Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Blog 9: Summary of Human Science Experiment projects

This week we discussed historically interesting experiments on human behavior.  

Complete the following in this blog:

1. Summarize three of the experiments into 1 sentence descriptions each. 
2. Identify PoK questions inherent in the Knowledge issues discussed.  DO NOT use ethics in your approach (we already know many of these experiments were not ethical. think beyond this area of knowing). 
3. Attempt to address some of the issues raised in your problem of knowledge questions.

Length: 2 analytical paragraphs.

Weeks 15-17 Review and Assignments

With finals fast approaching, I have fallen behind on the review assignment blogs the last two weeks. I apologize.

 For Unit 12 (weeks 16 and 17), we had three basic ideas we were discussing and learning:

 1.The “Human Sciences” is a framework of knowing, categorizing, and analyzing human behavior towards prediction and possible prevention/correction 

2. The “Human Sciences” is a collection of loosely related branches of evolving thought throughout history. Today, the paradigms correspond to Behaviorialism vs. Gestalt, Naturalism vs  Interpretivism. And Qualitative vs. quantative research. 

3. The “Human Sciences” have several AoK crossovers, including ethics, nature vs. nurture, and the ongoing pursuit of “truth” and/or “fact”. 

We completed the following 7 activities (2 weeks) to reinforce these ideas:

1. We considered the difference between motives in "a man drinks a glass of wine" and "a deer drinks from a river". We noted the possible similarities and the massive differences associated with both actions. WE concluded that, whatever else being equal, when studying humans we both understand (being a part of the species), and recognize, a vast behavioral complexity due to the advanced cognitive functioning of the human brain (as well as any metaphysical, environmental factors involved). We extract, analyze, symbolize, and deconstruct events in a way that is lacking in other species.

 2. We watched a clip from "Deal or No Deal", in which the participate "reasoned" towards a massive reward loss.
 We identified the various players in the "society" of the stage (the contestant, his wife, his mother, his friends, the audience, the host, the "banker", and even the beautiful women holding the briefcases). We discussed the seemingly infinite nuance involved in the process, leading ultimately to the irrational risk-taking. A problem of knowledge emerges: To what extent does external factors contribute to our behaviors, especially with regards to the positive and negative consequences of high-stakes risk taking behavior?

 3. We read descriptions of human rituals/events in which "human science" language was conspicuously absent. We noted why the language of the Human Sciences is important in our ability to fully understand the meaning behind human behavior (as opposed to the mere reliance on Natural Science terminology).

 4. We watched a clip from "Silence of the Lambs" and discussed the body language, tonality, theatrical crossover (since the actors are creating fictional characters), and the interplay of "good" and "bad" Human Science application.




 5. We experimented with the "McGurk Effect" to introduce the tension between causation and correlation in research.

 6. We briefly discussed controversial topics such as suicide as an introduction to quantative and qualitive research.



 7. Lastly, we discussed the paradigms of the naturalist and interpretivist positions, focusing on the effects of the environment on behavior (Pavlov, Milgrim, etc.) Leading to the problem of knowledge question: Is all our behaviors dictated by society, our genes, or by metaphysical substances such as free will?

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Blog 8: Science and Theology

For this week's blog in the special topics regarding Natural Sciences (misconduct, reason and prediction, community, politics and religion), complete two tasks:

1. With the controversy surrounding the topic of Evolution and Special Creation, it is important to understand the evidence in dispute.  Search for an example of a "transitional fossil" between two forms and explain why you can understand and predict the connection between the specimans from an evolutionary perspective.

2. Summarize the views of Miller and Shermer from the article.  Who do you most agree with and why?  What arguments are the most convincing? If you have a third view on the topic, summarize and link the source.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Science Sacrifice

TIL a chemistry grad student accidentally synthesized the chemical MPTP and gave himself Parkinsonian Syndrome while trying to make opioids - accidentally advancing Parkinson's research at his own expense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP#Discovery_in_users_of_illicit_drugs

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Blog 7: Applying Science in Tough Situations


Look at your scenario.  Consider your dilemma from a scientific perspective.
Is it possible to solve these complex problems without other areas of knowing?
Construct a TOK question from your scenario addressing the fundamental issue at stake.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Blog 6: Problems of Knowledge and the Natural Sciences

Read the following articles:

Extract Knowledge Issues that the articles share in common related to the Natural Sciences, Philosophy, and Mathematics, and create a Problem of Knowledge to discuss in class. Write the KI's and the PoK in the comments below.

6. Mathematics Overview

The video lecture is incomplete this week due to exceeded space on my iPad (Sorry!).  Refer to the overview below:

This week we began an introduction into Mathematics as an Area of Knowing.

5 simple objectives:

1. Math as "future knowing"?
2. Math as History of Thought.
3. Math as a challenge of certainty.
4. Math as a Process
5. Math as Cultural Purpose


Summary of Lecture.  Students completed the following:

1. A magic trick connected to the perceived certainty of mathematical theorems.  All our numbers, no matter the choice, converged into a single result.  We compared this type of "future knowing" with the study of probability, using Nate Silver as a contemporary example.

2. We compared the philosophy of mathematics from Newton, Leibnitz, and Kant, asking the question "how might math give us knowledge of the "thing in itself" beyond normal empirical observation?" Kant believed that Math was, in fact, a logical and synthetic (both rational, and really in the world) type of knowledge.

3. We challenged the assertions with a brief discussion of special relativity.  Einstein change the "certainty" of mathematics by proving the existence of time and space as contingent on perspective, gravity and relative space between objects.

4. We looked at how various theorems (a set of axioms creating a formula about the world) can be proven by coherence, exhaustion (computer programs, probability, etc.). While no theorem can be philosophically certain, we described how Math attains a higher level of consistency than other areas of knowing.

5.  Lastly, we very briefly talked about the purpose of math.  We looked at mathematical proofs, learning, and utility across three cultures.  How might this be related to the objectivity of math considering the different needs of society?

Next week, we will discuss your readings and argue it out topic (climate change), as well as have a little fun and competition using mathematical probability and the Monty Hall problem.  We will also continue our question of math's discovery vs. creation by contemplating its use as a principle of Art and Music.

I found this excellent 1 minute recap of special relativity for those who need clarification:


Friday, March 14, 2014

Blog 5: History and it's sources.

Complete two tasks before Tuesday:
1. Find an AMAZING fact from history, something that really surprises you, or somehig you can't quite wrap your mind around. Include a picture!
2. Find a PRIMARY source confirming the information you found from your popular/secondary source. In other words, fact-check your assertion. 

My fun history fact: 

Saturday, March 1, 2014

5. History as an Area of Knowledge. Ch. 12, p. 211-236

This week our goal is to consider the progressive nature of historiography throughout time.

 We completed an activity on historical reliability and transmission of information, considering how personal perceptions and our interactions with various ways and areas of knowing affected the ways in which our historical information was relayed.

 We also discussed some of the underlying principles of historical observation using Jorgenson's rationalist 7-step model on the limits and reliability of history based on time, space, motivation, and quantity.

 On Wednesday  we considered the development of history throughout time, starting with the Greco-Roman traditions, swerving into the non-western developments of China and Muslim cultures.  We left off with what will be a  contrast between Early Christian and Judeo-Palestinian conceptions of time, into the Enlightenment Whip school, Hegelianism, Annales school and lastly, Marxism next week.

On Thursday we completed a Socratic Seminar on ethical dillemas

We came up with the following Problems of Knowledge Questions
1. To what extent is it ethical to control and moderate another's nature, as well as his ability to make choices?
2.  How is purpose and motive contributing factors in the ethics of ownership?
3. How is justice quantified as punishment in different legal systems?

Assignments: 

Team 1: 211-215
Team 2: 216-220
Team 3: 221-225
Team 4: 226-230
Team 5: 231-233
Team 6: 233-236
PP: Team 1-3: Georg Hegel
Team 4-6: Michel Foucault
AIO: Just War Theory



Friday, February 14, 2014

Philosophy Bites: Jennifer Saul on Implicit Bias

Jennifer Saul on Implicit Bias

Blog 4: Moral Agents


What might be some other categories of Ethical reasoning? Consider two ethical characters throughout history or fictional culture, one that operates under a category we discussed, and one that operates under a new category that you either invent or research.


 Identify and explain both.

4. Ethical Reasoning

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Blog 3: How Generalizations/Bias Underlie Argumentation

Take a Harvard Implicit Test!

Many of the arguments and disagreements when encounter regarding the nature of reality are a result of unstated assumptions and generalization about the world and people.  Being sensitive to these generalizations in argumentation takes time and practice.

Choose one or several Project Implicit tests.  The designations for the tests are perhaps overstated, but you may surprise yourself.  Complete at least one test and describe your results, including any surprises about yourself and the results.


Sunday, February 2, 2014

2. Logic and Epistemology, Chs. 7-8 p. 94-132


Blog 2: Logical Fallacies (Formal or Informal)

Here are the directions for Blog 2:
  1. Create a logical proposition with a formal or informal fallacy.  Make it as silly as you want (refer to internet resources for inspiration)
  2. Respond to another student’s proposition with the correct identification.  Offer a correction.
  3. Add a meme with the logical fallacy identified in your response for Extra Credit!




Week 2-3: Logic and Epistomology

This week we looked at formal logical fallacies, and suggested the interaction between language and mathematics as the basis for epistemology. You are currently reading Chapters 7 and 8 on Reason and and the various Areas of Knowledge described in the TOK learner profile. Here is a basic summary of the points from this week:

1. Week 1's discussion of the Ways of Knowing introduction, as well as the "Knower" as comprised of memories (and the limitations therein). I introduced the "Knowledge Prism"

 2. Rational v. Empirical, and Plato's "Justified True Belief" model of knowledge. This will be our working definition, and will be clarified and expanded throughout the course.

 3. Formal Logic is comprised of prepositions that necessitate a particular conclusion. This is developed with a syntax that follows certain prepositional rules called the "Laws of Logic".

4. When those Logical rules are not followed, or the prepositions in a logical syllogism are incorrectly distributed, a fallacy is created.

5. There is a difference between informal and formal fallacies. Informal fallacies have more to do with topical argument and language than with structure and math.




 This week's Assignment:

TOK Chs. 7-8, p. 94-132

Team 1: 94-100
Team 2: 101-106
Team 3: 107-113
Team 4: 114-120
Team 5: 121-127
Team 6: 128-132


 Philosopher Portrait: Rene Descarte
 Blog 2: Identifying Formal and Informal Fallacies

Friday, January 24, 2014

Blog 1: Problem of Knowledge

Take those three terms begin free associating them as three connected ideas.
Respond with a Problem of Knowledge.

1. Violence
2. Culture
3. Belief

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Week 1: Overview and Assignments

I enjoy seeing such thoughtful students in the morning.  Your questions from the winter assignment, and the subsequent conversation on the importance and organization of knowledge issues is enlightening.  Make sure you commit to memory the TOK learner profile.  Begin to use it as a lens when considering other disciplines.

Week 1 Outline:

  1. We discussed the separation of the “knower” from “knowledge”, and the supremacy of the “knower” in relation to fact/reality.
  2. There is differences in how we use concept and language of questions.  Know the differences.  Make sure judge the scope of your question, whether in formal presentations or informal dialogue. You always want your questions open-ended, inviting, and constructive.  This is important in the formulation of “Problems of Knowledge”.
  3. When asking any question (or answering any question), always remember the "TAO" of TOK (Types, Application, Origins) to better assess the responses.
  4. Introduced the “Knowledge Prism” (Rationality, Observation, Truth Tests, and the Knower).
  5. Lightly touched on Plato’s “Justified True Belief” theory.  More of these in Week 2


Week 1 Assignments:
  1. Submit Winter Assignment via Managebac.
  2. Complete 1 page of Cornell notes from lecture (front) and team reading (one team section from TOK p. 1-41) If you do not have your textbooks yet, make sure to go back and complete this during week 

Next up in Week 2: Truth Tests, Logic, and Epistemology!