WOK - how it limits? Or helps with knowledge?

In class we watched a short video called the Inventory of the invisible. It went over sense perception. It was easier to gain knowledge when there was a visual, it was also easier to understand. I was able to infer that, it is harder to understand things we cannot see, for example gravity. The video makes to Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

"The more light there is, the less you can see,"this was a very interesting quote I picked up from the video. When John Lloyd made a reference to the stars in the sky. Another thing we cannot see is time, I find it interesting that Lloyd brings up such a significant aspect of someones life - time, no one really understands it. That really opened my eyes in the sense that, I really did not understand much! Yet day by day, we accept some "laws" like gravity or genomes in Biology. Can we really accept these facts until they are fully proven to us? Apparently a grain of rice has about 18,000 more genomes than a human. When scientists delved into studying genome they guessed that we humans have about 100,000, and each time they significantly decrease that number.

The video continues to make reference to common things we "pretend"to understand like electricity. I found it really funny as many things we pretend to know and learn are based on assumptions that no one can fully prove. The two main questions we ask: "Why are we here?" and "What should we do about it while we are?" These were thought provoking questions made me think a lot about everything around us. What is the purpose of life? Are our lives going to continue like this forever? Or will we ever find a purpose or a meaning to this life.

Overall, the video makes many references to the importance of sense perception and the flaws in it as a WOK. It shows us the limitations and how it can help us understand and better gain knowledge. It also made me think of the numerous laws and theories that we believe yet we do not truly know or understand it, like electricity and gravity.

Lloyd, John. "Transcript of "An Inventory of the Invisible"" John Lloyd: An Inventory of the Invisible. Ted Talks. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.

http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2012/02/ignosticism-possibly-best-argument.html

Does Emotion help make gaining knowledge easier?

Emotion is defined as emotion, a strong feeling, such as joy or anger or instinctive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge. I do not really like Spanish, or the class. With this emotional bias/emotion towards that class I find it harder to gain information/pay attention and sometimes even take the work seriously. On the other hand, I love biology. The strong emotion expressed helps me grasp any new concepts easily and studying for biology seems like it’s a breeze.

Our emotions are more complex – with more research into this WOK, more discoveries are being made. Like how emotions are also connected to our brain. For example we release hormones such as adrenaline when we are excited or extremely scared. Also dopamine is released when you feel pleasure. This is like a reward for the brain. ‘The sweet spot’ as the brain feels more rewarded for doing something you like, in this case me studying biology. So the brain feels rewarded for that hence the increase in productivity.

On the other hand doing something like Spanish does not stimulate the production of dopamine – as I have strong feeling against the subject. This makes it extremely hard to gain knowledge and it is really hard to study for that subject.

A quote Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life." – Confucius also highlights a similar idea. When you have strong emotions of love toward your job, the work does not seem hard or even like it is work. Thus resulting in more productivity at work and it makes life easier. On the other hand, when you do not love your job it is very hard for you to be productive. Every day you have very little motivation to go to work and do your best.

Overall, it is harder to do well in something if you do not like it. Positive emotion towards a subject/area/work makes it easier to be productive and generally it is easier to succeed. While having negative emotions towards a subject/area/work makes it very hard to be productive and it is harder to succeed in my opinion.

http://visual.ly/we-feel-fine?view=true

Opening my eyes to fallacies

There are many common fallacies that are used in any argument. As I went over some examples, I realized that many people use fallacies to win arguments or just to mess with me. It was shocking when I started labeling the fallacies when people started using silly reasoning.

Last week I was discussing the company Microsoft- I said “wow IB is quite challenging.” Tom (this is not his/her real name) said “| want to drop out of school…just like how Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did, if they did that, I can become a billionaire too. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise. They dropped out of Harvard not ISL!

Another example is when someone said, if you are do not pray to god you are against him. It is an example of false dilemma where some people do not believe in god to even pray to him. It does not give any other options it is just the absolute. This is an example of a false dilemma where you have two choices. It is really funny how people use this so often. As Obi Wan Kenobi puts it in Star Wars episode III, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes!” 

Overall, learning about fallacies has been interesting. I have started noticing teachers and my parents even using similar fallacies! It has been an eye opener, I am definitely more conscious when presenting an argument to make sure I avoid fallacies.

Reference: "False Dilemma." False Dilemma. Archieboy Holdings, LLC. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/presumption/hasty-generalization/attachment/equivocation-2

Is reason the most reliable WOK? Why or Why not?

Reason as a way of knowing can give us certainty. Although this belief is open to serious doubt. Reason is only as certain as the premises on which it is based. Furthermore reason is not appropriate in every situation, as there is no emotion in reasoning, it can be very ‘cold’. Reason needs to be balanced by emotion.

Reliable can be defined as something consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted, which is not very specific. Although reason can be trusted, but once again it depends on the situation. When reason works in tandem with another WOK, it can be more reliable than just on its own. Measuring reliability can also be difficult, although the key is in the premise the knowledge claim is based on. For example, in Biology we are studying about nucleic acids – Deoxyribonucleic Acid and Ribonucleic Acid. The base pairs are arranged as follows in DNA: A:T and C:G but for RNA you have uracil (U), instead of thymine(T) and C:G so for example, one DNA strand has a sequence of ATCGCGTTTAAA. After transcription, the RNA strand produced will have a base sequence of UAGCGCAAAUUU.  I used reason to come to that conclusion. As it is an RNA strand it will have uracil instead of thymine.

Reason often uses logic. The biggest problem with logic is that your conclusion can be valid but not true. For example, your syllogism could be: Socrates is a man- all men are mortal- therefore, Socrates is mortal. The conclusion "Socrates is mortal" is true and valid in this case. However, something like: When Mitch eats a burger he is happy- Mitch is always happy- Mitch is eating burger all the time, is unacceptable as it is a poor conclusion. This is a weakness with reason as logic isn't always reliable. Also, you can never be 100% sure about anything. Even though every extra example that you find that supports your theory makes you more certain that it's correct, you can never hit 100% because you can't try out an infinite number of possibilities that tests your theory.

Another weakness that is associated with reason is that it is often associated with your personal opinions and beliefs. Your conclusion that you draw is personal and based on your environment and your personal feelings. For example, you may say gay marriage is not morally correct, but other people can have other opinions and feelings about it, so it is based on your feelings and not from a unbiased viewpoint.

Although reason as a way of knowing has many disadvantages associated with it, it also has many advantages, which is why it is widely used on a daily basis. It can be really easy to gain information by using all three types of reasoning (informal, deductive and inductive). Reason is also a strong way of knowing as it is in a sense the way that is most based on our common sense, although some may argue common sense is not very common. Another advantage is that it allows for us to build upon previous information and back up our arguments or thoughts on something.

In conclusion, reason, can be unreliable and reliable like many of the other WOK, although it is often used every day. Although the user must be aware of the uncertainty of reasoning and the emotional disconnection one may feel. I feel like reason can be reliable although I cannot say it is the most reliable. I find it hard to say any one WOK is reliable. I feel like they are more reliable when you combine multiple WOK.

Reference used:

Al-ansari, Maha. "QA Tok Maha.": Evaluate the Strengths and Weaknesses of Reason as a Way of Knowing. Blogspot, 11 May 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Inductive Reasoning vs Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning which goes from general to specific. Deductive reasoning is based on premises and if the premises are true, then the reasoning will be valid.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/deductive-reasoning-examples.html#Ir3pJrYiuXVIu3oi.99

In mathematics, If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

The value of this information is more certain, however, this information is also a lot unclear and less informative then Induction.

Inductive reasoning is the complete opposite of Deductive reasoning. The term "inductive reasoning" refers to reasoning that takes specific information and makes a broader generalization that is considered probable, allowing for the fact that the conclusion may not be accurate. So moves from specific to general.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-inductive-reasoning.html#gzLqcihswYJS6bH0.99

This dog is a Labrador, that dog is a Labrador. A third dog is a Labrador, therefore all dogs are Labradors. 

The value of this information is a lot more informative. However, it is less certain that it is the truth.

Deduction and induction by themselves are inadequate to make a compelling argument. While deduction gives total proof. There is no place for observation or experimentation, no way to test the validity of the claim. While induction is driven by observation, it never approaches actual proof of a theory. Therefore it is better to use both together to form a compelling argument.

http://food4tho.blogspot.com/2014_06_01_archive.html

HOW RELIABLE IS THE KNOWLEDGE PROVIDED BY OUR SENSES?

Sense-perception is the awareness of things by sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste. One persistent and traditional problem, sometimes called “the problem of perception”, is created by the phenomena of perceptual illusion and hallucination: if these kinds of error are conceivable, how can we always trust our senses to provide us with reliable information?

I think sense perception is an important way of knowing. It is used really commonly, with a majority of knowledge is gained through sense perception. We sit in class – use sight to read the notes and our hearing to hear the teacher say important things. Although some people are born with disabilities where they do not have access to one or more sense.

 In class we had an interesting task of trying to explain the color red to a blind person. It was an impossible challenge. With that I was able to draw a theory that people with disabilities where one or more of their senses is impaired, experience the world differently than we do, and it is hard to explain to them what they cannot experience. Another example is trying to explain how music sounds to a deaf person.

In a subject like History where it solely relies on recorded evidence or physical evidence that is found many years later, sense perception may be used during the time of event, where the witness may write down what they see as what is happening, even though they may misinterpreted something incorrectly, but we have to trust their sense. It is also a problem when it comes to having eyewitnesses in court. A person finds it quite challenging to remember small details, with added stress and pressure of crime (maybe it is even very gruesome) it is very difficult to judge a suspect solely based on the eyewitness testimonial. Although nowadays it is generally just used as a guide and never taken very seriously without strong evidence.

Overall, sense perception is a significant way of knowing, but sometimes we should be aware of the limitations of our senses and combine other W.O.K to be sure of a knowledge claim. Do the horizontal lines appear straight? They are.

http://www.theoryofknowledge.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/optical_illusions_2_Optical_illusions-s495x385-43982-580.png

This image appears to have bent lines to our eye, although all lines are straight. This is an example of where our sight may be incorrect in perceiving the right image.

What do we lose from a text when it is translated?

Translating a document has become as easy as copying the URL and pasting it onto a translator online, like Google or Bing. Although governments use translators or interpreters while speaking, for example in the USA there are 63,600 translators or interpreters in 2012. 

 [http://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/interpreters-and-translators.htm]. It is a high value job, and it is very important not make any mistakes as it could have dire consequences. It could lead to wars if a country’s translator said a phrase that would be normal in their own country, but it is taken in a different way in another country. This is where the problems of translation lie.

Misinterpretation was suggested as a significant problem. A message may lose its effect. For example, comedy in English when translated to French. Also cultural meanings where word context and connotation can be misinterpreted due to cultural differences. Word in one language, phrase in another language.

A very interesting news article I read talked about this issue. A man received $71 million dollars as doctors misinterpreted the word ‘intoxicado’ in Spanish and translation was provided by a bilingual staff member who translated "intoxicado" as "intoxicated." A professional interpreter would have known that "intoxicado" is closer to "poisoned". He was actually suffering from an intracerebral haemorrhage, but the doctors proceeded as if he were suffering from an intentional drug overdose, which displayed similar symptoms. He went on to sue the hospital for malpractice after he became quadriplegic. He received a malpractice settlement of $71 million. 

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/48795/9-little-translation-mistakes-caused-big-problems]

Overall, I feel like interpreters have to be spot on if the gist/meaning of a phrase should be shared. They should follow the criteria for translation and should not guess. They should seek expert opinion if the translation is key to finding out an ailment or something related to medicine.

 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/80361174571043121/

Here is a humorous example of how a simple translation error can be very wrong.