TOK Reflection

To what extent is the knowledge constructed in some areas of knowledge more reliable than the knowledge constructed in others?

To add on from the presentation we made as a group, we are to determine whether or not some areas of knowledge are more reliable than other areas of knowledge, the answer should an emphatic yes.


To start off, knowledge acquired in the fields of natural sciences is far more reliable than that collected in social sciences. An example of this would be physical laws in physics vs the social theories in Econ. Physical laws are rooted within physics due to the fact that they are a constant. gravity is a perfect example of physical laws. Gravity is a constant and it is constantly applied to every single one of us. It’ll not change because of human behavior, it is an unchanging constant. But on the other hand, social sciences like economics depends on these social theories that change based off of human behavior. A fact today may not be a fact 10 years from now. A great example of this is Keynesian economics. With Keynesian economics, the world was able to pull itself out of the great depression in the ’40s. But when another global recession loomed following the end of world war 2, his theory became ineffective because consumer patterns have changed.

The knowledge constructed in natural sciences is more solid because they are less about human subjectivity/interpretation. Physical laws of the universe do not change over time or in different cultures. While knowledge created within social sciences will always change as long as human behavior changes as well. 


Political Test Reflection

For this test, all of my results came back showing that I’m a liberal authoritarian but only slightly. This political stance might be because of the fact that Im raised in china, an communist state, while also being in the international school setting since third grade might’ve also influenced me. The authorian stance didn’t surprise me but I was surprised by the liberal stance. I’ve always considered myself a centrist, but slightly right-leaning but according to the chart I’m quite a bit liberal.


I am not quite sure how this result will show that I’m which type of a learner.

Reflection TOK

for the TOK presentation, I felt that our question; “should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds?” was extremely interesting for me and I felt that our group’s presentation as well as the object we chose firmly reflected this question.


To reflect,  I messed up my part in the presentation which was simply introducing our question but I felt that overall my group’s presentation did reflect the question well and tried to answer it as concise as possible.


I felt that although I played a large part in the selection of the topic as well as the question, I really didn’t do that much in the writing phase of the presentation besides some ideas that I pitched to emory, who did the majority of the writing. I felt that due to the fact that it was assigned over the holiday, itr was hard for us to orginize a time where all 4 of the group members were able to contribute and write the presentation together.


I hoped in futrue TOK presentations, I would contribute the same amount to the end product as well as the brainstorm phase.


for the TOK interview, I decided to interview my mother. Her responses were simple, anything that were taught in the classroom or written on the textbook books were true and that is the only knowledge you’ll need. Everything else is useless so don’t bother. the schools were more strict and focused on memorizations and formulas (math, science, and even writing for tests) while in our school, free-thinking is encouraged.


Overall, i felt like the debate was disappointing. Our group should’ve defiantly prepared more and had a more cohesive communication. It was not just a lack of focus but also a lack of effort. not just in preparation but also in defending our statement. Everyone on our team from the start believed that ignorance does not lead to long term bliss and at best will lead to short term bliss.


Overall, i felt that the over team won the debate but their arguments were flawed in the sense that they focused on the extremes of ignorance, eg asteriod hitting the earth. But overall with the lack of preparation, we did not mount a sufficient counter-argument.



Are there ways of knowing that are more likely to lead to truths?

Many different ways of knowing that can lead to truths: emotions, personal beliefs, memory, perception, politics, and more. Each way of knowing has its limitations and strengths that guide an individual to both personal and concrete truths. In my opinion, there are ways of knowing that are more likely to lead to truths, but they differ between personal and concrete truths.


Personal truth is what an individual believes to be true. Personal truths are unique and based on life experiences.  Because it is based on personal experiences, ways of knowing such as beliefs, opinion, language, religion, and more, are much more likely to create a personal truth.  These personal truths are ever-present and very influential to an individual.  For example, many people around the world believe in a god or gods.  Their belief in god influences their daily actions, some to an extreme degree both good and bad.   Since they believe in god(s), even if there is scientific evidence to suggest there is no god, many will still believe in a deity.  Although some personal truths are difficult to alter, one’s truth can be easily influenced by personal experiences.  In the pursuit of personal truth, ways of knowing such as opinions, language, religion, and more are highly likely to lead to truths.


A concrete truth is a truth that is scientifically proven.  In order to get to a concrete truth, valid logic and rationale must be accepted.  Since personal truths are driven by life experiences, every individual has different life experiences; thus, different truths.  On the other hand, concrete truths are generally the same for everyone in that the conclusion logically follows.  Because logic and reason are pretty much universal when there is enough evidence to support the concrete truth, more and more people will believe in it. Although personal truths can sometimes overshadow a concrete truth, it is rare and does not affect the overall effectiveness of reason and logic in the pursuit of concrete truths. For example, the theory of gravity proposed by Sir Isaac Newton used logic and reasoning to explain why things fall down.  That is why it is still considered to be a concrete truth to this day.  Thus, all laws of physics are concrete truths and will remain so until the end.  The laws are built on the principles of logic and reasoning. In the pursuit of concrete truths, ways of knowing such as logic and reason are more likely to lead to truths.


To conclude, yes there are ways of knowing that are more likely than others to lead to truths. For personal truths, ways of knowing such as beliefs, opinion, language, religion, and more are more likely to lead to truths. While for concrete truths, ways of knowing like reasoning and logic are more likely to lead to truths.

What do you know for sure, and how do you know it? 

In my opinion, the answer to both of these questions lies with the general public. We know something for sure because other people have told us so, and we know this because so many people have brought it up. I know for a fact that the earth is round because others that I respect told me so, and I know this because I was told this in school from a young age. I did not doubt the validity of this statement since everyone around me has told me this as a fact. This question made me think about experiments I’ve seen on the internet where individuals would do things in order to follow the group, like standing up on a beep. And just like the individual in the experiment, people will take certain statements as facts when people around them express that thought enough times. And they will be certain of it when people that they trust expresses the same ideas.

Blog Post Four

This is my final design. The hydroelectric generator works by turning kinetic energy from the water rotating the motor to electrical energy. The generator will be attached to an open faucet, preferably ones that are high pressure, and produces electricity. The water will still exit the other side of the tube which will allow the user to still be able to use the water. The environmental benefits of this generator are quite significant since it allows the user to recycle wastewater and turn it into electrical energy. One improvement I may add in future models is to increase it’s visual and make it more ornamental. To show that my design works, there is a video attached at the bottom of this blog.



Blog post number three


My prototype has been going extremely well. Through testing, I have concluded that my prototype is working quite well since it completed the objective of producing electricity. For the idea of this prototype, I was inspired by two separate videos from the internet, one which showed an open style generator, one had it in a tank. To make the idea my own, I made a generator in a tube. T prove my original theory, I’ve tested the generator in the video link below. After the test, I can conclude that the generator works but it only produced minimum electricity. To gather feedbacks, I asked several classmates and a teacher. The feedback I received was quite positive with most people saying that my design works. The question about the low electricity output, the teacher thinks it was caused by low-pressure water in the faucet.


IMG_0275 2


Blogs Entry Number Two

For my project, I’m proposing a hydroelectric generator in a tube attaching to a running tap to create electrical energy from motion to power a light bulb.  the generator will be put in a plastic tube attached to another tube which will attach to the running tap. the tube will be 3x3x4 and will be plastic. the generator will be attached to a  similar tube that will be 5x5x10. the tube and the generator will be connected by hot glue while it’ll connect to the tap with duct tape.

Wednesday: Start to assemble the project by collecting and measuring the materials

Monday: start to build the project and start the first test for the prototype one.

Tuesday:  Revise on prototype one and test prototype two. Revise prototype two if needed.

Thursday: finish off the project by completing the project. Come here after school if needed.