreted while taking the test. If I was with a psychologist while taking this test, I may have been diagnosed with something because of one answer, rather than the overall variety of answers I gave. Another way to look at this problem is that these people have reason to diagnose me with an illness. Am I then, simply being in denial of the illness that I possess? Does it even matter if I know or not? [Wonderings/Different perspective] I feel that the label that the mental sickness gives, causes the patient to be mistreated and discriminated in that he/she could be scrutinized in terms of their actions, even if his/her actions would have been considered to be normal before this diagnosis. Is it then ethical for the psychologists to diagnose these people based on unreliable methods such as the Rorschach test if it means these people may be treated and looked upon in a different manner? [Connection to ethics as an area of knowledge/Wondering]

Title: Volleyball Tournaments
Date: 6 October 2011
Category: Outside of Class

http://www.beachvolleyballpedia.com/

             Today our High School volleyball teams participated in a city tournament. While contemplating about the ranking of the schools after the tournament, I began to wonder about the reliability on these ranks in determining the best team. [Wondering] We had played according to the round-robin system in which the team who had won the most out of their pool would be considered as the best in their pool. Although many sports tournaments adopt this system, it contains several flaws that limit the reliability of this method.

            For example, the term “better” is ambiguous. [Knowledge Issue] It suggests multiple meanings: better in strategy, technique, communications, cooperation etc. For example, if one team had better volleyball strategies (using a 3-hit play) but makes more mistakes which causes them to lose the game, does it mean that the opposing team was better than them overall even if this other team was playing a 1-hit play? I feel that this is unfair as the team playing 3-hits has a higher chance of making mistakes as it involves 3 people, than the other team. Thus, the manner in which the teams are awarded seem to be biased in only looking at the scores (whether these points were deserved or underserved by the winning team). For example, a school we played against received 2 points because we missed our serves. Is this fair even though they didn’t need to do anything? If this is a method of punishing the serving team for not making their serves, shouldn’t points be deducted instead? [Wonderings] In addition, I feel that the best team should be the team who shows the best in all the categories mentioned above (strategy, technique, communication and cooperation). If a team is best at technique and the other team is best at communication, who decides which team is better? [Knowledge Issue]

            With these flaws, is the reputation of being “championship” merely a motivation for people to play volleyball or does it really reflect the excellent level of the play of the team? [Wondering]

Title: The concept of death
Date: 5 October 2011
Class: IB English HL 
Category: Other Classes

In our class, we read a poem by Philip Larkin called ‘Aubade’ and discussed the theme of death presented in the poem. In this poem, Larkin describes the thought of being nothing as horrible and frightening, yet in our discussions, we found that most people were afraid of the process of dying rather than having no existence. Death will always be an enigma. No one has ever returned from death, or if they have, no one seems to believe them.

At church, I remember seeing a video of a man who claimed to say he had gone to hell and come back. He stated that hell was a horrifying place, and that God had sent him back to Earth so that he can share his experiences in hell and convince people to start or continue to believe in God. [Connection] Thus, one point of view could say that after we die, we are judged by God, a superior being, and sent to either heaven or hell. Yet, how do we know if he’s telling the truth? Could this be his imagination? What would motivate him to say this if he was an atheist before? Is hell the same for everyone, or does it depend on our individual fears and sins? [Knowledge Issues] In our English class discussion, we found that other people (who were atheists) believed that death meant the end of our journey, and that we simply decompose like all other organisms in this planet. [Different perspectives] A particular person stated that religion was simply one’s imagination, and an excuse to feel special and be optimistic. I felt that this person was using his/her imagination as well to state that we decompose (since life after death is undefined), and that this person was creating an excuse too – to dismiss the thought of being judged. [Counterclaim of a point of view]

There appears to be no proof in someone dying and being re-born again literally. Thus, if no one is capable of experiencing it and sharing this with other people, how reliable are the claims people make about death? Would this be knowledge or opinion or imagination? [Knowledge Issues]

Stanford Prison Experiment

Title: Stanford Prison Experiment
Date: 30 September 2011
Class: Theory of Knowledge
Category: In class

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by a professor at Stanford University – Philip Zimbardo. He was interested in seeing how people would react in a negative, forceful situation. The results were shocking. When given an indirect choice to go through with their actions, most people chose to go through with it. Perhaps it was the point that this choice was not clearly indicated to them; however I believe that everyone has a choice even if they may need to make sacrifices in doing so. This is where the idea of ethics is significant [Connection to area of knowledge]. If the person felt that ethics was important enough, the person would have possibly put him/herself in danger of violence, risk, or a form of abuse. Nevertheless, this is simply a possibility. Yet, no one was willing to think about sacrificing their safety and comfort for that of someone else. Although the results prove to be quite cynical, the reliability of the results can still be analyzed.

I believe the Stanford Prison Experiment showed signs of the observer effect [Connection to TOK terms]. The students who were involved in this experiment were college students who were paid to participate. This shows that these people felt obliged to carry out their tasks. In addition, because the person conducting the experiment was a professor (a person of high authority), they may have felt pressured once again. The students were aware that professor Zimbardo was watching the results of this experiment, which meant that the observer effect was put in place. Perhaps because the students wanted his experiment to be successful (as it could lead to future benefits such as the prevention to another incident similar to the Holocaust, or the increase in awareness of the value of morals), they acted differently to how they would have reacted if this was not an experiment but rather a real-life situation. With this, knowledge issues can be raised such as, how do we know which reaction reflects the student? If the student is being threatened to do something while people observe them, would their reaction be caused by the observer effect or their emotion of fear and panic [Connection to emotion as a way of knowing]?