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.
A knowledge issue for the first article would be that the statistics could possibly make false assumptions. A Problem of Knowledge would be: Is it justifiable to use statistics to prove the death of deceased loved ones, given that statistics are not always true.
For the second article, a KI could be that the findings of the signal these scientists found don't necessarily have to be from the Big Bang, they could be from some other random explosion. Scientists have no way of knowing for sure. A Problem of Knowledge for this article could be the fact that the "proving" of this theory contradicts the beliefs of many religions and religious people will either try to do all they can to deny this information or have to change parts of their religious texts in order to accept it.
A Knowledge Issue is stepping back from a particular situation and considering the nature and mechanisms of knowing something. Your description is more of a question of origin or a rebuttal than a KI. Why is it unlikely that this signal originates with some random explosion, as opposed to the predicted models after the singularity event? What is different about it?
I would rephrase your POK with descriptions of the ways in which religious philosophers emphasis certain areas and ways of knowing, and juxtapose that with the rigor of a narrowly scientific focus. Identify and question the REASONS why religious thinkers and scientists may be in disagreement.
In the first article it shows that what do people do when one of the areas of knowledge, mathematics is incorrect how else would we prove something correct in that situation what else do people rely on to do that (excluding religion).
The first article really begins to actually talk about the math, which is often avoided by reporters due to constraints on reading comprehensability (for example, most news papers are written at a fifth grade level in order to allow anyone to understand it in full), but much of the math, and it admits it as so, is heavily under the subjective reasoning of the mathamatician.
As a PoK, How does a mathematician justify his subjectiveness when choosing what data to use in the Bayesian model? Is there any Justification, or is it just "guess and Check"?
The first article talks about how mathematics as an area of knowing can sometimes be incorrect. A knowledge issue from this situation is the reliability on the specific subject, whether it is true or not. So, as a PoK, Is there a way for a mathematician to justify his conclusions when relying on the Bayesian model? Or is it, like Blake said, a game of "guess and check"?
The knowledge issue in the first article relates to how mathematics can sometimes be unreliable in certain regards. For this article, my PoK would be: Does the efficiency of methods used supersede the desire or necessity to help others (in the case of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight)?
A knowledge issue for the first article would be that the statistics could possibly make false assumptions. A Problem of Knowledge would be: Is it justifiable to use statistics to prove the death of deceased loved ones, given that statistics are not always true.
ReplyDeleteFor the second article, a KI could be that the findings of the signal these scientists found don't necessarily have to be from the Big Bang, they could be from some other random explosion. Scientists have no way of knowing for sure. A Problem of Knowledge for this article could be the fact that the "proving" of this theory contradicts the beliefs of many religions and religious people will either try to do all they can to deny this information or have to change parts of their religious texts in order to accept it.
ReplyDeleteA Knowledge Issue is stepping back from a particular situation and considering the nature and mechanisms of knowing something. Your description is more of a question of origin or a rebuttal than a KI. Why is it unlikely that this signal originates with some random explosion, as opposed to the predicted models after the singularity event? What is different about it?
DeleteI would rephrase your POK with descriptions of the ways in which religious philosophers emphasis certain areas and ways of knowing, and juxtapose that with the rigor of a narrowly scientific focus. Identify and question the REASONS why religious thinkers and scientists may be in disagreement.
In the first article it shows that what do people do when one of the areas of knowledge, mathematics is incorrect how else would we prove something correct in that situation what else do people rely on to do that (excluding religion).
ReplyDeleteThe first article really begins to actually talk about the math, which is often avoided by reporters due to constraints on reading comprehensability (for example, most news papers are written at a fifth grade level in order to allow anyone to understand it in full), but much of the math, and it admits it as so, is heavily under the subjective reasoning of the mathamatician.
ReplyDeleteAs a PoK, How does a mathematician justify his subjectiveness when choosing what data to use in the Bayesian model? Is there any Justification, or is it just "guess and Check"?
The first article talks about how mathematics as an area of knowing can sometimes be incorrect. A knowledge issue from this situation is the reliability on the specific subject, whether it is true or not.
ReplyDeleteSo, as a PoK, Is there a way for a mathematician to justify his conclusions when relying on the Bayesian model? Or is it, like Blake said, a game of "guess and check"?
The knowledge issue in the first article relates to how mathematics can sometimes be unreliable in certain regards. For this article, my PoK would be: Does the efficiency of methods used supersede the desire or necessity to help others (in the case of the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight)?
ReplyDelete