"Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of Knowledge"

To what extent does language develop certainty in the natural sciences?

I'm so sorry, but let us go back to the very beginning of TOK, and remember the (possibly) intelligent plants.  In this case, there are those who believe there should be the field of plant neurobiology, to investigate how plants perceive their circumstances, and those who believe plant neurobiology to be the result of over-interpretation and wild speculation.

In the article “The Intelligent Plant”, one of the plant neurobiologists (Gagliano) points out her study was rejected by journals not for its data, but for the language used to describe it, and when the experiment is brought up with an anti-neurobiologist (Taiz), he agrees with the journals, asserting it would have been better for Gagliano to use “the words ‘habituation’ or ‘desensitization’” instead of “learning.”   Those in favor of neurobiology, such as Gagliano, favored “learning” because it made it easier to compare plant behavior to animal behavior, and made her argument, that plants have a information-processing system somewhat like (though not the same as) animals.  Those opposed preferred softer words because, while they suggest something like learning, it doesn’t seem as certain as learning, and the comparison between plant and animal methods doesn’t have to be made, since the reader (or audience), won’t necessarily make that leap to the connection between the words.

There should always be some uncertainty at the frontiers of knowledge.  But language can develop the balance between certainty and uncertainty, either making the knowledge sound more certain or less certain than it really is. In the case of plant neurobiology, both sides use language that leaves little room to doubt their case, to make each side seem more certain.  However, this results in even more uncertainty, because one now has to wonder if either side is really 100% correct, or if they’re all completely wrong and there is an as yet unknown third idea.  

“That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow”

Knowledge Question: In what ways do reason and sense perception change truth in the Natural Sciences?

    Sense perception provides more easily accepted proof for humans, and reason can help explain what sense perception shows, and changes in either can change “truth” (fact or belief accepted as true) in the natural sciences.    

         A Real life Example would be the journey to the current cell membrane theory.  In 1935, “truth” was the Davson and Danielli model, who theorized the plasma membrane was a lipid bilayer covered on both sides by a thin proteins layer.  However, in 1972, Singer and Nicolson proposed proteins were instead inserted throughout the bilayer, which they found due to advances in electron microscopy and the ability to culture and study cells in labs.

        Sense perception, (faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch, which the body perceives through an external stimulus), isn’t perfect.  With sight, for example, sense perception fails if  something’s too small (cells).  Sense perception influences reason (cause, explanation, or justification) within natural sciences (branch of science which deals with the physical world) because experiments require sense perception for observation, and reason to gain knowledge from the results.  This method works if humans can perceive what they’re observing, but when sense perception becomes contradictory (as with cells) a faulty sense perception can hinder reasoning, which creates an incorrect "truth.” As humanity advances, technology can extend sense perception, and such extension can change what the senses perceive, changing the reasoning, and changing "truth” in the natural sciences.

"There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: passive observation and active experiment". To what extent do you agree with this statement?

I’m inclined to agree with this statement to a large extent. My definition of passive observation is “to watch something that is happening without attempting to influence it,” and my definition for active experiment is “to change something in a situation (consciously or not) and see how the result is affected,” both of which cover all of the ways (I can think of) to produce knowledge.  

To use the real life situation we discussed in class, B.O.B thinks the Earth is flat.

A knowledge question for this RLS could be “To what extent does Sense Perception distort belief in the natural sciences?”  A possible answer: It depends on which part of the natural sciences.  When, for example, observing flowers grow, sense perception is more likely to confirm belief in the natural sciences, since the eyes can observe that a plant has gotten taller, or that flower buds have started to appear.  But as science advances, the subject being observed or experimented on have gotten incredibly small (subatomic particles) or impossibly large (galaxies).  As science gets to those extremes, it’s harder for sense perception to work without contradicting natural sciences.   Sense perception may be more persuasive to people though, because it’s how they collect data for themselves, even though it can be wrong.

Bringing B.O.B and his situation back to passive observation and active experimentation, both sides of the argument user active experiment and passive observation to argue their point, which would support the idea that these are the only two ways humankind produce knowledge, though it is only one example. B.O.B uses passive observation to observe that since he can’t see a curve in the horizon, the earth is flat, while Neil DeGrasse Tyson uses knowledge of active experiments to know that the Earth is curved.

To what extent does culture influence ethical decision making? Does ethics fall more in the domain of shared knowledge or personal knowledge?

I think culture has a fairly large influence on ethical decision making, as the mindset of a culture often influences the decision making process of an individual of that culture.
         
        To provide some background, in the 1980's Harry Triandis first clearly differentiated between individualistic and collectivist cultures, developing and defining their differences, and how they effect behavior and personalities.  An individualistic culture focuses more on the individual, with more focus on personal goals, self-reliance, and less worried about conformity. These cultures are common in countries influenced by Northern Europeans, such as the U.S, Australia, and Canada.  A collectivist culture focuses more on the group that the person is a part of, with indiciduals interpreting themselves as an extension of a group, focus on the good of the group, and rewards for achievements of the group, rather than their own. Collectivist cultures occur typically in Japan and Puerto Rico (which is technically part of the U.S as a territory, but let's not get into that) Of course, these traits aren't in only one group or the others,- these conclusions in general can't be overly sweeping. Indiviualistic and Collectivistic are more two ends of a spectrum which cultures can be found on.      
       
            What traits the different groups put greater emphasis on (self vs. community, conformity vs nonconformity, etc.) has an effect on  how someone reasons out an ethical decision, as what they view as the "right" decision will probably be heavily influenced by how they've been brought up.  A lot of culture gets passed through family, and what people as children observe in their parents and other family members often reflects in their later decisions. In class, I think, we watched the video about the professor who offered his class 2 or 6 extra credit points.   However, if more than 10% of people chose 6 points, then no one in the class would get points.  If someone has been brought up in a culture that emphasizes putting one's self first, then perhaps they would be more likely to choose the 6 points.  But perhaps a person brought up in a collectivist culture would be more likely to think of the group as a whole.

However, this decision is ultimately up to the individual, which is why ethics falls more in the domain of personal knowledge.  The shared knowledge of the culture will be shared and spread, and it can have an influence on someone's ethical views, but the opinion will ultimately belong to the person.

What are the three biggest problems facing universities today? What problems of knowledge do these represent?

*Disclaimer: I don't think I interpreted the question correctly.  You might be better off finding someone else's blog* 

In no particular order:

Tuition: The cost of college, as "The Ivory Tower" pointed out, is skyrocketing, and may possibly be unsustainable.  

          Problem of Knowledge?: Sense Perception:  Sticker shock is a thing experienced by parents sending kids off to college. The price tag causes a kind of disconnect.  Common knowledge is that college is necessary for a "successful" life. However, it's so expensive that parents and kids have to wonder if the debt they may have to take on for college is really worth it. 

 The price of knowledge:  Does knowledge have a price?  Should it?  Clearly, colleges have put a "price" on knowledge, in the form of teachers and textbooks.  But there are also other costs, which leads into....

Expansion: To compete with each other, colleges have been expanding spaces and including as many amenities as they can (rockclimbing walls, pretty buildings, etc.) Colleges have to have the best of everything, from food to research.  The administrative staffs of colleges have expanded sigificantly as well.  All this needs to be paid for somehow, and it may becoming too much.

         Problems of Knowledge?:  Emotion: A lot of the extra stuff is so students can enjoy themselves, but is it helping or hindering their pursuit of knowledge? Especially at schools known for partying, is the label causing them to cater to those who have no desire to learn? 

Language: Colleges use their expansions as advertisement, a kind of visual language.  New shiny buildings and pretty settings imply an aura of prestige, of being at the cutting edge.  But one shouldn't judge a book by its cover. It's possible (maybe even probable) that 

Value (for student): Related to Expansion and Tuition, there are an increasing number of questions about the usefulness of college, especially when compared to the cost, and what it pays for.  

           Problems of Knowledge?: Memory: How does memory change our knowledge?  The value of college may have changed, but there could be a generation (or more) with memories of a different time, when college meant something else.  Could memory result in knowledge being suppressed or distorted?

Reason: This kind of relates to memory and emotion.  How is reason affected by both/either of them? Reason, memory, and emotion are all ways of knowing, and how they interact affect one's knowledge.  

Knowledge Question Based on "The Ivory Tower"

To what extent do Memory and Language distort belief (that College is (or isn't) a good investment)?

Specifically: The part where they were discussing how older people lived in an era where it was possible to pay your way through college, and don't necessarily understand it's usually no longer possible for the current generations.

Is Economics a Science?

             At least in TOK, economics gets grouped in the human sciences, along with psychology, anthropology and others.     According to Merriam-Webster, the simple definition for science is :"knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation," or a "subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc."   Economics is, at the very least, a science according to the second definition, since it gets studied in college.  The simple definition of economics, also according to Merriam-Webster is "a science concerned with the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought."                Economists do experiments, using the scientific method, and often have results that can be replicated, as would be expected of a science. One paper in Science found that of the 18 (which is a pretty small sample size) other papers on microeconomics it had looked at, 11 (61%) similar results when the experiment was repeated. This is not absolutely great, but if you compare it to a 2015 analysis of psychology papers, which could only replicate 36% of the published results, it's pretty good.    

           

            However, it could (and has been) argued that economics is too unreliable to be considered a science.    Like most of the human studies, economics is based on humanity, and it's hard to exclusively focus on one variable of humanity and look at its affect. It wouldn't be hard to find a variable, but correlation of that variable to something else doesn't necessarily equal causation.  With economics, there are too many variables that are too interconnected to each other to be able to separate and find the exact effect they have.      

       

         I would still argue that economics are a science, because even if they aren't always right, neither are the other more "established" sciences.  For example, Watson and Crick went through a couple of different models of DNA before they came up with the currently accepted one.  Science is a process, where theories will be made, and then some will be shown to be incorrect. That economics has such a varied set (humanity) it needs to draw results from simply means there will be a lot more incorrect theories.    

To what extent does emotion clarify knowledge in the Arts?

          I can't speak for all the arts (I can't paint or act for my life), but at least in music, emotion clarifies knowledge by guiding the player of the piece to create, and know a message.  Emotions (hopefully) also allows the listener to receive and understand that message, and maybe make their own story off of the art.
         
         For the artist, in this case, the instrument player or singer, knowing the context that the composer wrote in, the emotions they may have been feeling, helps form an idea as to what the compose perhaps intended to be converyed through their work.  For example, Shostakovich's String Quartet No.8 was dedicated to the "victims of facism and war."  Shostakovich had also just found out he had Amyotrophic Laterol Sclerosis (ALS), and reluctantly joined the communist party of the USSR (with which he had a difficult relationship).  Realizing the emotions he must have felt (Fear, sadness, maybe anger) helps clarify for the player how they should play the music.  With the first movement, there's supposed to be an auro of eeriness and sadness, a sense that something bad has just happen, with perhaps worse to come.  In the third movement, there are several points where there are suddent, harsh, discordant chords.  These are supposed to represent his fear that the KGB would come knocking on his door to take him away.  Knowing of the fear, these chords are loud, ferocious, and heavy, representing a power to be terrified of.   There are guides within the music (dynamics, tempo, stylistic markings) as well, but empathizing with the emotions adds to the musicality of the piece, making it so much more than just the notes.

         If the players can pull it off, the audience uses the emotions they feel to either create their own story, or (if they, like the players, know the context) color the story they have heard.  Sometimes the emotions can come back to the composer and clarify their own knowledge of their piece.  To use Shostakovich and String Quartet No. 8: Apparently, in 1962, the Borodin String Quartet performed this for Shostakovich, hoping he would provide some criticism.  Instead, he was so overwhelmed by the realization of his most personal feelings, he buried his head in his hands and wept.

How does the act of observation influence what is observed?

It depends on how the observation is being conducted. If the observer stays hidden, or the object to be observed is simply unaware, then the influence on the observed will probably be non-existent.  Afterall, one cannot react to something they don't realize is happening.

     If something realizes it's being observed, the change is often instantaneous,especially in unexpected cases.  For example, with animals, if someone makes an unexpected noise too close to them, they immeadiately fly off.  With people, they might immeadiately stop what they're doing, and also possibly run away, especially if they don't know the person.  In Sleeping Beauty, specifically in teh segment where Aurora sings "Once Upon a Dream," she both immeadiately stops what she's doing, and tries to run away upon realizing she's not alone.  (Going on a unnecessary tangent, she's terrible at running away, she just hesitates a few steps further, and it's far too easy for Prince Phillip to catch up.)

     When people expect to be observed, they change, usually to be what they think the observer expects. It can actually be a problem in Psychology experiments, as (at least now), people have to be told they're in an experiment, and people often are influenced by what they hear.  Smith, Bell, and Fusco tested two groups of men in 1986, and told one group that seeing the color pink increases their strength, and another group was told it increased their strength.  Those who were told it would increased their strength showed they had a 10% stronger grip on a dumbell then those told they would be weaker.  Even if they aren't told, the people being observed can often guess, as the observer can send cues that tell the participant what is expected of them, and what the observer hopes to see.  This is defined as demand characteristics, according to Martin Orne.

       Knowing once something knows it's being observed, everything the observer sees needs to be questioned.  The act of observation causes the observed to put up walls, whether physical walls, such as fleeing to put physical space between them, or Aurora's attempt to use a tree trunk as a wall between her and Prince Phillip (seriously, if she was going to use a tree, she should have found a bigger tree further from him...). With animals, the observer now has to wonder, how fast does it normally go along? Where does it usually spend most of its time?  With Prince Phillip, he now has to wonder, does she usually sing to animals?  Is Aurora usually so coy?  Is her main mode of transportation dancing?

         Or, especially with people, the observed puts up mental walls, using societies rules to put out what's expected of them.  Sometimes that influence is a good one.  People who are aware of cameras that are watching and recording their every move in a store are less likely to steal, because they know they'll probably be recognized, caught, and brought to justice.  But it can also be a bad thing, limiting people's true selves because they're afraid of what people will think if they see.

What would the world be like if everyone spoke the same language? If no one spoke at all?

If everyone spoke the same language, hopefully that language would be really, really creative.  I guess the first question would be, what language has all of humanity adopted?  English, Chinese, Latin, something entirely different? And would there still be accents? Ultimately though, I think the world would be a less interesting place for it.  A bunch of languages have words that don't translate well into other languages.  For example, German has such gems as Innerer Schweinehund, which roughly translates to inner pig dog, and is apparently for the little voice in the back of your head saying that you should give up on life and be lazy.  There's also Dreikäsehoch which means three cheeses high, and is talking about height (the person is as tall as three cheeses on top of each other), not weight.  While they can be translated(ish), there is no word for them.  There's also many sayings that just don't come across the language barrier as well.  My mom, for example, like some of the other parents people mentioned in class, had a different language (Vietnamese) as her first language.  So she often says these proverbs in English, but none of us (me and my siblings), are really sure what she means.
Words: http://www.fluentu.com/german/blog/weird-german-words-vocabulary/
Even with only one language, people would still miscommunicate with others.    Ludwig Wittgenstein said that misunderstandings occur because people use words to convey pictures to others, but people don't always have the same images in their minds.  Though there would no longer be an language barrier, there would still often be an image barrier. 

If no one spoke at all, the world would definitely be a quieter place.  But though there would be no shouting, there also wouldn't be any singing.  I guess people would just use sign language, but would there be one sign language, or multiple regional languages?  Also, going back to the German words for earlier, would those still have a place in language?

The world would be worse off if everyone spoke the same language, because though everyone should be able to understand each other," there would still be miscommunications, and the world would be a duller place.  The most important reason of all, if we all spoke one language, we would miss out on the joys of hearing Pewdiepie swear in Swedish after being scared/frustrated/surprised by a videogame.

What counts as acceptable justification in each AoK?

• The Arts:
• An award, for the piece of art ( Example: Saying the musical Hamilton has the best music would be justified by the fact that Hamilton won Best Musical Theater album at the 2016 Grammys- though one could still argue the award is subjective..)
• Maybe also price, if it's on the market ( Example: A Van Gogh went for what would now be 83 million dollars in 1987.  I hope someone wouldn't be paying that much for something they thought was terrible...)
• Ethics
• As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (This is probably kind of questionable, because if you think life begins at conception, pro-choice would be hurting someone else)
• History
• Facts, from multiple sources, preferably primary souces
• Mathematics
• Proofs, which require logic to be true
• Human Sciences
• Personally knowing a person (though this not might be the best, given the number of people when interviewed about those who commit mass murder, and say they though the person was perfectly normal)
• Experience (definitely not perfect, generalizations always have acceptions) 
• Natural Sciences
• Results from an experiment that had repeated trials, and is repeated by other researchers
• Religous Knowledge Systems
• If one believes in a set of assumptions that can't be proven or disproven, someone could use those as acceptable justification (but someone who doesn't believe it would argue the fact that it can't be proven means it can't be used as a justification)
• Indigenous Knowledge Systems
• What happens in the world around them, that may have been caused by the system they believe in
• ..... sorry, I'm not sure I know what an indigenous knowledge system is....

These are supposed to be acceptable, not perfect justifications.  But if you have something better (and you probably do), comment! Unless you already wrote it on your own blog.  But you could still repeat it, if you want.

Three Questions

1. Can we really leave the cave behind, or do we just walk out of one cave and into another, bigger one?  (Plato says the prisoner is eventually able to stare at the sun, but is it really the sun, or just an artifical light?)

2. What is the point of the character Glaucon?  From what I can tell,  all he does is agree with everything that Socrates says.

3.  Are the scientists who support plant neurobiology in the position of the prisoner who has gone outside and come back to the cave?   If so, or if not, why?