Are humans predictable? Explain your reasoning using examples
This question is not a simple yes or no question, as humans are both predictable and unpredictable; this question has many examples in which humans can be predictable and unpredictable. In most cases, humans are unpredictable as at times, when we believe that the final outcome of something has been decided, thus being predictable, however in some cases, when humans receive or obtain a prediction of what is to come (e.g. child becomes a serial killer), some measures may be taken to avoid such a calamitous event, in the end these measures taken may cause the child to become a serial killer.
One of these examples where a vision comes true, due to measures being taken to try and prevent the disaster is the example of Oedipus, who was foreshadowed to murder his father and then marry his mother; the King then sends him away from the royal palace, where he is raised as a shepherd and is then reunited with his father who is then killed by him and marries his mother whom he only recognizes as the queen. However, humans only become predictable under the conditions where: 1.) a prediction is set, 2.) measures are taken in an attempt to prevent the outcome of such a prediction to occur.
Examples to support that humans are unpredictable are plentiful, many of these include life-threatening situations where humans are able to evade the odds, and ultimately escape death. This comes from the will of humanity, which allows humans to become unpredictable, as long as the will or thirst of a human to reach a goal is strong enough, superhuman powers are attained, at times allowing humans to become unpredictable and escape from life-threatening situations. An example of such predictions that put humans in a situation where they are almost doomed to die, are those examples when such a natural disaster occurs (e.g. Tasik earthquake), where 3 villagers were able to rescue 5 members of a family that were trapped under rubble, as they seemed to gain superhuman strength lifting 500 kg blocks of walls to free the pinned victims. In conclusion, humans are unpredictable when the will of such a person is strong enough to overcome the predictions which have been set by the surrounding environment.
Selasa, 18 Mei 2010
Theory of Knowledge: Natural Sciences
During the ToK Conference of the 5th and 6th February, held at the British International School’s World Theatre venue, the discussions ranged from Einstein’s law of relativity to the more advanced and complex quantum mechanics (e.g. quantum tunneling, and the double slit experiment), with this event concerning the different areas of Physics (in general), being linked with ToK, i had obtained quite a few unique experiences which may be classified as once in a life time. Some of the different things that i had enjoyed or disliked within the event, and things which although I didnt understand yet intrigued me, will be talked about below.
Some of the things which I had liked within the ToK event were the carefree atmosphere that was brought along with the guest speeker Andy Fletcher, not only was the carefree atmosphere to be enjoyed/liked, i also had enjoyed the different topics which were able to catch the intrigue of my mind. However much like there are positives there are also things that I hadnt enjoyed within the ToK conference, these were such things such as the lengths of the lectures, and the uncomfortability of the chairs at the venue, this maybe caused by my possibly large body which had caused my legs to feel like they were cramped, and that there was no space to move my legs around in.
However, although there were such things such as uncomfortable chairs, and at times lectures which would put you too sleep, the mind boggling yet intriguing topics which had caught my mind included such things such as quantum mechanics, Einstein’s law of relativity, and the possibility of science for once actually proving that there is a possibility of a supernatural being that is responsible for the creation of this universe. This is caused by the incredibly small chance of the universe having all the different factors which are required in order for such a universe to hold life. Whilst on top of the possibility of science actually proving the possible existence of a supernatural being, there were intriguing facts such as the possiblity for teleportation made possible due to quantum tunneling
Overall, the ToK conference event was a fun-filled, and educational trip, which could possibly have once-in-a-lifetime, unique experiences.
Some of the things which I had liked within the ToK event were the carefree atmosphere that was brought along with the guest speeker Andy Fletcher, not only was the carefree atmosphere to be enjoyed/liked, i also had enjoyed the different topics which were able to catch the intrigue of my mind. However much like there are positives there are also things that I hadnt enjoyed within the ToK conference, these were such things such as the lengths of the lectures, and the uncomfortability of the chairs at the venue, this maybe caused by my possibly large body which had caused my legs to feel like they were cramped, and that there was no space to move my legs around in.
However, although there were such things such as uncomfortable chairs, and at times lectures which would put you too sleep, the mind boggling yet intriguing topics which had caught my mind included such things such as quantum mechanics, Einstein’s law of relativity, and the possibility of science for once actually proving that there is a possibility of a supernatural being that is responsible for the creation of this universe. This is caused by the incredibly small chance of the universe having all the different factors which are required in order for such a universe to hold life. Whilst on top of the possibility of science actually proving the possible existence of a supernatural being, there were intriguing facts such as the possiblity for teleportation made possible due to quantum tunneling
Overall, the ToK conference event was a fun-filled, and educational trip, which could possibly have once-in-a-lifetime, unique experiences.
Kamis, 14 Januari 2010
Theory of Knowledge: Emotion
‘Is faith purely emotional or is it possible to provide a rational justification for religious belief? Is emotion a source of spiritual knowledge?’
Faith, by dictionary definition refers to: confidence or trust in a person or thing, or the belief that is not based on proof, thus by the dictionary definition it refers to the emotion having to be used for someone to believe or have faith within something; in this case religion or a god. Faith is not purely emotional as there exists processes which require the use of perception, language and even reason to provide a rational justification for a religious belief. It is only there to bolster the justification that exists for religious belief, as the other 3 main ways of knowing or justifying knowledge can prove and enforce the justifications for belief.
Examples of reason being used to prove the existence of a religious being, are the scientific searches into the existence of supernatural beings, and the possibility of the engineering of scientific theories such as that of evolution. Along with reason being used to justify religious belief, language is used to convey the messages from a supreme being, examples would be the holy books of the Qur’an and the Bible for the Muslim and Christian faith. Perception is also used for the viewing and execution of religious acts such as circumcisions, and a variety of festivals for the different faiths.
Thus emotion is only a support or a bolster for the existence of religious belief and can justify religious belief as well as the other 3 ways of knowing. But emotion itself does not lead to the existence of spiritual knowledge, it requires all the 3 forms of knowing and them combined will only allow the existence of spiritual knowledge, as with reason, perception, emotion, and language, we can obtain and pursue spiritual knowledge.
Faith, by dictionary definition refers to: confidence or trust in a person or thing, or the belief that is not based on proof, thus by the dictionary definition it refers to the emotion having to be used for someone to believe or have faith within something; in this case religion or a god. Faith is not purely emotional as there exists processes which require the use of perception, language and even reason to provide a rational justification for a religious belief. It is only there to bolster the justification that exists for religious belief, as the other 3 main ways of knowing or justifying knowledge can prove and enforce the justifications for belief.
Examples of reason being used to prove the existence of a religious being, are the scientific searches into the existence of supernatural beings, and the possibility of the engineering of scientific theories such as that of evolution. Along with reason being used to justify religious belief, language is used to convey the messages from a supreme being, examples would be the holy books of the Qur’an and the Bible for the Muslim and Christian faith. Perception is also used for the viewing and execution of religious acts such as circumcisions, and a variety of festivals for the different faiths.
Thus emotion is only a support or a bolster for the existence of religious belief and can justify religious belief as well as the other 3 ways of knowing. But emotion itself does not lead to the existence of spiritual knowledge, it requires all the 3 forms of knowing and them combined will only allow the existence of spiritual knowledge, as with reason, perception, emotion, and language, we can obtain and pursue spiritual knowledge.
Theory of Knowledge: Emotion
Why has emotion sometimes been seen as a less valuable way of knowing than, say, reason? Or does the value of emotion as a way of knowing depend on the kind of knowledge being pursued?
Emotion has always been stereotyped as a lesser way of knowing rather than the other 3 main methods, which are; language, reason, and perception. This has always occured as emotion seems to be a burden instead of help in mans pursuit for the truth or perfect knowledge. Philosophers who then became stoics tried to establish a perfect mindset that always rejected emotion as they had thought that emotion would get in the way for obtaining perfect knowledge. People also associate this stereotype in modern life as they seem to think that only reason is a way to obtain knowledge, as knowledge only seems to be associated by using reason; and the others language, perception, emotion either help the process in obtaining, conveying, or in this sense, emotion as a burden for the process.
But this stereotype like most stereotypes associated within our lives, has its flaws and its truths, this perception of emotion being a blockade or a burden is slightly true but it can also be a great help if you are seeking a certain type of knowledge. Emotion is the main reason for our ability to make decisions when reason is not able to make our minds up for ourselves. This is true as those who have suffered accidents and have had their limbic system (thalamus, hypothalamus, etc), or their area for controlling emotion sustain damage, they are unable to make decisions.
Thus emotion has to be used for a way to find knowledge as it will help us believe and make decisions in what we believe, but at times may also become a burden for finding knowledge which requires the use of logic. This occurs as both logic and emotion are part of the same spectrum but on the opposite ends, thus emotion and logic have to be used for different types of knowledge.
Emotion has always been stereotyped as a lesser way of knowing rather than the other 3 main methods, which are; language, reason, and perception. This has always occured as emotion seems to be a burden instead of help in mans pursuit for the truth or perfect knowledge. Philosophers who then became stoics tried to establish a perfect mindset that always rejected emotion as they had thought that emotion would get in the way for obtaining perfect knowledge. People also associate this stereotype in modern life as they seem to think that only reason is a way to obtain knowledge, as knowledge only seems to be associated by using reason; and the others language, perception, emotion either help the process in obtaining, conveying, or in this sense, emotion as a burden for the process.
But this stereotype like most stereotypes associated within our lives, has its flaws and its truths, this perception of emotion being a blockade or a burden is slightly true but it can also be a great help if you are seeking a certain type of knowledge. Emotion is the main reason for our ability to make decisions when reason is not able to make our minds up for ourselves. This is true as those who have suffered accidents and have had their limbic system (thalamus, hypothalamus, etc), or their area for controlling emotion sustain damage, they are unable to make decisions.
Thus emotion has to be used for a way to find knowledge as it will help us believe and make decisions in what we believe, but at times may also become a burden for finding knowledge which requires the use of logic. This occurs as both logic and emotion are part of the same spectrum but on the opposite ends, thus emotion and logic have to be used for different types of knowledge.
Theory of Knowledge: Emotion
What is the relationship between reason as a way of knowing and logic in its different forms (inductive, deductive)? Is it possible and worthwhile to "translate" everyday arguments into formal logical structure, and what might be lost in the translation? How does the commonsense use of "it's logical", meaning "it makes sense to me", difference from its technical meaning of "it has a valid argument form"?
The relationship shared between the way of knowing of reason and logic, both inductive and deductive is that logic by dictionary definition: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. The word reliable within the dictionary definition refers to how reason will be used in conjunction with logic, as it is required for reasoning to be used to determine whether the inference that is created is reliable or not. Both inductive and deductive logic also require the processes of reasoning as whether the statement is being changed from general to specific, or the opposite, the speaker must know what is being changed, and either the generalized or specific term or phrase for the ‘end product’.
It would be possible to try and translate the everyday arguments which we undergo, and it maybe only worthwhile if the argument becomes to complex to the point where people dont understand what is meant by those having the argument and the point of the argument taking place. But with this translation of the argument taking place, a few of crucial points maybe taken out to clarify the meaning of the argument and thus it could ruin the argument in its whole.
The statement ‘it’s logical’ is confused with the real meaning and another meaning, which we have made up. This statement of having a valid argument and making sense are not too far off; as having a valid argument does make sense; this mistake is also caused how logic is linked with reasoning, and how if something makes sense it requires the use of reasoning to create a more logical argument. Thus with the use of reasoning within logic, people often mistake the meaning of ‘it’s logical’ meaning that something makes sense instead of having a valid argument form.
The relationship shared between the way of knowing of reason and logic, both inductive and deductive is that logic by dictionary definition: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. The word reliable within the dictionary definition refers to how reason will be used in conjunction with logic, as it is required for reasoning to be used to determine whether the inference that is created is reliable or not. Both inductive and deductive logic also require the processes of reasoning as whether the statement is being changed from general to specific, or the opposite, the speaker must know what is being changed, and either the generalized or specific term or phrase for the ‘end product’.
It would be possible to try and translate the everyday arguments which we undergo, and it maybe only worthwhile if the argument becomes to complex to the point where people dont understand what is meant by those having the argument and the point of the argument taking place. But with this translation of the argument taking place, a few of crucial points maybe taken out to clarify the meaning of the argument and thus it could ruin the argument in its whole.
The statement ‘it’s logical’ is confused with the real meaning and another meaning, which we have made up. This statement of having a valid argument and making sense are not too far off; as having a valid argument does make sense; this mistake is also caused how logic is linked with reasoning, and how if something makes sense it requires the use of reasoning to create a more logical argument. Thus with the use of reasoning within logic, people often mistake the meaning of ‘it’s logical’ meaning that something makes sense instead of having a valid argument form.
Theory of Knowledge: Language
Compare the following quotes: 'If you can't say it, then you don't know it.' (Hans Reichenbach) and 'I know more than I can say.' (Michael Polayani).
Michael Polayani’s quote of 'I know more than I can say.' The meaning that is brought from this quote is that language is not always the source of for all we know, as shown in this quote, at times we know alot more than we can demonstrate through the use of language. Which at times we can experience when we are presenting a certain topic and we find ourselves stuttering due to our inability to communicate it across. Most of us has experienced this feeling before; thus i feel that this quote is more correct than that of Reichenbach’s quote of 'If you can't say it, then you don't know it.' As language is not the core of all knowledge, but only a way to communicate it to the world
Along with the language being a way of knowing which can be used to push forth or demonstrate the knowledge that we have just attained and learnt, and not being the core of knowledge, the 4 language theories which connect a word to its definitions also at times say that the demonstration of linguistic knowledge by using different ways such as associating words and meanings by concepts and mental images, as well as the use of the importance of the certain word that is being said. Thus with Polayani’s quote we would probably know a certain word, and due to its importance we would be able to say it, but with a word less important we probably wouldnt be able to know it thus we wouldnt be able to say it.
Michael Polayani’s quote of 'I know more than I can say.' The meaning that is brought from this quote is that language is not always the source of for all we know, as shown in this quote, at times we know alot more than we can demonstrate through the use of language. Which at times we can experience when we are presenting a certain topic and we find ourselves stuttering due to our inability to communicate it across. Most of us has experienced this feeling before; thus i feel that this quote is more correct than that of Reichenbach’s quote of 'If you can't say it, then you don't know it.' As language is not the core of all knowledge, but only a way to communicate it to the world
Along with the language being a way of knowing which can be used to push forth or demonstrate the knowledge that we have just attained and learnt, and not being the core of knowledge, the 4 language theories which connect a word to its definitions also at times say that the demonstration of linguistic knowledge by using different ways such as associating words and meanings by concepts and mental images, as well as the use of the importance of the certain word that is being said. Thus with Polayani’s quote we would probably know a certain word, and due to its importance we would be able to say it, but with a word less important we probably wouldnt be able to know it thus we wouldnt be able to say it.
Theory of Knowledge: Language
‘Fully Explain which theory of meaning you think best explains the relationship between words and meanings’
The image theory, or the language theory which associates the meaning of words in the language to mental images in order to create the best definition where we can try to explain the definition of the word. In this image theory we know the definition of the word when we can attain a mental image of the word, or when we can associate the/a concept which is connected to the word. Some of these examples where we can justify the definiton/meanings of words by associating them to a mental image or the concept are shown below:
- Concept connection:
o Justice, we can define justice as we would link it to the concept of justice where a wrong-doer (criminal) is brought to justice and is forced to face a consequence for his act of wronging
- Mental image association:
o With an animal, (e.g. cat), we could picture a cat, as a furry small animal that has sharp claws and often kept as common house-pets
However with this theory there are its criticisms and how the image-theory can not be applied unversally, as the concepts and mental images can’t be explicitly told to another person and that person understands it. Thus although we may understand the person who we explain to may not be able to catch hold of how we define the word.
Why i think this image-definiton theory is the best out of the 4 theories (inclusive of, know-how, definition, and denotation theory). Is that although the criticism of the image theory is that it is not explicit enough for others, it is explicit for those who are thinking and associating the concept and/or a mental image of the word to the definition.
The image theory, or the language theory which associates the meaning of words in the language to mental images in order to create the best definition where we can try to explain the definition of the word. In this image theory we know the definition of the word when we can attain a mental image of the word, or when we can associate the/a concept which is connected to the word. Some of these examples where we can justify the definiton/meanings of words by associating them to a mental image or the concept are shown below:
- Concept connection:
o Justice, we can define justice as we would link it to the concept of justice where a wrong-doer (criminal) is brought to justice and is forced to face a consequence for his act of wronging
- Mental image association:
o With an animal, (e.g. cat), we could picture a cat, as a furry small animal that has sharp claws and often kept as common house-pets
However with this theory there are its criticisms and how the image-theory can not be applied unversally, as the concepts and mental images can’t be explicitly told to another person and that person understands it. Thus although we may understand the person who we explain to may not be able to catch hold of how we define the word.
Why i think this image-definiton theory is the best out of the 4 theories (inclusive of, know-how, definition, and denotation theory). Is that although the criticism of the image theory is that it is not explicit enough for others, it is explicit for those who are thinking and associating the concept and/or a mental image of the word to the definition.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)