To what extent is the knowledge constructed in some areas of knowledge more reliable than the knowledge constructed in others?
The reliability of knowledge constructed in different areas depends on the criterion based on the specific area. People usually argue that knowledge constructed in areas such as math or science is more reliable than knowledge constructed in other areas such as are or history. They believe that reliable knowledge should be constructed based on logical reasoning with a definite answer and supporting evidence. In their point of view, knowledge constructed in other areas such as beauty of music, art, or history that have been changing over time has no permanence, resulting in negligible reliability. However, from an art experts’ point of view, all the theories, equations, prooves might seem to be meaningless and unreliable as those knowledge does not include something that can not be calculated and defined clearly. For the experts of art, only the calculation for the arrangement of objects in artwork to define the “masterpiece” of art will not be accepted by the artists. In history, without considering the emotion of people, defining the winner of the wars only based on the number of casualties won’t make sense for historians at all.
Overall, the difference in reliability of knowledge consturceted in different areas does exist. However, the reliability of the knowledge can vary due to the area that the knowledge will be evaluated or utilized.
During the first semester, we considered knowledge questions related to “Knowledge and the Knower” and “Knowledge and Technology.” Looking back, what learning engagements stand out to you the most and why?
The most inspiring moment that stood out to me the interview in the Netflix documentary. The question that one of them made, “there was nobody who tries to make the applications less addictive” lead me to be interested on these two topics “Knowledge and the Knower”, and “Knowledge and Technology” by relating this idea to form of economy(capitalist). Not just considering the topics as TOK limited topics, expanding my thoughts about these topics created more interest and made TOK one of my favorite subjects.
In what ways, if any, has your perspective shifted as a result of your participation in this course so far?
Before this course, I thought in the society of capitalism based on the idea of the free market, the government trying to regulate the companies development in technology were restricting the development on whole society. After the course, I believe that we should hold people responsible for the applications of technologies they create. The regulation of government is one way to force them to be responsible.
Looking ahead to the exhibition requirement, what do you want to keep in mind?
Rather than choosing an unfamiliar object that relates to the topic but not to me, I am seeking objects in my daily life that are also relative to the topic.
Thinking back on the writing you have done so far in the course, what can you do to continue to hone your skills?
I think I have to practice expressing all the thoughts I have to others, including more specific steps that I made to deduct the resolution. Also, I have to be more technical in fully expressing my idea in a limited word count.
What tools did your parents use when they were going to school to learn and/or produce knowledge?
When my parents were young, both were not able to only focus on learning and producing knowledge due to poverty. Even the period they lived was the period where new technologies were being generalized; they could not have access to those tools such as phone, internet, tv, or even radio. The only tool that was used in the school was a blackboard with chalk. When they become university student, they still did not have any access to technologies as a private tool for learning but was able to utilize the computer attached in University libraries which helped students to find the location of the book they want to find.
What were their experiences in school like, and how do they compare with your own?
Education was based on memorizing the textbook. Nothing more than a repetition of memorizing the textbook was required except math (the reason why math is such a wonderful tool to find the truth, math is impossible to solve by memorization). Students could not make an argument against the wrong information that teachers teach because the only way to obtain knowledge was through textbooks and teachers. My parents said our education condition is much better than theirs according to the difference in property and development in technology. We can now utilize the “internet” in every single moment in our life to obtain any kind of knowledge we need.
Compared to the learning condition of my parents’ childhood, I am under an unbelievably higher quality of learning condition due to technology development. However, my parents and I both agreed that the amount and difficulty of the knowledge that students have to learn became exponentially greater than before. The main reason that caused the dynamic increase is that the invention of the internet, which is considered as an ocean of knowledge, requires a higher quality of education to obtain tremendously large and diverse information.
Ignorance is bliss
Pro: Speaker 1 came up with the idea that ignorance is bliss as responsibility does not exist for ignorant people. Using the movie ‘Matrix’ as an example, she argued that knowing the truth knowing requires the responsibility to use it. Giving the case of “Don’t know the name of the actor but the guy who said ignorance is bliss as the steak is delicious,” she claimed that living the life with knowledge might be a pain and curse for someone satisfied with the current state. Speaker 2 came up with the idea that ignorance is bliss as ignorance helps individuals satisfy with current state and enjoy their lives. She cited the TV show in China as an example where poor kids experience rich kids’ lives for two weeks, and rich kids experience the life of poor kids. She argued that most poor kids, after experiencing rich kids’ lives, lost their satisfaction with current life, and became enervate. From this example, she argued that ignorance is a bliss for an individual to satisfy what they already have.
Con: Speaker 1 strongly argued that ignorance is just a façade that our brain made. Using the Russo-Japanese War, where ignorance acted as an essential problem that caused Russia’s defeat, he claimed that ignorance could cause even worse problems by ignoring the current state’s small problems. Speaker 2 build up the idea of classifying the ignorance into ‘absolute ignorance’ and ‘partial ignorance,’ arguing that full satisfaction can never exist under the state of partial ignorance.
Which side won?
In the debate, I think the pro-side of the debate won. I thought the pro-side won the debate because the con-side went out of the topic by classifying the level of ignorance. Comparing to the pro-side, con-side built up more logical insistence based on diverse supporting evidence. However, during the debate con-side tried to classify the ignorance of absolute ignorance and partial ignorance. By classifying the ignorance to partial ignorance, they argued that staying in a state of partial ignorance, where individuals do recognize that there is something more as a truth or reality but does not really realize what something missing is, will never allow them to be happy. By specifying the state of ignorance, con-side succeeded in persuading that staying under the state of partial ignorance is not bliss but failed to argue about another state of ignorance, absolute ignorance.
I think ignorance Is not bliss. One of the key values that should be secured for humans in the current world is freedom of choice. As all humans have their independent wills, we believe that freedom of choice for each individual should be secured as humans’ basic right. Based on this idea, as ignorance eliminates the chance to have freedom of choice, ignorance can never be bliss as it ignores one of the humans’ basic rights.
Are some ways of knowing more likely than others to lead to truth?
Some ways of knowing are more likely than others to lead to truth. However, more likely ways of knowing differ from one by one due to each person’s personality. A more likely way of knowing also means that it is better than the other ways of knowing. Even the way of knowing that I utilize to pursue the truth is not the best way that leads me to the truth, as I believe that way and keeps trying to find the truth with that way; it will be more likely than using the way you do not believe as the way of knowing that will lead you to the truth. Additionally, when someone believes one way of knowing as a right tool that leads him to the truth, it helps him to have a motivation to attempt to find out the truth by using that way of knowing.
Some might argue that there are more likely ways of knowing than others to lead to truth in common. Scientists and mathematicians might argue that reason, such as scientific proof in a logical order, will be the best way of knowing. They believe they discovered some universal and objective truth using this way of knowing. One of the most representative truths that scientists and mathematicians believe they discovered by using reasoning is spherical earth theory. They believe that it is a permanent truth as they proved the theory by hundreds of supporting evidence.
However, even we assume that spherical shaped earth is the universal truth, would people who believe that the earth is flat will fully understand, agree, and believe that the shape of the earth is spherical? For people who never received the evidence of spherical earth theory, explaining the supporting evidence in a logical order will let them accept the spherical earth theory as an authentic truth. Then how about the people who believe that the earth is flat after experiencing all supporting evidence? Rather than explaining another hundred of scientific and logical reasoning that scientists and mathematicians believe as the best way of knowing, showing the spherical earth by their own eyes might lead them to accept spherical earth theory as an authentic truth.
No matter if we discovered the objective truth that is permanent by using a certain way of knowing if each of us cannot believe that it is the truth, can we still call that a truth? If most people suicide as they do not believe the truth that this world is real, can the truth remain as truth, even most of the people are suiciding by not believing the truth? Truth can never be independent, which leads us to the idea that the way of knowing trying to discover the independent truth also never can be independent of the personality, identity, or all other features of individuals. As the way of knowing is dependent on diverse factors, different ways of knowing are more likely to lead different individuals to the truth.
word count: 496
Netflix. “Behind the Curve.” Netflix, 15 Feb. 2019, www.netflix.com/title/81015076.
Hi, my name is Jack Shin. I’m from South Korea and I love watching movies and books.
Knowing sure something also means that I know for sure is permanent and lasts forever as a truth. Based on this idea, I know nothing for sure. However, I believe that attempt to approach the truth by logical theories is the right way to find out the permanent truth that I can know for sure. The fact that we know for sure does not exist. Anything we believe as the truth is just a socially accepted theory where an absolute number of people agree with it. As an example, I believe that earth is revolving around the sun every year. However, I don’t know for sure if earth is revolving around the sun as I never saw it with my eyes. The theory of earth revolving the sun is a socially accepted theory where an absolute majority of people agree. A lot of scientists, who are profound in their area of knowledge, proved the theory by diverse evidence, clear logic, and reasoning. As the theory of revolving earth have higher credibility, people socially accepted the theory as the truth. That is the reason why I believe the theory as the truth even I never saw earth revolving and not know for sure that earth is the revolving sun. How about ethics? Not arguable by scientific proof, can we say that we know for sure what ethics are? Ethics that people believed as a permanent truth or justice of life has been changed over time. Therefore, we can define that ethics are also a belief, not a permanent truth. Even the axioms in math had changed when zero or negative number, an irrational number were discovered.
However, the more we try to attempt the truth with right tools (induction, deduction, etc.), the better we can approach the truth.
Blog post #1: Define and Inquire
What is this engineering task?
What are you thinking about doing? (this can be multiple ideas) Embed images and links of ideas you like/don’t like
Analyze those ideas: What are the pros/cons about those ideas?
Engineering task is a task about making an invention which shows the convert of energy. I thought about the magnetic levitation train which is a toy for the children which can be played as a toy but also can give them a new exciting experience as a floating train. To make the magnetic levitation train, I have to learn how to use a suitable amount of magnetic to levitate the train with enough hight. This train converts the potential energy to kineti1c energy which contains by reduced friction using magnetism.
In our acting class, we learned about the ensemble and practiced collaborating by mirroring.
When I was first in the class I was nervous but also interested in how the acting class will work because I didn’t have a drama class last year.
But during the acting class, we learned about naturalism and I felt the class is fun and good to enjoy that we communicate with each other by various activities and trying new things.
I’m very excited about the next class activity.