Math Blog Post

Math, is a very interesting area of knowledge. It is rather distinct from all the other AOKs, in that it is almost codified logic, and is an absolute, with little to no room for debate in it. Even the natural sciences, subjects whose theories we in society regard as fact most of the time and are perhaps the closest AOK to mathematics, still have debate and conflict over what is true about our world, despite their rigorous testing of the scientific theories involved, and the utilisation of inductive and deductive reasoning. To put it simply, while in physics, there may be debate over ‘how will the universe end’, for instance, in math, no one disputes that 2+2 = 4, for instance. It is as if math is ‘raw’, ‘pure’, logic, the Platonist view suggests that Math is something that fundamentally exists in our world, rather than being a human construction. With science as well, there is an observable change in our thinking, the theories we have, and so on. We know that disease isn’t caused by ‘bad air’ or that the planets orbit the Sun, rather orbiting Earth, as was believed until the renaissance period. However, with math, we have ancient figures, like Pythagoras, who you’d know from math class for his famous Pythagoras theorem, or Eratosthenes, who calculated the circumference of the Earth within 10% of its actual circumference, without even leaving Egypt, where he lived. In real-life, outside the so-called ‘TOK-world’, if you will, math is used in so many diverse situations. Outside of academia, math is not done for the sake of doing math, but rather to aid in other areas of knowledge, such as economics and finance, physics, even art – renaissance art for instance employs mathematics, specifically geometry, in order to have realistic perspectives and proportions in its art. As an area of knowledge, in real life, math is used in conjunction with other areas of knowledge to perhaps the largest extent out of the others. To illustrate this effectively, look at the image below:

These are the major areas of knowledge, and practically all of them could be said to use math. Some people have even attempted to use math as proof of the existence of a higher power, for instance (thus religious knowledge, perhaps). The majority of the time, as said earlier, math is used as a tool for these subjects, either to create models or prove theories or to exercise concepts in the subject. Math by itself does not really factor in to our lives. It is only when used by another AOK, for the reasons described that it becomes truly relevant, but it never forms the main part of a concept, mainly acting as the base of it. Think of a building, while math may be the foundation of it, and the building is dependent on it, the foundation wouldn’t be used without a building to make. It is perhaps a weird metaphor, but think about how math is used when reading it. Math truly is a unique AOK.

RLS: 13 Reasons Why

13 Reasons Why article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/08/13-reasons-why-demonstrates-cultures-power/535518/

Second-order Knowledge Claims:

1.     That people’s thoughts can be accurately known by what they google (the article speculates that the show causes more people to consider suicide due to the rise in searches for ‘how to kill yourself’ for example).

2.     People are inspired and/or influenced in major life decisions (in this case, suicide) by what they observe in media (the suicide scene in 13 Reasons Why).

3.     Graphical depictions of an action affect humans’ psychology more than implied/non-graphical depictions.

Knowledge Question: To what extent is data gathered from search engines on particular keywords an accurate reflection of what people are considering as valid actions?

            Search engines are something we use every day, for the most mundane things, like ‘how many m&ms are in a 250-gram bag of m&ms?’, to the most urgent things, like ‘is my cough actually cancer’. However, how accurate is our search history at determining what kind of person are we? On one hand, we could argue that what we search can be a reflection of our self; revealing the media we consume, our background, our knowledge, etc., by speculating what prompted us to search in the first place. Relating this to 13 Reasons Why, it is possible that a depressed teenager may view the show, and be inspired and start searching up methods of suicide. However, at the same time, another person may simply have a curiosity in the subject (a bit morbid – but not unprecedented). With this real-life situation, both answers to this question can be argued for; the show brought the topic of suicide into discussion, whether that inspires people to take action is another story and question, however, it brings the topic to the viewers mind. But there is another aspect to consider with this RLS: Can it be said, with certainty, that the rise in searches related to suicide were a direct result of 13 Reasons Why? Yes, the study did look at a time period in which they avoided the death of Aaron Hernandez, a famous American-Football player, for example, to try and minimise the variables, but still; can a study be considered accurate using such uncontrolled methodology? There are a lot of interesting ‘TOK concepts’ that this real life situation raises, and is a good one for ‘exploring the TOK world.’

IB Ethics and Psychology

            Perhaps it could said that we consider the potential costs and benefits of our actions (in science). Unlike, say medicine, psychology doesn’t have that same urgency that the field of medicine has, for example, finding the cure to a dangerous disease that is rapidly spreading from country to country. Psychology is perhaps more motivated by the idea of discovery, because as humans, we want to know why we and other people, choose to do the things we do. Of course, psychology does have numerous practical applications, but as I said, millions of people won’t suddenly die if certain discoveries aren’t made. As such, psychology experiments aren’t really a matter of life of death, and so there is little motivation to do ethically dubious experiments. To know more about us, and how our personalities work and more is interesting, and it wouldn’t be in the spirit of science to not pursue it, but because of the lack of urgency, we are able to place the balance of interests a lot more in favour of the experimental subject, as to us, the potential benefits and discoveries aren’t worth ‘playing’ with human lives.

            Some experiments require the subject to not have knowledge of it, as subjects can act differently if they know they are being observed, especially on experiments to do with ethical or taboo issues.

            In my personal opinion, I think that IB ethical guidelines for psychology are adequate for the protection of subjects. Considering the fact that the IB is a highschool diploma programme, it’s not like they are limiting future psychology research with the rules either. Also, the IB ethical guidelines are quite reasonable, making sure that the experiment is controlled (person doing experiment must be fit of mind) and making sure the subject does not get hurt, mentally or physically.

Climate Change: Competing Views

Climate change is an issue that is gaining more and more public attention, due to the implications that it brings. However, there are two contrasting sides, one stating that climate change is real and manmade, while the other side states that either it is not happening, or it is not manmade, caused by nature. This falls into the natural sciences area of knowledge, with inductive and deductive reasoning being employed. It should be noted that a majority of scientists and scientific institutions believe (after looking at all the evidence they have found) climate change is real and it is caused by greenhouse gasses from human activity. However, utilising the scientific method to uncover evidence and information on climate change has its own difficulties. Because the weather is constantly changing, and there are so many different factors and variables that effect it, it is hard to get repeatable results, since it is not laboratory conditions. Instead scientists can employ what can be described as a form of historical knowledge, based in science, by looking for markers of past climate on Earth. For example, scientists use ice cores from glaciers to study global climate as it happened millions of years ago, up to now. Climate change deniers claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are too little to actually make a difference, and any climate change is actually being caused by natural fluctuations, such as those from the Sun’s heat and ocean currents. This conflict highlight a potential flaw in the scientific method, in that it is hard to undisputedly measure nature, as there are so many uncontrolled variables involved. Improvements in measuring technology could in the future allow for a more perfect utilisation of the scientific method, with less uncertainty. As of now, however, climate change, in terms of doing research and measurements, poses some difficulties to the Sciences area of knowledge, and this the climate change deniers use to the benefit of their own viewpoint on the issue.

            Emotions as a WOK (way of knowing) could also be considered a factor involved in this issue, especially on the political side of it. This is such an important issue, since the long-term effects will affect everyone due to things such as rising sea level and ‘extremification’ of the weather (natural disasters and more ‘once-in-a-life-time’ events happen), that it has become a major issue politically. As such, greater emphasis has been placed on emotion, due to politics often appealing to the emotions of voters. ‘Green’ people and others concerned with the environment, see the potential chaos and destruction Climate Change could cause (i.e. mass extinction of various species, many world cities underwater, climate refugees) and have a sense of urgency in making sure it doesn’t happen. Now, it should be noted that emotion as a way of knowing does not comment on whether or not things are rational, so just because ‘green’ people have an emotional ‘push’ to prevent this problem doesn’t mean it is or isn’t a good or rational thing to do. For climate change deniers there is also an emotional-based appeal. If you are an IB Language and Literature student, this word will be familiar: ‘Nostalgia’. Now, what does nostalgia have to do with climate change denial? Well, part of TOK is figuring out the reasoning for why we do certain things, and I think that this is one of the reasons involved with climate change denial, at least in members of the general public. As was seen in the most recent US elections, there are many jobs that would go away as a result of being environmentally friendly, especially coal mining, as an example. Some towns entirely revolve around the local mine and would pretty much be nothing without that industry. To suggest policies that damage/destroy certain industries is akin to some people to destroying their way of life; a path that may have been passed down from generation to generation, and is almost like a family heirloom to them. There’s a lot at stake for the people this applies to. That’s not to say it is the only reason or even the main reason for climate change, but I think it could be a possible one.

            Overall, there are a lot of WOKs and AOKs involved in this issue, and despite the scientific consensus on it, there is still a debate on the issue, which can attributed to multiple different reasonings.

http://climatechange.procon.org/

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