"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.