13 Reasons Why?

KQ
To what extent can emotion be contagious?

To what extent does authority matter in delivering an opinion?

To what extent can arts be justified by science?

In the article, it is overtly mentioned that the TV series, "13 Reasons Why" brought a reverted consequence to its original purpose of reducing suicide rates by worsening the rate. It also mentioned that this is because teenagers tends to copy what they think to be true. Therefore, it is worth questioning whether emotion can be contagious or shared among people.

Emotion is something that every single person has, but its transferability is something to be questioned. It is quite true that people

Ethical guidelines

Ethical guidelines in Human Science

First, let's define human science. So, what is human science? According to Wikipedia, human science is a term applied to the investigation of human life and activities by a rational, systematic and verifiable methodology that acknowledges the validity of data.

In this long definition, I want to highlight certain words that I think are significant in understanding the true meaning of human science. The words are, 'investigation', 'human activities', 'methodology', and 'data'. The reason why I chose these words is because human science is an investigation which looks at human activities using appropriate methodology and data. I think this definition links to the question of 'to what extent investigation of human science is considered ethical?'
In the field of human science, particularly psychology, requires many investigation because they specifically look at human behaviors in certain situations. However, is it right or just to look at human behaviors? or is it right to experiment on humans? If it is, is there any boundary psychologists shouldn't go over? To answer this, I want to look at some past cases where experiments were considered unethical.

The first example I want to see is the Robbers cave experiment, where a number of preteen kids were brought to a summer camp without being informed that they are subjects of a psychology experiment. To summarize the experiment, the boys were divided into 2 groups where they were only allowed to meet up only when competing in a game. As the game intensified and the boys became harsher on each other, the experiment had ended. The problem in this experiment was engraved in the root of it. The psychologists had not informed the boys and deceived them that it was a "normal" summer camp, thus this was the reason why hostility between the boys arose.

Another example is the Stanford prison experiment, an experiment which happened at the basement of Stanford University by a professor and his group of students who agreed to be experimenters. To summarize the experiment, half of the students were selected as prison guards and the other half were assigned as prisoners. Each of the group of different role had to be serious with the experiment and had to act or even impersonate as prisoners and guards. At last, although the experiment was planned to last 2 weeks, it ended early 2 students with the role of prisoners dropped out. So, what is the problem with this experiment? I think that the problem is also in the root and procedure of the experiment. The fact that non-prisoners are acting like prisoners do not make them behave like prisoners in anyway because they are undergoing different environments. Also, the experiment divided the group into 2 groups where one was at the upper-hand of the other;this right away creates a psychological difference, thus making the experiment unethical.

To conclude, nowadays, due to external factors such as the Internet, where information and news fly around the world rapidly, experiments like those above have reduced, but what is it us for to say Yes, and No? Without any boundary or bar defining the adequacy and ethicality of experiments, it is never possible to determine it.

Models in Natural Science

Without models, there is no science -Kyu-

This quote that I just made might sound absurd, but I am telling you, I am being serious. When we learn sciences (bio, chem, physics, etc) in school, we encounted models everytime, but we are so indifferent with them. These models are like conduits that allow knowledge to pass through and to be delivered to us. Also, these models are like maps that guide us through the obscure world of natural science.

For example, this diagram below which illustrates the circulation of water omits so may external factors such as pollution, omits individual droplets, and how each droplets can have variations. Despite these many downfalls, we cannot say this model is wrong or inaccurate because it sure is accurate and useful when looking at the big picture. I want to highlight the word, 'big picture' and go in depth. In natural science, where millions of theories exist and not a single can be told wrong; if each theory were to be incorporated in a model, that model wouldn't be a 'model' anymore as it loses its true meaning-which is to be guiding and easily comprehensible.

Another example is one that I mentioned before:Circuits. In class, we are asked to construct a tangible circuit by looking at an intangible circuit that is drawn on paper. How are we able to do this and are those intangible circuits wrong because they don't so many things into account? Instead of trying to define whether it's wrong or right, we should be thankful of these models as they are maps and conduits of the knowledge we currently have.

Connection between personal knowledge and natural sciences

Of many other fields of study, I can't agree more that Natural science is the most difficult to have personal relationship with. It is almost impossible to create a personal connection between our personal knowledge and natural science In most cases, knowledge from natural sciences results from a very complicated and planned-ahead procedures. The main reason why we cannot relate our personal knowledge with knowledge of personal science is because due to the nature of personal knowledge. To define personal knowledge, it means any knowledge that is acquired from our experience thus without any given background knowledge; because in the case of natural science, it is so abstruse and broad that is impossible to comprehend without any background knowledge. However, I also think that there is a connection between personal knowledge and natural science, but only to a certain extent.

In everyday life, we go through so many things that we never keep track of every single things we do, but there are things that our brain does remember more than others. For many people, things resonate with them more when they have contact or to be scientific, 'tactile connection'. For example, when we touch a boiling water for the first time, we subconsciously link something boiling with hotness. Later on, this creates a robust foundation when learning thermal physics. Another example is when we bleed. Let's say you fell down from a staircase, and you start to bleed. Despite the pain, we learn that a scab replaces the blood, and that is when the pain starts to relieve. Again, this creates a foundation when we learn thoroughly about biology.


In conclusion, it is wrong to say there is no connection or contribution between personal knowledge and knowledge of natural science. Instead, we should be grateful of our personal experiences, as they lay as foundations and enable us to comprehend the complexity of natural sciences.

Metaphors in Natural Science

In the field of science, it is almost impossible to comprehend and express anything without the use of metaphors. Science itself is so abstruse that we humans cannot understand most of the things with our brains, but with the aid from metaphors we are able to do so. In this blog post, I will go over some examples.

First, Let's look at the perspective of physics. In physics, there are millions of assumptions involved, however we tend to ignore them completely and create a diagram that enables to ignore those assumptions. An example of this is the Free-body diagram, a diagram that shows the forces acting on an object. This image below shows all the forces acting on an object sliding from a slanted surface. The forces are: Gravitational, normal, and frictional force. However, in this there are many assumptions included. For instance, it is assuming that the object is sliding in a linear line, whereas in reality is it more likely to slide off diagonally and not at a constant velocity.
Hence, it is not right at the first place to present the diagram on a flat surface, meaning that it is impossible to present something 3D into 2D. Likewise, you can see the same for how physicist universally agreed upon the method of representing circuits. Universally, people share and use the same symbols and notations. Nothing is wrong with these symbols and notations, but what is "wrong' is how physicists casually represent tangled, complicated, and 3-dimensional circuits into untangled, simple, and 2-dimensional diagrams.

Secondly, let's look at the perspective of biology. Normally, if we 'google' human body diagrams, we see a general trend of an average human body with same looking internal organs across images. However, we clearly know that this is not the case. Everyone has different external appearances and probably different-looking internal organs too. Also, when we look at veins, we also see blood. Scientifically, isn't it right to show the sustenance and chemicals in blood? However, we tend to metaphorically ignore them and generalize them to be pure blood.


To conclude, we have seen some obvious, yet great examples of how metaphors are used widely accross physics. Through these examples, we have also learnt that, without these metaphors there is nothing we can comprehend and express in the world of science. Also without these metaphorical and univeral representations, the scientific knowledge we know of wouldn't have existed at all.

Blog Entry: Ethical limitaion of Science

I think there is a perfect example that will help me guide through the 2 questions written below.

1.       To what extent should scientific knowledge open to the public

2.       To what extent does science owe responsibility to the society that finances it

I am more than assured than everyone has heard about nuclear energy and its growing popularity as an alternative source of energy of finite energy sources such as oil over the globe. However, there are some downsides to nuclear energy. Despite the high productivity and environmental-freeness, there is no doubt that this source is by far the most dangerous and unpredictable among other sources. This leads us to the first question: To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public. I personally think that, in the case of nuclear energy, scientific knowledge should not be open to the public for many reasons. But the main reason is that, people might use the knowledge for their own benefits. In extreme cases, they might build their own nuclear power plants. However, I believe that there is an exception in this; Scientific knowledge that are minor and useful in the people’s daily lives should be open. Next, the second questions states to what extent does science owe responsibility to the society that finances it. To take a firm stand, I strongly believe that science owe utter responsibility to the society. In the case of nuclear energy, it is apparent that the citizens of a country must pay more tax in order to raise finance to build the nuclear power plants, and the costs of building a nuclear power plant costs $4 billion on average. Even after the power plants are built, the citizens are not guaranteed safety. As I have mentioned before, nuclear power plants are unpredictable and disastrous, and if it once explodes, a whole city, or perhaps a country can vanish. For example, the Chernobyl incident, which happened on 2 April 1986, was a catastrophic and shocking accident that started as one of the power plants exploded. The poor residences, who had to pay immense amount of money, died due to extremely high radiation. Like this, because science doesn’t result in positive outcomes, the society should always prioritize the people as they are the ones financing and undergoing the leap.  

Purpose of an Argument

The purpose of an argument cannot be defined as being only one. In some situations, arguments exist to criticize a certain group of people whereas some arguments exist to champion and empower others. Also, arguments can take in places, but they are mostly existent in debates or in discussions; in this case, the prime purpose of arguing is to convince the other party. Moreover, there are many ways one can argue through. One might argue by creating an emotion attachment, one might argue with reasoning, or one might even argue through fallacies. However, in proper debates, where formality is highly required, arguing with reasoning is the most effective and also appropriate way. In this blog post, I will explain why this is the case.

Although all our 'WOKs' are biased, reasoning and logic are the least biased. This is because reasoning and logic are based on knowledge that are objective and believed to be true. For example, in a political debate, although many fallacies and pathos are used among advocates, their arguments sound incredible and unconvincing if reasoning is laid as a foundation. Rather than just denouncing the other candidate, which is the ad hominem fallacy, it is more effective if the candidate exhibits abundant knowledge of that topic. Also, in many debates, especially those related to politics, the black and white fallacy is highly apparent. Even though there are many potential solutions to a problem, all the candidates seem to stick to only 2 decisions, one opposing the other.

Blog Entry #3 Imagination and Culture

Imagination and Culture...
What is an Imagination and what is a Culture? 

According to Dictionary.com, it says
Imagination is,
1. the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses.
2. the action or process of forming such images or concept

and, Culture is, 

1.the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.

Thus, How does this affect how we perceive the world?
From what I see and know, I think that imagination and culture shape us to be one-dimensional:limiting us to see the world of two-dimensions and three-dimensions. Because people tend to mis-think that other people believe in the way you do, this often creates misconceptions, and these misconceptions arise from imagination and culture. 

As an example from the Podcast we have been assigned to do, a rainbow is a great example of an one-dimensional example. From what many people believe, a rainbow comprises colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, navy, and purple. 

However, this is not true. How do we know this? Has anyone proved that rainbows comprise these colors? If he/she did, how can they trust their ideas? In reality, humans can never trust their things they perceive, but they have proved and validated through faith and repetition. 

let's change the subject of this situation, being a colorblind person who can only perceive 5% of the colors that a normal can perceive. To narrow it down, this person cannot distinguish between the 3 fundamental colors: red, blue, yellow. If this person sees the rainbow, what will it look like? The "Typical" rainbow normal people perceive? or even white and black? I do not know. But surely it won't be the same as normal people see because the colors of a rainbow is combination of the fundamental colors. Can we still conclude that rainbow has diverse colors?

Another example of an one-dimesion thought that imagination has created is the misconception Energy. 

In physics, we learn about the law of conservation of energy, which claims that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can be either transmitted or transformed. Assuming that this law is faultlessly true, thus credible, what we believe and see isn't what exactly IS happening. 

For example, when a bubble pops, is the bubble gone? Well, visually yes. But, in response to the law? No, It is transformed into different energies such as sound energy and majority are dissolved into air particles, becoming neutral energies. So why do we think bubbles disappear? This is because we rely on our imagination too much. 

Along with this, culture is also a powerful source on which we depend. Because culture varies throughout different countries, people from different culture often clash due to misunderstandings. 

In many Asian cultures, bowing is a very common act, whereas it is not in western cultures. So, when they see a person bow, they will perceive differently, and lead to different judgments. 

Blog post-2

Widely, people have continuously have asked the same question over and over until they realized that they were wandering in a maze without any exit. Image below is what I call the never-ending staircase, which represents our certainty of knowledge very well. Like the image below, our knowledge had been and still is ended up with no exist, in this case, no answers. But as I have said, people have made their own exits, either digging up the ground or inventing a plane to escape from the staircase to find 'answers' which they aren't even sure if they exist or not. They have never tried to stick with what they have had.

There is a statement or saying that is spread all around the world but has not been discussed thoroughly into its profoundness: 'Everyone makes mistakes'.
So, if everyone makes mistakes, when (Time and date), why and how did they make one. Also, can our knowledge be a mistake? To clarify this, can there be mistakes when we acquire knowledge? If there is, what can we rely on?

The biggest solution people of any field has come with throughout history is the combination of repetition and faith. As people have done similar things in similar ways, people started to find a significance in the pattern of surroundings. This sometimes included mistakes.  In social science, through examining human behaviors in different situations throughout history, people have determined this as an universal behavior that people have in common, which required them to inject faith on it. One example of a pattern of mistake examined by humans is in the concept of invention. Thomas Edison, when he tried to create the light bulb, it took him around billion attempts, all of them being unsuccessful, to be successful. Through repetition of mistakes, he grew faith that those mistakes were lessons to him that he should never approach it the same he did.

So, to make something certain in human sense, all people should agree that something is certain as if it has been promised by everyone.

Blog post-1

In TOK class, our class was thrown questions that really sounded simple but not simple. It went:

How do I know _____ ?

Can we know for certain?

Thrown back by the question, I was totally lost; However, Mr. Aaron soon taught us the 'Ways of Knowing': Reason, Emotion, language, Imagination, Perception, Faith, Memory, Intuition

Out of these ways, I found 'Faith' the most significant because without faith, the other 7 ways seemed useless. For example, in order to trust our memories, we need to believe in ourselves that our memories are right although they are not virtually reliable. 

More than this, we learned about 'The Cosmic Calendar' which condensed the period from the beginning of this universe until today and expressed in a calendar. It looks somethings like this:

     Perhaps, the first impression when I first saw this calendar was full of misapprehension. Because the calendar comprised too many things, it was hard to interpret. However, it got even worse when I understood the calendar.

      First of all, the credibility of this calendar was the first to be doubted. How did the creator, Carl Sagon, create this Calendar? Through what sources and information? Moreover, 'Why' did he create this calendar? For what purpose? 

      Secondly, if this calendar were to be accurate, it just proved to me that I am just a speck that has existed just for the last nano-milliseconds. 

     Another glimpse It had brought to me was that It allowed me to answer the controversy of whether the creation theory or the evolution theory is more explainable. Despite my bias of supporting the creation theory, I had to admit that the Cosmic Calendar explicitly showed that evolution was what led human these days to be as how we are now.  However, assuming that this Calendar is absolutely correct, I want to ask the readers of this post to answer my question: How did the big band theory happen? If this question is too hard, Did the big bang just happen as a coincidence? 

Along with a calendar, we explored the world of Maps and how it is linked with TOK

The first Map we were given was 'The Mercator Projection' which was made in 1956

http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel/m103/mercator/mercator.html

  With the Map, we had to find out what were biased in this map. Here are things I found biased

-The fact that Europe is situated in the center of the Map, which implies the superiority Europeans had in that time of era

-Why is the size of Antarctica massive? I think this is because at that time, Europeans had not had enough technology to sail to Antarctica but they had seen the slight silhouette or heard of Antarctica and had decided to assume the size of Antarctica. This shows the inaccuracy of the map

-There are some islands missing which also implies the imprecision of the map

Along with these points, Mr. Aaron pointed out what utterly showed the ultimate flaw of the map/

It was the size of Africa compared to any other continents. I learned that, in reality, the size of Africa is as big as many countries combined. For more information see the next image:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/simoncrerar/africa-is-immense

Isn't it shocking? It is almost 10 most gigantic countries all combined in one and there is still space left in between. 

Not only this map but other maps were given as examples and we were told to identify problems for everyone of them. Therefore, through this activity, we learned there is no such thing as a perfect map.

If there were to be a perfect map, it would have to scale up to the size of this Earth. Also, Instead of it's flat rectangular diagram, the diagram should be 3 dimensional. So, what is this asking for? That's right an exact replicate of this Earth. The same size, the same environment, and even a single dot of soil.  

However, with these inaccurate and imprecise maps, we were able to discover the world this much and I would totally say it is an outstanding job. So, does a map needs to be perfect? I say no. If a map contains what is needed, it is doing the right job. 

I want to give an example as a response to the map above. From the first look, many will agree that that is a very inaccurate and imprecise map which contains flaws in everything: The trees, compass, river, hills. It even looks a map made for prank. Despite its ambiguity, it is undertaking its role as a map and doing what is needed. 

When this is applied to TOK, It is not about finding out answers, but it is about proving the answers explaining how and why it is the 'correct' answer. This concept could be applied in different subjects too. In Math, when we learn about different graphs (Linear, Quadratic, and etc) it is crucial to know for what purposes the graphs were made and how each graph is different from one another. Doing this will allow you, me and us to travel without a perfect map as we will anticipate what we will confront in our journey. 

To sum up, It is not about the Map! It is about the use of Maps

Likely, It is not about the Knowledge! It is about proving the Knowledge!