Overall, presentations were fairly interesting. I felt that mine was somewhat unorganized, but people thought it was good overall. The question that we picked had 3 different parts and it was somewhat ambiguous which led to different potential answers. One thing that could be stronger for the final presentation is to present arguments convincingly. I also think it would be interesting to present it creatively.
The final presentation was on "are prioreties based on ethics?". Examples were given in terms of racism and taking care of family members but I felt like the question itself was a bit broad and could be interpreted in many ways.
Some groups could also have connected their presentations to TOK concepts a bit more and use more convincing examples.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Monday, 15 March 2010
Emotional Intelligence Quotient
The test indicated that I tend to be good at interpreting, understanding, and acting upon emotions. This seems to be fairly accurate. The test makes me think more about situations in life and how I've dealth with them, or could have dealt with them considering the other options provided with the question. The information in the test seems accurate but not too detailed, it seems very general and I think most people have fairly good emotional intelligence, or at least most people that I am surrounded by. It makes you think a bit about instincts and different ways to handle situations. Although this test allows us to reflect on things in life, I don't think it will change or influence anything we do or the way we act because it didn't have that kind of impact.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
February 28 2010 - Emotions/things people feel
Physical Emotions
Thirsty
Hungry
Drugged
In pain
Exhaustion
sleepy
Sick
Nervous
Hot
Cold
Restless
Internal/Mental/Expressive/Emotional/Psychological
Sad
Happy
Depressed
Sorry/apologetic
Worried
Anxious
Concerned
Surprised
Shocked
Mournful
Guilty
Scared
In doubt
Empty
Sorrowful
Sleepy
Smart
Eccentric
Confident
Betrayed
Angry
Confused
Frustrated
Tired
Talkative
Pitiful
Out of it
High
Hyper
Shy
Embarrassed
Drugged
Pain
Caring
Compassionate
Thirsty
Hungry
Drugged
In pain
Exhaustion
sleepy
Sick
Nervous
Hot
Cold
Restless
Internal/Mental/Expressive/Emotional/Psychological
Sad
Happy
Depressed
Sorry/apologetic
Worried
Anxious
Concerned
Surprised
Shocked
Mournful
Guilty
Scared
In doubt
Empty
Sorrowful
Sleepy
Smart
Eccentric
Confident
Betrayed
Angry
Confused
Frustrated
Tired
Talkative
Pitiful
Out of it
High
Hyper
Shy
Embarrassed
Drugged
Pain
Caring
Compassionate
Monday, 1 February 2010
Reason
Read through the article ‘Camel Wash’, Do you believe this article? Why? Why not?
No, I do not believe the article. I'm not very gullible, and with topics that don't concern religion, it takes evidence and proof to convince me. The article seems very biased, it is not written formally, and seems to take a sarcastic and playful tone. Aside from that, I don't consider the source reliable as I googled the writer "Ahmet Farouq" and there weren't any results except for one other article written by an "Ahmet Farouq" that had the word "alien" in the title. Overall, the source isn't believable and the article doesn't seem serious. A camel wash doesn't seem completely out of the question but the article doesn't talk about the event in a convincing way. Believing the article would make Yemen seem a bit weird to the outside world and also raise confusion about Al Qaeda.
Look at the second article ‘Loch Ness Monster’ and ask yourselves the same questions.
No, I do not believe this article. Firstly, there is no evidence except for an eye witness account who saw the loch from the "corner" of his eye. He admits himself that he did not see the creature clearly, so it could have been anything. He also didn't have a camera with him or any way of recording the incident. Another reason I don't believe it is from experience. I have thought to see things freom "the corner of my eye" before. But when I looked at the thing in question or focused on it, I realized that I hadn't seen what I thought I saw. The eye witness is Gary Campbell. The source isn't believable. The topic of the alleged Loch Ness Monster has been around for a while and the myth has been debunked. Overall, without evidence, I wouldn't believe the story, and even if 'a monster' was found, it would probably simply be classified as an animal species. What makes a monster a monster? The name is associated with a scary creature, but at the end of the day, any discovery of such a creature would make is classified as some sort of animal. Believing the article would make the person gullible, but not necessary alienated since there are many conspiracy theorists out there, and firm believers in the existence of the 'Loch Ness Monster'.
No, I do not believe the article. I'm not very gullible, and with topics that don't concern religion, it takes evidence and proof to convince me. The article seems very biased, it is not written formally, and seems to take a sarcastic and playful tone. Aside from that, I don't consider the source reliable as I googled the writer "Ahmet Farouq" and there weren't any results except for one other article written by an "Ahmet Farouq" that had the word "alien" in the title. Overall, the source isn't believable and the article doesn't seem serious. A camel wash doesn't seem completely out of the question but the article doesn't talk about the event in a convincing way. Believing the article would make Yemen seem a bit weird to the outside world and also raise confusion about Al Qaeda.
Look at the second article ‘Loch Ness Monster’ and ask yourselves the same questions.
No, I do not believe this article. Firstly, there is no evidence except for an eye witness account who saw the loch from the "corner" of his eye. He admits himself that he did not see the creature clearly, so it could have been anything. He also didn't have a camera with him or any way of recording the incident. Another reason I don't believe it is from experience. I have thought to see things freom "the corner of my eye" before. But when I looked at the thing in question or focused on it, I realized that I hadn't seen what I thought I saw. The eye witness is Gary Campbell. The source isn't believable. The topic of the alleged Loch Ness Monster has been around for a while and the myth has been debunked. Overall, without evidence, I wouldn't believe the story, and even if 'a monster' was found, it would probably simply be classified as an animal species. What makes a monster a monster? The name is associated with a scary creature, but at the end of the day, any discovery of such a creature would make is classified as some sort of animal. Believing the article would make the person gullible, but not necessary alienated since there are many conspiracy theorists out there, and firm believers in the existence of the 'Loch Ness Monster'.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Sunday, 3 January 2010
What is knowledge?
Truth
Truth is what differentiates knowledge from belief. If you know something then what you claim to know must be true. Truth is traditionally understood to be independent of what anyone happens to believe is true, and that simply believing that something is true does not make it true.
Think of an example to justify this last statement.
Just because one believes something to be true, does not make it a fact or a certainty. It simply means that they believe it. It something said is not true, it does not make the person who believes it a liar; they aren't lying because they truly believe it. A schizophrenic person, for example, could have hallucinations and see things that they believe are actually there, if they tell this to someone, it does not mean that they are lying as they believe it to be true, although it may not be true.
Belief
If you know something, then it must not only be true, but you must also believe it to be true. If you have no conscious awareness of something then you cannot say that you know it.
As technology develops, do you think it will make sense to say that a computer knows things?
No. I believe that a computer may hold a lot of information but not know anything as it is not a living being and has no 'beliefs'.
Rather then seeing knowledge as completely separate from belief, try to see them as both being part of the same continuum:
Impossible Unlikely Possible Probable Certain
Belief Knowledge
Where on the belief/knowledge continuum would you put the following:
Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492 - possible, most people believe it to be true, but I don't know that for a fact. It could be a conspiracy. It's not like I was there.
If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C - certain knowledge
Human beings are descended from apes - possible, it's debatable. I don't know enough about the matter to believe it or judge it.
Murder is wrong - probable belief
Aliens have visited earth at some time during history - unlikely
All metals expand when heated - certain knowledge. If a metal did not expand when heated, it would not be classified as a metal.
Human beings have an immortal soul - probable belief
It is possible to construct a square with the same area as a circle. - possible
Truth is what differentiates knowledge from belief. If you know something then what you claim to know must be true. Truth is traditionally understood to be independent of what anyone happens to believe is true, and that simply believing that something is true does not make it true.
Think of an example to justify this last statement.
Just because one believes something to be true, does not make it a fact or a certainty. It simply means that they believe it. It something said is not true, it does not make the person who believes it a liar; they aren't lying because they truly believe it. A schizophrenic person, for example, could have hallucinations and see things that they believe are actually there, if they tell this to someone, it does not mean that they are lying as they believe it to be true, although it may not be true.
Belief
If you know something, then it must not only be true, but you must also believe it to be true. If you have no conscious awareness of something then you cannot say that you know it.
As technology develops, do you think it will make sense to say that a computer knows things?
No. I believe that a computer may hold a lot of information but not know anything as it is not a living being and has no 'beliefs'.
Rather then seeing knowledge as completely separate from belief, try to see them as both being part of the same continuum:
Impossible Unlikely Possible Probable Certain
Belief Knowledge
Where on the belief/knowledge continuum would you put the following:
Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492 - possible, most people believe it to be true, but I don't know that for a fact. It could be a conspiracy. It's not like I was there.
If A is bigger than B and B is bigger than C, then A is bigger than C - certain knowledge
Human beings are descended from apes - possible, it's debatable. I don't know enough about the matter to believe it or judge it.
Murder is wrong - probable belief
Aliens have visited earth at some time during history - unlikely
All metals expand when heated - certain knowledge. If a metal did not expand when heated, it would not be classified as a metal.
Human beings have an immortal soul - probable belief
It is possible to construct a square with the same area as a circle. - possible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)