I think the meaning of “being political” means that oneself is relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. I believe that “relating” means a person is having its own stance on political issues or at least being aware of them. I consider myself a very political person because I have a very strong stance in terms of politics. I continuously expose myself to political issues in order to learn new perspectives and also gain broad perspectives on different issues. Also, now I am available to participate in voting since my birthday just passed. This forced me to be more aware of political issues and have a solid stance. Therefore, I am a political person.
I don’t think that EVERYTHING is political but the majority is political or at least related to politics. For example, let’s say I am choosing a movie to watch among other movies. The action of choosing a movie is not political, but the choices I have are affected by politics. If a movie is related to politics or targets the country’s politics, it will be banned that the movie won’t be at the box office. Also, in China, all information, news, social media, literally everything is under control that they could be filtered or banned. Thus, it is very likely that everything is political. There are only minor things that are not affected by politics.
Based on the political quizzes, the results show that I am neither left-sided nor right-sided. The political compass shows that I am at the very center and slightly left-sided libertarian than right-sided authoritarian. The other quiz shows that my total political bias is 33% which is below the average score and I’m less biased than 65% of the people. Also the nolan chart shows that I’m a moderate person, but on the totalitarian side. These results explicitly show my political stance that I’m neither left-sided nor right-sided and pushing both libertarian and totalitarian characteristics. This is actually corresponding to my stance that I value freedom under restricted rules, where the rules have more power than freedoms.
The documentary, The Social Dilemma, presents the impact of technology development. As presented in the documentary, it says that as the technology develops the side effects will become more significant. Currently, those negative impacts already exceeded the positives that it is almost impossible to get advantages the technology development. This such circumstance will get even worse from now on if people continue this path without giving an effort to change it. In the documentary, the experts who worked for Google, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter states that technology development is actually causing harmful effects. They use social media, social platforms, as an example to show the harmful effect of technology development. In the beginning, Aza Raskin says “If you are not paying for it, then you are the product.” This genuinely shocked me that it completely changed my point of view. I’ve never considered why Instagram and Facebook are free before, but now I realized that they were free because we are watching advertisements. The documentary also shifted my perspective regarding the algorithms. I thought algorithms are so helpful and useful that it gives information that is only related to my interest. However, after watching this documentary I recognized that the other side of the algorithms is actually limiting my perspective and narrowing it down. And this is the part where people get addicted, as the algorithms recommend the things that one’s interested in. People will tend to spend more time on it and will be much harder to get off from it. This significantly affects the Gen Z generation because they are born in a time where smartphones and the internet are ubiquitous. Thus, as they start to use social platforms, they will get much more addicted to it than adults because they have a lack of self-control. Also, their life will be totally based upon the notifications from the platforms. I totally agree with this because I feel like I’m also in that process of getting addicted to social platforms and it is very hard to get away from it.
As the technology developed, we are able to have more access to various sources, we can even establish a border perspective too. But the point is that as there is more amount of information, the amount of disinformation, deliberate misinformation and manipulation drastically increases as well. In my group, we came up with a resolution that using OPVL is an effective way to distinguish between information and disinformation.
To compare the past and recent regarding the development of knowledge, I interviewed my mother, who attended high school in Korea between 1985 and 1989.
In the late 1980s in Korea, most of the high school students, including my mother, learned something and produced knowledge from the school, especially from the teachers. They were the primary source for the students to learn, and it was the most accessible source for the students. Due to the poor educational environment, approximately 60 students were in one class with only one teacher. This naturally resulted in a situation where teachers only give a lecture and students acquire them rather than exploring or sharing knowledge. To learn more and broaden understanding, students bought some reference books or newspapers from the bookstore. Still, this wasn’t enough for a better understanding of knowledge.
After the interview, I realized that the educational environment recently developed that the students can learn and produce more knowledge. In my case, I am using an electronic device, a laptop, to learn new knowledge and broaden it. In contrast, in my mother’s time, it was almost impossible to use these devices. Also, the limitation of acquiring knowledge is almost unlimited now, but there were some limitations before. For example, my mom said that it was too limited to learn something and produce knowledge because of the lack of resources. But now, students are accessible to learn and broaden their perspective that even people are concerned about students learning something wrong or something they don’t need to know. Therefore, I can conclude that as technology and other factors developed, students started to have more access to various knowledge and have the opportunity to broaden their knowledge.
The topic of this debate was “Ignorance is bliss.”
The pros side argued that ignorance is a bliss that can lead to improvements in people’s mentality, especially in patients. For the evidence, they talked about the placebo effect. It is a phenomenon that the patients get better after they are given a placebo. They also stated the positive effects of not knowing something. For example, they used the example of a situation in which adolescents exposed to extremely explicit content are likely to have harmed their mental development. In contrast, the cons side argued that “ignorance is not bliss,” stating that ignorance is a backward step for mankind. To support this claim, they applied the examples of war and genocide and said that the pandemic situation worsened because of the people being ignorant.
In this debate, I would say that the pros side won this debate because they provided a sufficient amount of evidence to support their statements. In contrast, the opposite side was lacking evidence to support their claim and also those evidence were minor events that people mostly won’t experience it.
However, I personally fall on to the cons side because of their statement. I would strongly agree that “Ignorace is not bliss” because I feel that not being ignorant is way better than being ignorant. But, I also feel that in some particular cases, being ignorant is better than not being ignorant. Thus, I can conclude that being ignorant and not being ignorant have both strengths and weaknesses so that people can follow one of them for better result.
All 8 ways of knowing have their own strengths and weaknesses to lead to the truth. However, to answer the question of which particular ways of knowing are more likely than others to lead to truth, we should dig deep through analyzing the benefits for each way and should consider the real-life examples and compare them to each other. Even though all 8 ways of knowing have both strengths and weaknesses, the reason is more likely than others to lead to truth.
Before talking about the reason, I need to define the word “valid” first. So if an argument has true premises and a true conclusion it is valid. But when the conclusion is false it is invalid even true premises exist. For example, based on the logic test we have done for the station activity, the conclusion is valid when the premises are a) all ducks quack b)Donald is a duck, therefore Donald quacks. This shows that a correct deductive leads to the truth. This is how the reason leads to the truths, it is always an absolute truth when premises are true and the conclusions valid.
However, the reasoning is often inductive, which means that even if premises are true, that doesn’t guarantee the facts of the conclusion are also being true. Furthermore, there is a rising question of where does the premises come from? This is clear that all of them are not coming from the reasoning. Faith, memory, imagination can all be utilized to make the premises. This means that reason is not more likely than others to lead to the truth because to make reason, it is likely to require more knowledge on other aspects. So, to sum up, the conclusion is the truth if we start with truths for deductive reasoning. For inductive reasoning, the truth will not be guaranteed even we have both true premises and conclusions. Additionally, there is faith that some people believe as the only truth, which is actually combined with other ways of knowing. For example, in the stations activity, we’ve found the example of faith about the ‘milk miracle’ in India. This knowledge includes both imagination and faith that Indians believe the god Ganesha exists.
Thus, it is proved that there are no actual particular ways of knowing that are more likely than others to lead truth. Almost every single way of knowing are interconnected to each other to find new knowledge more effectively. Although each way of knowing has both strengths and weaknesses, it is clear that using more ways of knowing can much more lead to the truth when they are used together. Only using one particular way of knowing prevents learner to lead to the truth.
I know for sure that humans easily get addicted to drugs and cannot get back to normal life. The people who use drugs demand more amount of them to reach and to extent the irritation. For example, a person A ingests one dose of a drug at first and receives 10 amount of stimulation. Then, next time when A uses the same amount of the drug, he can never reach that identical amount of stimulation, its body will demand more. Thus, the person will commence using more drugs and will fall into an abyss of addiction. The way I know this is because it is proved through various evidence, such as doctor’s note, personal experience, and physically/chemically changing human body.
Nevertheless, some counterarguments state that humans have the power to resist drug addiction. The interviews of the people who overcame drug addiction support those arguments.
Therefore, based on the example above, we can conclude that there is no explicit explanation of “How do we know we know.” There is some knowledge that we clearly know as a definition like math equations. But, we can see above that still counterarguments exist even on the knowledge that we thought it is incontrovertible.
This is the picture which I get idea. Actually, I make this in my head. However, my purpose is tring to move the green arm to hit the switch but the total piece move left right inside the slot.
So I tried to make other slot at the opposite side like this picture.
I used fusion 360 to skecth my project. First, I used the base skecth which Mr. Beatty gave me, and I changed the scale and add the slot which shape is ellipse. Also, it was hard to change the hole to the size which I want.
Finally, I print my board and other components. But, I had to print several times because one of my components was to small and weak. Also, in fusion 360 the hole inside the component was to big so it overflow. Moreover, it keep brake again because it was weak. However, I thought I finshed my machine, but the board did not work. Even I didn’t know the reason. This was really hard to me to fix it, but Mr. Beatty fixed it.
First, I tried to make a sloth which is hanging at the tree.
I make a tree using Sphere but it failed, so I try Cylinder and then filled hole to make a tree.
Next, I make sloth body. I used Sphere and grap out each part to make a long thick body. To make arms and leg I make four hole and grap out to make it. The most hardest things was making the fingers. When I have just an arm it had only one side I need to make that more wider with five sides. I make it more wider only
After which, I build it more specific. Make head and build it more round like a fat sloth. Also, I used offset plane to make a 5mm hole. then I used line to connect sloth and Sphere, to make a curve line I used Fit Point Line and then used Pipe to make thick. Then I used Mirror to make another Pipe to connect Sphere.
When you blog you create posts and posts are categorised according to your subject. Some categories have already been set up for you. If you need more categories you can add them as needed. It’s important that your posts have the following:
- An engaging title – this should not include the name of the subject since this is referenced in the category.
- Body – this is where you share your learning. This can include text, images, embedded videos from Dragons’ Tube or elsewhere. You should always consider how your post looks to your audience. Is it engaging? Do they want to keep reading?
- Category – select one that has been set for you or add a new category. Posts can have more than one category e.g. Humanities and Myself as a Learner
Click on the images below to learn more about blogging:
How do I make a Post?
How do I upload media?
How do I embed Media from Dragons’ Tube?
How do I add new categories?