The Sciences and Personal Knowledge

            The impact natural sciences have had on me, I think, is mostly evident in the way I think of the world and its problems and solutions. The way science approaches the unknown, by performing experiments and observing the results, and recording the exact procedure so that there can be oversight and repeatable results; the scientific method, is appealing to me personally. In my own life, I try to approach issues as objectively as possible, even political issues. In terms of scientific discovery, personally I have no issue with the scientific method, and am quite happy with it as a result. In a TOK context, the scientific method of course is reliant on our physical senses, and perceiving things as human beings, which shapes the way we do and understand science. We create models to understand things unobservable to the unaided human eye, such as the model of an atom. The issues that the observation method brings up, such as “The Observer Effect” and “Experimental Bias”, while valid points, related to the flaws of observation as a method itself, the question I’d ask in response is; “What is the practical alternative to the scientific method.

As for other areas of life, as I’ve mentioned before, I find that the scientific method/ observation is a good tool for a lot of areas of life unrelated to science. I think that even politics could use the scientific method, or at least use more logic, in that solutions to problems should take into consider the best way to solve a problem, as well as keeping the public happy. Yes, I do acknowledge that science, because it is undertaken by us humans can never be truly objective, but I think because of the transparent, verifiable, and observable manner in which scientific research is conducted, makes it a lot more transparent than a lot, if not most, other methods.

Finally, dealing with the topic of technology, there is a lot technology has done in terms of personal knowledge, not just for me personally. Because the sciences nowadays deal with things unobservable to the naked eye, scientists are dependent on technology, in order to carry out their experiments and record their observations. For me personally, the internet is a major example of a ‘game changer’ in the way personal knowledge is gained. We now have almost all of the collective knowledge of the world at our finger tips. I think the internet has allowed me and millions, if not billions, of people to access knowledge that would’ve been a lot more difficult to find, at a lower price (websites are free, usually, but books are not). I feel that the internet will enable people determined enough to succeed in science (as in people in, say, high school that are interested in science), to educate themselves and aid in their potential discoveries/scientific theories in the future. Science is dependent on the work of those who came before, as Isaac Newton said; “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” The internet has given the average person, and also aspiring scientists, easier access to the work of the giants that came before them. However, it should be noted that the validity of sources on the internet may not be as strong as it is in other forms of media.

To conclude, the continued use of the scientific method and the spread of the internet helps spread scientific knowledge, and may end up accelerating our rate of discovery. 

The Language of Science

               The two texts detail how metaphors are used in science, to either the benefit or disservice of it. Phillip Bail claims in his article that imagery can change the way science or a concept is viewed by people, and gives the example of crime and metaphor to emphasise his point. In the same article Bail argues that the famed author Richard Dawkins’ use of the term ‘selfish gene’ supported the idea of “a Darwinian world that is uncaring to the point of being positively nasty”, and states that this idea may have caused increased resistance/dislike of science. However, Bail does acknowledge that metaphors may be needed to teach science and make it less boring to people, however, at the same time he cautions against taking metaphor at its face value, and looking at the scientific knowledge and meaning behind it.

               With Caleb Scharf’s article, his argument can be described as arguing that the use of metaphor is essential in science. He argues that metaphors help people, even scientists, stay ‘attached’ to the knowledge being discussed, and can give almost ‘unpreceptable’ knowledge, such as quantum physics, or black holes, a grounding in our familiar reality. Scharf argues that if the use of metaphor helps someone’s understanding of a topic, why should it be condemned? Metaphor in science, to this author, is about communicating knowledge, and has, in his words, ‘noble intent’.

               The factors that seem to influence the language choices in science, seems to be mostly related to communication. Literary devices such as metaphors and similes are used to invoke the reader’s imagination, which is supposed to aid in their understanding of an issue. However, as Phillip Bail pointed out in his article, perhaps the metaphor can ‘overtake’ the original knowledge and cause it to be almost exclusively viewed through the lens of the metaphor rather than the knowledge itself. To communicate scientific knowledge in an understandable and possibly more effective manner (depending on the audience), metaphors and other literary devices are necessary (to those sharing Phillip Bail’s viewpoint, it would be more aptly described as a ‘necessary evil’). In the end, we are left with a question of: ‘What do we value more; extreme precision or more understandable communication?’ 

To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public?

Gene editing

            CRISPR-Cas9 is a new technology allowing faster, cheaper, and more accurate than previous gene editing technologies. The main ethical issue present here, however, is the idea of gene editing. Like most technologies, there it can be used for purposes considered to be ethical by society or unethical purposes. Once this technology is sufficiently advanced, perhaps inherited disorders or increased tendency to get cancer (for example) could be avoided. However, others may argue that editing our genetics is a bit like playing God and is unnatural. Another argument for its unethical nature is that it could enable ‘designer babies’ which could promote a sort of mono-race or ideal human and eventually cause other ethnic groups to be replaced by these designer babies. However, this does not deal with the question of knowledge openness to the public.

            It can be inferred from history and current events that some knowledge should not be made public, for the sake of public safety and order. Most countries do not have the capabilities of making a nuclear bomb, due to agreements made to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, which would include the knowledge of how to make them. With nuclear weapons, the world can be plunged into nuclear winter. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the higher the risk a nuclear weapon would be used. So, it is only logical that people wanting to keep the human world intact would want to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and knowledge to make them. Gene editing, however, is a bit of a different story. Unlike nuclear weapons, it is not a tool of destruction, but rather a tool of shaping a creation. With gene editing, by making it available to the public, perhaps research could be accelerated by increased usage of gene editing, and people who would’ve normally received inherited genetic disorders would be able to have a better quality of life (if gene editing is used to make sure they avoid receiving the genetic disorder) or even save lives. It can be argued that there is an ethical duty to make this technology and knowledge open to the public if it will save lives. Applying this situation to an in general perspective of scientific knowledge, it can be said that overall, scientific knowledge should be open to the public, to further advance research, or, in applicable cases, to save lives.

            However, as stated earlier, new technology can increase our capability to do things considered unethical as well as ethical things. Sure, with CRISPR and gene editing in general, there is a possibility of saving and improving many potential lives. But, perhaps, if that knowledge was left open to the public, unethical (according to scientific community consensus) acts could be done with it. Instead of removing diseases and disorders, an unethical scientist could increase the chance of the child receiving inherited disease and disorders, for example. If we want to get outlandish, we could even theorise on the possibility that the technology could be used to change humanity as a species and remove its diversity, by enabling the creation of ‘ideal’ human beings, with certain characteristics being preferred over others. Would these ‘ideal’ or ‘designer’ babies result in a sort of ‘cleansing’ of undesired traits? If we use historical knowledge, we can see that numerous people were in favour of using eugenics to remove undesirable traits from people’s genes. The Nazis, for example, sterilised and murdered disabled people and others deemed ‘undesirable’ to them. Would, and could, gene editing be used as well for similar purposes?

            Making scientific knowledge open to the public, must be assessed on an individual basis, as certain ethical dilemmas arise from different technologies. Scientific knowledge can be described as a ‘double-edged sword’ in these cases. Going back to the earlier example of nuclear technology, while we got the technology that could create electric power in a cleaner manner than other technologies, we also got the ability to create destruction of immense scale. The implications and possibilities of particular scientific knowledge should be carefully considered before opening it to the public.   

Source (Learn more about CRISPR here):

http://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-crispr-cas9

Most legal system trials are based on adversarial argumentation (two lawyers arguing against each other). Is this the best way to determine someone’s innocence?

There are numerous positives with adversarial argumentation. By each side being guaranteed legal representation, it makes sure that people have access to a better understanding of the legal system (most people aren’t lawyers). By having two sides present proof, this allows the judge and jury (if a jury is present) to evaluate both sides, ideally impartially, and make a verdict from there. This system is standard practice in countries such as the US.

            However, in practice, this can often unfairly benefit those with wealth, as they have access to better, and more dedicated legal representation (in the U.S. for example, in some states, public defenders are only given minutes per case, due to the overflow of cases). Also, with a jury and in some cases a judge, while ideally, they are supposed to be impartial, they can sometimes fall into prejudices against people, and that can influence their verdict. For example, two suspects are presented for a mugging: a married mother, and a single male. Just from that information, who do you think committed the crime? While statistically, perhaps the single male is more likely to have committed the crime, the legal system evaluates on a case by case basis, in reference to the law, making this point less relevant. If the jury and judge have these preconceptions about the case, they may fall into ‘confirmation bias’, and see evidence against the male where there isn’t any (i.e. “we found a knife in his house” but the knife is just a multi-tool one or one for hunting – the guy is a hunter). In addition, the prosecution investigating could’ve had that same bias, and searched for evidence more actively against the guy.

            Furthermore, a lot of the system depends on the qualifications of the people involved. An incompetent prosecution or police force can miss evidence that would’ve been found by better qualified personnel, which would influence the verdict. Also, if a person has the unfortunate luck to receive a bad lawyer, that can also influence the verdict, if the lawyer doesn’t argue their position well. In addition, if the judge is up for re-election (in places that have elected judges), they might want to appear ‘tough on crime’ and decide to punish criminals more harshly than they normally would, or be nicer to donors (to their re-election campaign).

            Overall, while adversarial argumentation works best in ideal conditions (both sides have similarly qualified personnel, judge and jury are impartial, with no prejudices), it seems to work fine in real life conditions, in regards to determining a person’s innocence. Because the burden of proof lies on the accuser, it is harder for innocent people to be convicted (however, this still happens on occasion). Also, due to the accessibility of the legal system for the average person, i.e. jury, and right to legal representation, it is a bit more equalised. Like all legal systems, it has its difficulties, but what system is better than this? This system is more inclusive of the average person, due to the aid they receive from legal representation, and the burden of proof lying on the accuser, making it less easy for the government or other groups with massive resources to convict someone who has done something they didn’t like. In a way, it is the most ‘democratic’/equal system, due to the two lawyers from two differing sides format.

Emotions and Feelings Questions

Can feelings have a rational basis? Would it be better or worse could be justified? Are emotions and feelings essential? Is 'emotional intelligence' an oxymoron?

Although there is officially no right or wrong answer to this question, I personally believe that feelings do have a rational basis. I believe that emotions and feelings are essential to society and humanity as a whole. Without feelings such as love, families would be much more separate (that is if their were even able to form), and therefore more vulnerable. Feelings of guilt prevent us from doing damaging things to society, such as murder. As we humans are a social species, having mechanisms that bring us together and create at least some form of trust between us is very important for our survival. Emotions such as fear serve an evolutionary basis as well, fear keeps us from getting into unnecessary danger and getting ourselves injured or killed, for example. I believe that emotions and feelings have a rational basis, simply because we need them to survive as a species. As for emotional intelligence, I think that it is not an oxymoron, and is actually quite an important skill to have, as we are a social species, so it is a good thing to be able to identify emotions and feelings in others and to be able to better understand and communicate with them.

Can there be 'correct' or 'appropriate' emotional responses? Is it 'correct to be horrified by accounts of torture?

In my opinion it depends on the situation. To me, if I had to make a criteria for a 'correct' or 'appropriate' emotional response, I would start looking at the logical evolutionary basis of it. To me, a fear of the dark, is a perfectly rational and correct thing, even when most of the time the fears come to naught, because a fear of the dark has a basis in evolution (to protect from predators at night). For example, to have feelings of grief at the death of a loved one, is a 'correct' and 'appropriate' response due to humans being a social species and bonding to one another. If people felt nothing about their close friends and family dying, it would result in a more 'psychopathic' species, where people regularly betray one another and have conflict, as they wouldn't have attachment or the grief that comes with it, and therefore they couldn't care less about others. Now you may be asking, what if you could have the bond between individuals without the grief at loss of it. My argument is, is that with a genuine bond, it hurts to lose that bond, because you value that person. Moving on to the the 'torture question', I think it is a bit of a gray area. I personally abhor it, and see it as an awful practice, directly conflicting with my perhaps more liberal point of view. My view on torture is not a universal view, as many people are fine with torture. Even though torture isn't considered a necessary interrogation method by most people, there is a sort of appeal to the anger emotion in us, that wants us to make our enemies suffer for whatever crime they have committed. The death penalty also shares this factor. In my values, torture is a great evil, no matter what your end goal is, but I recognize that there is no sort of universal value on torture. However, I think that most people in the world would dislike it, and almost no one, if given the opportunity, would carry out this act, unless in extreme distress such as grief combined with anger.

Is emotion an essential ingredient of scientific or artistic knowledge? Can there be creativity without emotion?

I believe that emotion is a major driver in the motivation to explore scientific and artistic knowledge, and is a catalyst for creativity. In science, we want to find out more about our world. Questions such as, 'how did the universe get from the beginning to now?' originate from our curiosity to learn, our wish to understand and perhaps better control the world around us. In art, artists express the world through their eyes and mind, providing their own unique perspective. Without emotion, art would be missing a piece of itself, part of what makes individual artists so different and unique from another. As for creativity, I think emotion, while not necessarily being part of it itself, is at least a driver in it. When Apple uses its creativity to make a new iPhone, the emotions/feelings that drive the people behind it could be fear (of losing revenue and/or their jobs), the desire to create something new that people want (if the new iPhone is successful, this can turn into joy), and want (they desire money, so they can get things that their family needs or wants, or get things that they themselves want, or they desire recognition/fame of their technical skill that took part in making the product). In short, yes, I do think that emotion is an essential part of all of these ideas. 

Does Absolute Certainty Exist?

In my opinion, it really depends on what you regard as 'absolute certainty'. For example, someone could tell you that they are absolutely certain that their religion and their god or gods are absolutely real. However, such a statement is near impossible to prove, as often, the only evidence we have the writings and accounts of people who claim a certain event to happen. This is why all religions have a faith aspect to them; a worshiper of a particular religion chooses to have faith that their god/s and their religion is real. Their faith gives them absolute certainty that their beliefs are right. Now, I'm not saying that all religious people are absolutely certain that their religion is right, but that there are at least some people with absolute faith and certainty in their religion. I guess at the core of it is this question: Does absolute faith mean absolute certainty? I think an answer to this question could be, in my opinion, that absolute certainty can give way to absolute faith and vice-versa. Lets look at maths for instance. Now, all of us can and will say that 1+1 is 2. We can visualize it, we can prove it practically ourselves, you name it. However, once you get to very advanced maths, it can be hard to visualize and understand. You might not have a clue on how this formula and so on even works. But we place faith in those who know the formulas, know how to solve them, and trust them to be right. We hear that proof has been found, but most people would not bother to actually check the proof themselves, because they're either uninterested or don't have the necessary skills to check it themselves. So the faith is put on mathematicians as we trust their expertise and have near absolute faith in their ability to be right. If you regard absolute certainty as a fact backed up by evidence proving it to be real without a shadow of a doubt, than I think that sciences (the non-social sciences, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry) and Maths can fit that category. Unlike faith and philosophy, science is mostly a subject of absolutes. An apple falls to the ground because of gravity. That is something of absolute certainty. There is an immeasurable amount of proof that gravity is in fact real. Science and maths are like the blueprints of the universe: it tells us how it all works and provides the evidence for us to prove it ourselves. Technically science and maths don't really rely on faith at all. As said before, it requires evidence, and the ability to be corroborated by others. However, us, non-scientists and non-mathematicians have placed a certain degree of faith that the evidence is there despite not having the knowledge or ability to prove it themselves (they put their faith/trust in actual mathematicians and scientists and mostly believe what they have to say). I believe that what cannot be proven by science or math, we cannot have absolute certainty of. But a monk or an other type of person that is very religious may believe their religion to be absolutely certain due to their absolute faith. Going back to my original point, it really depends on your definition.
Even if there was no absolute certainty, there's no need to stress your mind doubting everything. Even if your brain is in some Matrix-style vat and this entire world is lie, is there really a point in doubting everything? If you have spent your whole life in a simulation and not even a second outside of it, than who's to say that you're living in a false world? It may be a computer simulation, but its the world you've always known, and its the world that is real to you. If you think too much about the nature of the world, it is my opinion that you may take yourself into a dark abyss that can be very hard to crawl out of. And what would the benefit be to you? You probably would not make any sort of material gains unless you wrote a book or something that millions of people bought, on your thoughts. It is often easier and sometimes happier for us to see things with a simpler perspective. However, since I believe that we can be absolutely certain about things that can be proven and observed, this is not really an issue with me, to be honest.
I believe that either something is an absolute certainty or it is not. There isn't really a middle ground to me, just two separate categories. Absolute certainties are things that can be proven with facts and evidence, and can be observed by others. There can things that are in debate on whether or not the evidence and/or theory is correct, which calls the absolute certainty of the theory into question, which I guess puts it into a bit of a middle ground, but I like to think of it as more limbo than middle ground as the answer is there somewhere, that tells us if its absolutely certain or not,we just don't know it yet.
Those are my thoughts on absolute certainty. 

First TOK Post

How do we know what is real and certain? Do we know what is real just because it has been told to us numerous times with little to know alternative opinion? These are questions that I believe TOK asks quite a lot (don't take my word for it, I've only had two TOK lessons so far). Maps, explore a part of our world that we essentially view as real. We look at maps as if they are an absolute truth even though, deep down, we may know that with maps there is no real 'correct' perspective. But to most people, Europe is north of Africa, and Australia is almost as south as you can get. But what justification is there for the mp being this way? The answer is pretty much none. The main reason we use the standard world map is mainly because people are used to the world map in its current form, the Mercator Projection. Think about it, doesn't a map that looks like this look wrong?:

If you can get so many different perspectives from an object most consider to be unimportant in their lives, imagine the different perspectives you can get from something that affects people even more. Actually, you don't even have to use your imagination, just look at politics and/or religion. Even looking at just one religion or ideology, one can see there are many differing and even contradicting sects within it. Perspectives also change with time. For example, what exactly is a necessity? If you asked a person two hundred years ago that question, their definition would almost certainly be different to yours. Things like the Internet, cars, or even democracy would almost certainly not be considered as such by that person. But today, since we (at least in countries like the U.S.), have gotten use to a society with all these aspects included, we couldn't survive without them! For most people in countries like the U.S. (low pop. density and less developed public transport system) cars are a necessity to be able to even work. The same goes for the internet (how would you apply for a job, communicate with overseas workers quickly and efficiently, etc.) This shows that perspective means a lot. 

This is also very relevant in IB subjects and subjects in general, as even with science, when one is formulating a hypothesis, for example, one usually has a certain perspective. When a scientist writes a hypothesis, the scientist suspects that this will be backed up by the evidence they find. Now, the scientist doesn't know for sure, that this is the result that they would get, but they use their reasoning, which is based on their past leanings and whatever evidence pertaining to that subject they may have found. It is a perspective/assumption until proven fact. 

However, as humans, we must make our own maps, so that we may navigate the world with greater ease. We make the north up and the south down, because it doesn't make sense to change our perspective/our way of viewing things just because we can. We strive to make our lives better, and these assumptions/perspectives, and these maps, help us make life easier and more efficient for us.