EQSQ test

Go here to do your EQSQ test:
http://eqsq.com/eq-sq-tests/

Emotion - week 1

HAPINESS!
Yay...bah humbug.

Homework
Read this short BBC article, The Science of Happiness:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4783836.stm

And this one, Searching the Brain for Hapiness:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4880272.stm


OK, do we all feel better now?

We live in the age of Reason - Lord help us.

H/W - week 1
Find a fallacy in the news media. Old or news doesn't matter. It must be a good example, and you must explain it next week. You may use pictures, PowerPoint, mime, whatever you choose.
This website will help:  http://www.emagill.com/rants/eblog114a.html
Today's PowerPoint is available here.

H/W - week 2
Watch love is a fallacy. Read and answer the handout.
The script is here and the handout is available here.

Art essay

So now you have to write a full essay. The same rules apply as for the test paragraphs.
Go here for the essay questions:
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/05+-+The+Arts+essay+titles.doc

Go here for the PowerPoint essay example:
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/5+-+Art+Essay+Examples.ppt


Due: 21st March
Length: Enough

Good luck!

Art paragraph - feedback

Major errors shared by most people

• Often people failed to take a real stance (what's your opinion?)
• Some of your examples didn't match your explanations (choose evidence carefully)
• Many used I & my (never in a formal essay)
• Most people approached it literally but Picasso was speaking figuratively (so you are using the wrong language/logic to discuss it)
• There were some overly strong statements, e.g. 'Shakespeare was not original.' (strong statements make you look over emotional and thus, not objective)

H/W - write a critical paragraph

Think...

Think about the art history we have already studied and how some modern movements were created by reactions against society, e.g. feminist literature, marxist art, impressionist music.

Read...

Read this article which kind of says the opposite; that art's role is to uphold social values.

 http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/4.+-+the+point+of+novels.pdf

Write...

Write a paragraph about this statement by Picasso: 

'good artists borrow, great artists steal’

 It should be written in an academic style as a 3rd person essay. Use this vocabulary sheet to help:

http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/4+-+art+vocabulary.doc

Remember...
Your opinion is equal to anyone elses, but it's worthless if you can't explain it.
Describe your argument and then explain it; use logic to build your argument and strengthen it with examples or quotes. You only have one paragraph so chose your words carefully.

Holy Moly! Was Jackson P a spook?

Read this and think about whether or not JP would have been as popular without CIA support.
Why or why not? I'm gonna ask next lesson, so you may as well think about it now.
Write down your ideas please, that way you'll look real intelligent when you have something to say on the day.
 3 - Pollack and CIA.doc

Art for art's sake!

We've looked at some art and we set a criteria of things we believe art must have:
It must have a Message
It must be made with Intention
It must involve Emotion
It must be Expressive
It must be Thought-provoking
It must have a Purpose

We've looked at some art history.
Next you are going to write some art criticism (practice for this unit's essay).
Please read these articles for homework:
 2 - What is a Work of Art.doc
 2 - On Criteria.doc
 2 - Guide to Analysing Art.doc

Hypocrites - Ting, Clem, Pual, Christiana, TramTran

We know from the Dawkins videos we watched that there is already a shortage of funds for medical research (that's called a reference kids, try it sometime). Thus if you divert funds from existing cancer research on to any other area, hiv, homeopathy, whatever - you will be taking beds & treatments from already sick people.

Are you going to tell them you removed their treatments to follow some other idea you've had? If you aren't willing to face these people, then you have no right to make these decisions. i.e. you're hypocrites.

All medical spending is stupid!

Ting said we should spend money on the invisible medicine, Homoeopathy. Clem suggests we should ignore cancer and concentrate on HIV, which is more a social disease (gays & druggies) than medical. Next you'll be suggesting we spend money on obesity, just because fat people can't control their eating!

I say all medical spending is a waste of time. What are the 3 biggest killers? Heart disease, stroke, & cancer. All preventable diseases of lifestyle. I say we should divert our medical spending to something that would really save lives - the War on Terrorism.

HIV/AIDS v. CANCER by Clém :)

Which one should we spend MORE TIME ON ( it doesn't mean that we completely ignore the other one) to research a possible cure?

My comment on one of the questions for our homework was :

Should more money be spent trying to solve the homoeopathy puzzle, or diverted to cancer research?
More money should be fund for HIV/AIDS. I know this is not part of the possible answers for this specific questions, but cancer has some cures and researches are made everyday to cure cancer using different techniques. Homeopathy puzzle is complicated but can be solved. However for HIV/AIDS, 32.9 million of people are living with this virus on Earth and it is killing 3 people per minute, I think this is more important...
If I was forced to choose then I would say homeopathy puzzle because that would be very efficient for it to be solved, and for people to use a new kind of medecine, increasing people's knowledge, like a new step in evolution.

HIV/AIDS is one virus that is spread worldwide every single day which doesn't have a specific origin, meaning we don't really know when and where it came from. Nowadays it is possible to PREVENT it but not yet to CURE it. We can prevent it by using contraception, desinfection of all needles used in hospital or elsewhere, raising awareness in some countries that might have never heard of HIV or AIDS. As I mentioned it in my comment, 32.9 million of people are living with the virus on Earth and 3 people are getting killed per minute. If we think about it our whole TOK class would be dead in 4.5 minutes. (This is just an image to show ou

CANCER is a desease that leads to replication of cancerous cells. Doctors can't really explain why some people get it and some not, but possible harmful factors (like smoking, having a particular lifestyle, abusing of some type of food, or other things we come across everyday,) can cause it. There are different types of cancers and doctors have cured it before although it is very risky (a lot of people died from it). Therefore there's always some possible cures for cancer.

Those are two things that can ruin thousands of peoples' lives and it is not a fun thing to go through. Now if you think about HIV/AIDS for a second, people aren't getting anywhere. They still die at the end, and this is why it makes it more urgent for people to fund HIV/AIDS cure because if it was found, millions of people would get the virus out of their immune system and life could get better,but we wouldn't even know that because nothing has been done yet. Okay, scientists aren't going anywhere with HIV research so far, if more people would get involved, with a good fund, MAYBE we could get somewhere.

Homoeopathy - stupid hippies or scared scientists?

Please read this article from New Scientist:
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/week+12+-+NS+hom+article.doc

And this book chapter from 13 Things that don't make sense:
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/week+12+-+13+Things+-+hom+chapter.pdf

Then post a comment on the blog. Think about:
Both of these are reliable sources
Are they both speaking 'scientifically'?
Should more money be spent trying to solve the homoeopathy puzzle, or diverted to cancer research? And what are the likely social ramifications of spending or cutting?
Look back at your old posts about this problem and we will discuss them together in class.

Presentation Zen

Please read Mr Roo's 9 tips to good ToK presentations.
Here is the IBO ToK presentation criteria

Here is the slide show we looked at:  Death by PowerPoint
Now please go read this blog website: Presentation Zen
And also their blog, especially the section on: The art of connection, contribution, & change

Here is Steve Jobs' presentation on the iPhone 4
And Hans Rosling's statistics
And Sir John's 8 secrets

H/W - watch YouTube and do activities

Science vs Religion

Watch BBC Hardtalk:

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

Dawkins talks about religious people and says that even tolerating moderate Muslims is dangerous because it also allows fundamentalists to exist.

Also, watch this interview with Terry Pratchett:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/video/2009/dec/19/terry-pratchett-religion

He has much the same views and is just as passionate, but he uses less strident language.

Now reply to the post on the blog

Science vs Alternative medicine

Watch this anti alternative medicine show:

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

Now read the article written by the Observer newspaper’s astrologer:

 http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/week+10+-+The+Dawkins+delusion+article.doc

He has some interesting points and writes a very rational argument. It’s quite strange to have the supposed loonies being rational, while the scientists are crazy talking!

The crazy talk is a clue that the scientists are not being totally scientific, they are very personally, emotionally involved, i.e. biased. Remember that rationalism plays a huge part in science, and it is scientists who decide what is inside (legitimate) the current scientific paradigm,  and what lies outside (alternative). It is also scientists who decide when to shift to a new paradigm. So we really need these guys to stay objective.

Next, watch the series below where a well respected psychologist explains how alternative medicine can help us. Watch at least 1 & 2, and watch the others if you’re interested.

1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1AQPue7FEM

2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQcwbnshxWk&NR=1

3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpkLfs43FxE&NR=1

4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO_ayj_BtC0&NR=1

Now reply to the blog post that asks how much research funds we should divert to alternative medicine.

And also, here are the 2 class PowerPoints about the Scientific Method.
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/week+10+-+Science+and+religion.ppt
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/week+9+-+Scientific+Method+reviewed.ppt

Please add a comment to this post

The comment link is directly under the post, click and write.

Watch the YouTube links and read the astrologer's response to Richard Dawkins. then answer this question:

There is not enough money for good cancer research, but some people are frustrated that normal science hasn't found an answer after more than 100 years of research. They propose that we should divert some of the precious research funds to alternative medicine. Government takes a vote and decides yes we should divert some funds to alternative medicine. 

Your job is to decide what % of the medical research budget should we divert? Explain your answer.

Please add a comment to this post

Richard Dawkins states that because religion is protected from criticism, then even moderate Islam is problematic because it provides a screen for violent fundamentalist Islamists to hide behind.
(4m.20s:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEq_AFDtCNk&feature=related)


1)  Following this statement, a law is proposed to ban all Islam from the UK. Do you vote yes or no to this law?
2)  Additionally, it is proposed that we take this opportunity to also ban Buddhism, do you vote yes or no?
Explain your decisions.

Your first essay

What I learned from your essays:
You don't use enough examples to back up your points.
Most of you forget to cite your sources
Some of you though the internet was bigger than books. No where near it - there are about 180 million known titles in circulation, and more unknown ones. There's only about million webpages.
Phuc can't spell my name.
Bao tran is a tough marker, she even marked one student lower than me! But she writes really good comments. If she marked your paper, you should read her comments carefully.
Patti, Christiana & Aaryaman rock, they all got a 6 from me.

week 7 - Scientific Method

Now that I have thoroughly annoyed you all with my frustrating card experiments, you should have some sympathy for scientists. Imagine the scientists who discovered that DNA were in a helix shape; they didn't have scanners or anything, they imagined the shape in their heads from the data of hundreds of chemical experiments. That's a freakish kind of creativity.

From the discovery of genetics by Mendel to actually sequencing the genome it took about 140 years and dozens of scientists. http://homepage.smc.edu/hgp/history.htm


Homework
Read the above website and read this document:
http://bislib.wikispaces.com/file/view/week+7+-+The+truth+is+out+there.doc

Peer marking example

Here is Christiana's essay marked by me. I've put comments, given a holistic (overall) grade, and then attached the criteria to the end so she can see her grades for each criteria.

I'm late delivering this example so I will extend the deadline to 18th October (my birthday, I am turning 25!).
Next week we shall start on the Scientific Method. This is very different to method acting & methode champenoise.

Peer marking

You must mark and comment on 3 other dialogues.
Use the IB marking criteria - you should give a grade for each criteria (out of 10) and a wholistic grade (also out of 10). Don't just add your criteria grades together and divide by 4, the wholistic grade is about how the whole essay works together and it may be higher or lower than the total criteria grades.

Here is the spreadsheet of who is marking whom.
Good luck and thanks for doing my job for me!
Mr. Jacques

1st assignment - Write a Socratic dialogue - 600-700 words.

You must learn what is a Socratic dialogue, how to write one, and then write one. 
Due in 2 weeks, 4th October.

Here are the essay questions, choose one.
Here are some examples of Socratic dialogues.
Before you do anything, you should read this document about how to question the Question.
Then read this book chapter about how to write a ToK essay.
And here are Mr Roo's tips.
Go here if you need to update your general writing skills.
Go here if you were stupid enough to lose the marking criteria or the essay questions. 
.

Plato & Gettier

To understand Gettier and Gettier problems, first we must know a little about Plato.


Platonic epistemology holds that knowledge is innate, so that learning is the development of ideas buried deep in the soul, usually under the guidance of a teacher. Plato believed that each soul existed before birth in a perfect state and with a ''knowledge of everything.'' Thus, when something is "learned" it is actually just "recalled."
Plato drew a sharp distinction between knowledge, which is certain, and mere opinion, which is not certain. Opinions derive from the shifting world of sensation; knowledge derives from the world of timeless forms, or essences. Thus Plato thought that there was no new knowledge, but that knowledge was simply re-discovered.

I think it's interesting to note that even though Plato was very logical, he was not necessarily non-religious, for example he believes in the soul. Now days we tend to think of these two types of thought as incompatible.


And now - Gettier problems


Gettier cases are meant to challenge our understanding of propositional knowledge. It is knowledge of a truth or fact (e.g. kangaroos do not have wings)— knowledge of how the world is. Usually, when epistemologists talk simply of knowledge they are referring to propositional knowledge.

Gettier problems are named in honor of the American philosopher Edmund Gettier, who discovered them in 1963. They challenge the definition of knowledge as propositional knowledge (justified true belief in that proposition). The problems are situations in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence, yet which — according to almost all people — fails to be knowledge.

Gettier’s original article had a dramatic impact. Almost all epistemologists agreed that he had refuted the traditional definition of knowledge; but he didn't offer any new definition of knowledge, so everyone began trying to develop a new definition. There have been many, many attempts to repair or replace that traditional definition of knowledge, resulting in several new conceptions of knowledge and of justificatory support. In this respect, Gettier sparked a period of innovative ideas — all with a single two-and-a-half page essay. However, there is no consensus on a new simple definition for what it is to have knowledge of a truth or fact. Adapted from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/

This leads to the criticism that Gettier problems are rare and contrived and would never actually happen in real life. If a situation would not happen in real life, then is it fair to use that situation a ascertain what is knowledge in the real world? Some good attempts have been made to repair the original definition of knowledge. Lehrer, for example, proposed that there must be no false steps in reasoning from the proposition to justification to belief (for example, in the wedding example we saw - there was no connection between the belief and the justification).

Homework

Easy H/W because I'm soft.

Define the words below. Use philosophical definitions, not everyday English language ones.

You will be asked to write one on the board on Monday, so please do it.

justified true belief

proposition

Platonic

dogma

epistemology

Occam's Razor

Meta-cognition

Semantics

What are the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain”?

What are the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain”, and is passionate conviction ever sufficient for justifying knowledge?

Certainty is a little like light – you take it for granted, but when you think about what it actually is, you probably couldn’t describe it too much in detail, even if you knew it was a congregation of photons. You can’t exactly pinpoint one spot in the air where light is a tangible object, and yet it affects everything you do. For thousands of years, the particularly wise people sought to discover just what can be known with certainty, that is to say, what can fit into the sentence, “it is certain that...” Certainty in the passive voice meant universal certainty, which everyone was out to find. Nobody ever thought of a personal validation of their knowledge until Rene Descartes, who performed a 2000 year revolution by meditating on his existence. This resulted in the phrase “I am certain,” now as equally profound to be said as “it is certain.” Each phrase has a completely different meaning and a subjective truth which can’t be taken for granted.

I know that the American Revolution occurred in 1776, that my heart pumps about 7000 litres of blood throughout my body per day, that there is a country named Spain, and that my tongue responds to chocolate particularly well because of taste buds. In fact, I claim to know these with certainty. None of these things, however, could I describe why or how it happens in enough detail to the point that a doubtful person would believe me. All these things I know by authority, including the fact that there are obscure things called “taste buds,” and this knowledge constitutes everything I’ve learned sitting in a classroom. Someone more erudite in the subjects of history, biology, or geography may be able to explain them better, but it proves that, since I was old enough to think, I have relied on authority for roughly 95% of my knowledge.


The fact that passive certainty (it is certain) is translated from personal certainty (I am certain) is demonstrated another way as well. Consider an educated, scholarly man in the 15th century who researches a topic of his interest, say, the possible curvature of the Earth. This man might study and research all the beliefs and “proofs” of a flat Earth and make his own judgment of a round Earth, of which he personally is now certain. This might be accepted by the other educated men, which in time will be accepted by children and uneducated men through authority. Indeed, no child now questions the spherical nature of Earth. The first man didn’t come up with a random theory and promulgate it, but became certain of his belief in order to make it a fact. In that way, “I am certain” can eventually evolve into “it is certain.”

The existence of God is something everyone has debated, challenged, or “proven” at some point in their life, whether with another or within themselves. It is just one example of a situation in which “I am certain” cannot become “it is certain,” even with logical evidence. If one believes that God exists, they may say “I am certain.” As long as the truth is not undoubtedly known, no one may say “it is certain that God exists.” St. Thomas Aquinas set out to prove God’s certainty in Summa Theologica, but people can still refute that work by their own evidence and contradict Thomas Aquinas. Someone may personally accept God, but cannot say it is a fact for all mankind. Areas of knowledge like ethics are often relative to a culture or religion, and therefore are subjectively moderated. Therefore, those who believe in certain ethics, morals, and religions can address their own personal certainty, but may not say “it is certain” because others will not agree.

This brings me to another point: is passionate conviction sufficient for justifying knowledge? For millennia, reality was everything that people could touch, smell, see, and hear. They were convinced of certain truths and values that today are questioned and some proven false. Before 1500, the Earth was the centre of the universe. Each and every European at that time was more or less convinced of that belief, yet today we realize its falseness. In cases like this, where other options are there but not considered, passionate conviction cannot be sufficient.

One way passionate conviction can be disproven to be sufficient in all cases is to consider an argument. To use another cosmological analogy, I will say that Venus is a rocky planet, while Jack argues that it is one of the gas giant planets. Jack is passionately convinced that he has learned and seen through his telescope Venus, which is most certainly a gas giant. There are only two possible outcomes in an argument where two sides are both passionately convinced – one man is correct or no man is correct. In this case, we know that Jack’s perception of the planet Venus is wrong, even though he is passionately convinced. I could even change my argument that Venus was a star, in which case neither of us would be correct. This furthermore proves that passionate conviction does not determine truth.

However, there are times when ardent conviction does produce truth. To be convinced of something by empathy or introspection is valid because emotion dictates these ways of knowing. Emotion also dictates one’s passionate conviction. Therefore, matters concerning one’s emotions, cannot be contradicted by another because that person will never know the true emotions of another. This method is not fool-proof, however, because one’s own emotions may be incorrect. For example, a girl who thinks she in love with a boy by introspection may only feel that way because of physiological reasons, like pheromone emission. She may or may not be in love with the boy, but this cannot be determined by another. In this manner, passionate conviction can sometimes be sufficient.

In finding the differences between “I am certain” and “it is certain,” it is evident that the passive and the personal assertions of certainty are not the same and cannot be applied to the same issues in all cases. “It is certain” is usually attained first through “I am certain,” because for all men to believe something, one man must have believed it. The transition is not flawless, however, because where matters are not accepted by all, two conflicting statements of “I am certain” cannot both be correct. Ethics and religion, subjective and often contradictory matters, are a perfect example of this.

Passionate conviction is rarely sufficient, and never necessary for justifying knowledge. Only through emotion can zeal for a cause justify truth, and even then only a part of the time. Passionate conviction, by eliminating all other doubts, may turn an “I am certain” into an “it is certain.” Passionate conviction connects the personal with the passive assertions of certainty and sometimes justifies this certainty. Through every way certainty is determined, there is only one solid conclusion about it: “I am certain” may be to anyone, but “it is certain” must be to everyone.

Adapted from: 
Determining Truth by Johnathan @ Writing.com
http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/969810-Determining-Truth

© Copyright 2005 Jonathan (UN: go0danplenty at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.