1. To what extent should we trust history to lead us to the truth?
2. To what extent is History objective?
3. To what extent does History tell us exactely what happened in the past?
lunes, 6 de junio de 2011
lunes, 30 de mayo de 2011
Math stuff
Time to tackle Mathematics:
1. POST - Is Mathematics discovered or invented? Argue your point of view.
2. POST - To what extent is knowledge gained in Mathematics similar and/or different to knowledge gained in History?
1.Post
Mathematics in not invented it is discovered. Planet earth and Nature only have an amount of things to give us. Those things are completely predeterminated and we cant change them. We think we can invent things but that’s not true. W only discover a new way to use what we already have at hand.
2.Post
The knowledge gain in Math is completely different that the one we gain from History. This is beacouse Math is based on material that cannot be alter by humans, no matter how many people look at an equation, no matter how they try to change that equation, it will be imposible for them to alter it. At the end the rules for math will prove them wrong. On the other hand from history we learn what the people in power wants us to learn, they change the facts for their convinience. and there is no one that can prove then wrong becuase there is no base no rules for history.
1. POST - Is Mathematics discovered or invented? Argue your point of view.
2. POST - To what extent is knowledge gained in Mathematics similar and/or different to knowledge gained in History?
1.Post
Mathematics in not invented it is discovered. Planet earth and Nature only have an amount of things to give us. Those things are completely predeterminated and we cant change them. We think we can invent things but that’s not true. W only discover a new way to use what we already have at hand.
2.Post
The knowledge gain in Math is completely different that the one we gain from History. This is beacouse Math is based on material that cannot be alter by humans, no matter how many people look at an equation, no matter how they try to change that equation, it will be imposible for them to alter it. At the end the rules for math will prove them wrong. On the other hand from history we learn what the people in power wants us to learn, they change the facts for their convinience. and there is no one that can prove then wrong becuase there is no base no rules for history.
Task 3: History
In my opinion this view is the colsest to reality than the other view. This is beacuse we, humans, write our history. The winner will write the events of the past as they see fit to make them look better for the future generations. Not only the winner will glorifie himself and his nations, but he will downgrade the ones that lost. They will make the loser look like the ones that are evil, and needed to be overpowered. In addition we can only percive certain amount of information in our heads, so if 10 people see the same event we will have 10 differents stories, just to beging with, later they will introduce their point of view and exagerate more things. There for at the end we will have so many different stories and they might be based on true facts, but they have so much S#$% added by us that they end up just a bunch of unrelaible informations. Therefore we humans, more prescisely Historians have the power to alter past and make us beleife what they want us to. The other point of view said that history cannot be alter or tamper with, for the reason I have mention before I don’t agree with this.
sábado, 19 de marzo de 2011
MINI TOK essay
TOK mini essay.
Ignacio Lopez Aragon
Knowledge Issue:
To what extent are our senses reliable to distinguish between what we know is true and what we think is true?
All of the knowledge we own comes from our reasoning, our emotions, our language and our sense perception. Human beings have multiple senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. As these senses are part of who we are, we lean on them to give us the truth, that we think its true. Truth is define by Plato as being public, independent and eternal. For, us senses are rather objective, we all feel the heat from the fire, we hear a dog bark and we know its a dog and not a cat. Therefore by means of observation and experimentation we determine our surroundings. We learn to connect the dots when we have to, we know that when we hear a dog barking, that the animal barking is a dog and not a cat, because in the past we have experience the sight of a dog making that sound and know we connect that experience, then we deduce that all animals that bark are dogs. The same with the fire. Yet we might all get the same information but our experiences are the ones shaping that information into our own truth. For example, deductive reasoning, we are used to go a fast food restaurant (e.i Taco Bell) and be surrounded by that smell, meat, cheese, tortillas and the other stuff. Sense I´m a kid I like Taco Bell, specially the smell of it. So know out of experience I deduce that everything that smells like Taco Bell its Taco Bell and thats my truth. Once we stayed in school and had lunch there, my sense of smell stated that the aroma in the air was the same one as Taco Bell, therefore for me we were about to eat Taco Bell. Then the food arrived to the table, and that was not Taco Bell. Like this we see that although the senses, that we think are rather objective, can be controlled by our experiences. I smelled a kind of food that I connected to memory and this lead to misinformation. The smell is the same, but the result is different.
In the end our senses will give us as much truth as we allowed them too. They will not be able to lie to us, because as the are part of who we are they cant lie to us. The same as we cant lie to ourself. But they will not give the definite truth Plato refers too. This happens because we work on a patron deducing things and apply that knowledge to everything else and it does not leave space for interpretation. Therefore our senses are not reliable to give us the absolute truth, but they will not lie to us either
Ignacio Lopez Aragon
Knowledge Issue:
To what extent are our senses reliable to distinguish between what we know is true and what we think is true?
All of the knowledge we own comes from our reasoning, our emotions, our language and our sense perception. Human beings have multiple senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. As these senses are part of who we are, we lean on them to give us the truth, that we think its true. Truth is define by Plato as being public, independent and eternal. For, us senses are rather objective, we all feel the heat from the fire, we hear a dog bark and we know its a dog and not a cat. Therefore by means of observation and experimentation we determine our surroundings. We learn to connect the dots when we have to, we know that when we hear a dog barking, that the animal barking is a dog and not a cat, because in the past we have experience the sight of a dog making that sound and know we connect that experience, then we deduce that all animals that bark are dogs. The same with the fire. Yet we might all get the same information but our experiences are the ones shaping that information into our own truth. For example, deductive reasoning, we are used to go a fast food restaurant (e.i Taco Bell) and be surrounded by that smell, meat, cheese, tortillas and the other stuff. Sense I´m a kid I like Taco Bell, specially the smell of it. So know out of experience I deduce that everything that smells like Taco Bell its Taco Bell and thats my truth. Once we stayed in school and had lunch there, my sense of smell stated that the aroma in the air was the same one as Taco Bell, therefore for me we were about to eat Taco Bell. Then the food arrived to the table, and that was not Taco Bell. Like this we see that although the senses, that we think are rather objective, can be controlled by our experiences. I smelled a kind of food that I connected to memory and this lead to misinformation. The smell is the same, but the result is different.
In the end our senses will give us as much truth as we allowed them too. They will not be able to lie to us, because as the are part of who we are they cant lie to us. The same as we cant lie to ourself. But they will not give the definite truth Plato refers too. This happens because we work on a patron deducing things and apply that knowledge to everything else and it does not leave space for interpretation. Therefore our senses are not reliable to give us the absolute truth, but they will not lie to us either
domingo, 13 de marzo de 2011
Mini tok paper
KI
To what extent can our senses help us distinguish between what we know is true and what we think is true?
Main points.
Senses can give us unreliable facts.
Our senses will affect our emotions, therefore making us bias or to lean against one idea.
What is true for you might not be true for someone else.
Examples.
When we walk to the lunch room and it smells good, and we think that today is going to be a day of delicious food, then we eat what they serve and the truth is that is not good.
A person who just lost someone important in a car accident, might blame the other driver, the weather anything else, but deep down that person knows it was an accident and no one is to be blame for.
To what extent can our senses help us distinguish between what we know is true and what we think is true?
Main points.
Senses can give us unreliable facts.
Our senses will affect our emotions, therefore making us bias or to lean against one idea.
What is true for you might not be true for someone else.
Examples.
When we walk to the lunch room and it smells good, and we think that today is going to be a day of delicious food, then we eat what they serve and the truth is that is not good.
A person who just lost someone important in a car accident, might blame the other driver, the weather anything else, but deep down that person knows it was an accident and no one is to be blame for.
domingo, 27 de febrero de 2011
My KI chart
Good | To what extend does the social medias change our interpretation of reality, and does it change our behavior? |
Intermediate | Are the social networks to blame for or behavior? |
Poor | Can social medias change our behavior? |
Not KI | What are social medias? |
Real life Situation | Social medias and mass behavior |
Good | How can reason justify following miss Anne´s orders? | To what extend can reason justify the presence of paranormal stuff? | To what extend is the the belief in the swine flu more dangerous than the actual flu? |
Intermediate | Why do we think using jeans is a good idea? | Should we believe paranormal claims? | Why is it important to stop an epidemic? |
Poor | Is wearing jeans a good idea? | Does the paranormal exist? | Is swine flu likely to kill millions? |
Not a Knowledge Issue | Wearing jeans in school | What is the sixth sense | What do we mean by epidemic? |
Real life | An interview with Miss Anne | A film on haunting | A new report on a new swine flu |
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)