- 3 Knowledge Questions raised by the episode
- 2 additional situations to which each KQ could be applied
- Answers to each KQ in each of the three situations (Cosmos and the other two, for each), from your perspective and an additional perspective. This will yield six answers for each KQ for a total of 18.
Fun fact: in his house in Ithaca, Carl Sagan had a giant Mobil gas station Pegasus sign on the wall.
The three knowledge questions raised by the film are:
ReplyDeleteKQ 1: Should Scientific Knowledge be relied on to answer most of life’s philosophical questions?
Situation 1: A child asks, “Why is the sky blue?”
The parent or whomever the question is posed to would most likely give a scientific answer about the sky being a reflection of a color in the spectrum.
Situation 2: A more difficult question like, “Where do humans come from?”
This question would also leave room for some scientific explanation. People who believe in Science would answer that we were originally the result of a big bang. Other than religion, we only have science to explain the heavy questions in life that humans seem to search for.
In answer to the knowledge question my response is no. While I am fond of science why is it that we rely on Science to answer life’s big questions. Is religion the only other option? If I reject religion, does that mean I automatically accept Science as my foundation for beliefs?
KQ 2: What limitations to human knowledge should we consider when creating facts?
Situation 1: While watching a film about the cosmos, the narrator states some statistics about the galaxies and stars. I ask myself, “Why is he regarding these statistics as facts, considering the fact that no one has ever traveled to another galaxy?”
If someone does calculations and regard something about the solar system as fact does it mean that society should accept it as a fact? If this is the case, why isn't evolution taught as a fact since they have proof and calculations also?
To answer KQ 2, I think that there are many limitations to human knowledge. One such limitation is the fact that we can never truly understand everything. Another one is that each knower is different. What one knower regards as true is dependent on his belief system.
Situation 2: A student is learning about the French revolution and thinks, “Since no one living today was alive during French Revolution, who’s to say if it actually exists. Because someone says it happened, why do we take their word for it?
In actuality, no one alive today was there to experience it so we truly don't know if it happened and probably never will.
KQ 3: Should we to continue seeking knowledge about the universe since it is evident that the humans will never fully understand it?
Situation 1: I read in the newspaper that money is being donated to NASA for research. I think to myself, “Why are we exhausting money and resources to explore the Universe when it seems endless and we will never be able to fully venture into it understand it?”
There is an obvious limit to what humans can know. So why are we so intent in finding out about history and the universe and things that we know we will never know. Is it too much to accept that there is an obvious limit to what we can know and understand? Where do we get the desire to want to know and understand everything?
Situation 2: I ask my grandmother why I have to go to church with her. She tells me that it is order to find my purpose in life. I think to myself, “Why is that we are so concerned with finding a higher purpose in life or do we even have one?”
Many say that one cannot truly live a full life unless they find their meaning in life. So far, I've only seen life as a cycle life is created and ends daily. Some lives are created by accident so how does one have purpose when their existence could be explained as a coincidence. Some people die within hours and days of life. What was their purpose?
To answer KQ 3: I think It is necessary to continue to explore things like the cosmos even though it seems that no one will truly ever understand it. We should do this because it will help us to better the human race and find solutions to world problems.
While watching the Cosmos in class, I realized two things. Firstly technology has become so advanced that we are able to research, view and provide answer and ask questions to situations/events that seem nearly impossible to experience. Another thing I noticed is that science has led to many creations, theories and philosophies due to its constant advancement.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge Question 1
To what extent can technology impact human knowledge?
Knowledge Question 2
To what extent can science and intuition overlap and affect human knowledge ?
Knowledge Question 3
How can certainty of knowledge be derived from science as opposed to faith?
Situations for knowledge question 1
-The other day I was in Math class doing some simple arithmetic equations. One of the questions asked me to square the number 2. although it is quite obvious that due to previous knowledge 2 multiplied by itself is, I still chose to put it in the calculator because I was too lazy and doubtful that my answer may have been wrong. This made me see that we as a human race in the Western region have become over dependent on technology
-Another situation is when I was on the train with my dad and he told me to the read the maps to determine the different options for train routes I could use. I had become so use to the GPS system that I was unable to remember how to read a map.
-While watching the Cosmos yesterday I realised that many of the scientific discoveries made on the universe were based on the technology. While exploring the galaxies he was in some what of a space shuttle which allowed him to see the universe as he passed through a clear glass. Not only this, but the fact that technology has become so developed to be able to explore space and clearly see things to allow our knowledge to grow.
Situations for knowledge question 2
-Today while watching the Cosmos, I heard a statement that I have heard many times. This statement involved the prediction of other life forms being evident on other planets or in other galaxies. Though scientifically this can be proven, my intuition tells me that there is no other life form(mainly human) on any other planet, though I may not be able to use science to prove this, my intuition aids in my knowledge of this situation.
- While on vacation I watched an episode of Wife Swap where a mother used science as a backative to prove that germs are good for the body to support her feeding her family raw meat, cleaning and doing anything the normal human terms as hygienic. This made me see that science impacted her intuition and may have misled it. On the other hand my intuition no matter what science says affects my knowledge on cleanliness because I believe to be healthy you must be properly hygienic in every aspect of life.
-Scientifically it has been proven that witches and elements of dark magic exists today and has existed. My intuition tells me otherwise, though it may be able to be proven I strongly believe that such beings do not exist.
Knowledge Question 2
DeleteTo what extent can science and intuition overlap and affect human knowledge ?
1)
Me: Science proves that other forms may live out in space but I simply do not believe so because my intuitions sees it impossible for this to take place. Then again my intuition comes from previous knowledge provided by other scientist, therefor science and intuition do somewhat overlap and affect my knowledge on their being other life forms in space
other perspective: Science and intuition cannot overlap when it comes on to something like space. Since only researchers and scientist are the ones able to access space, whatever they say we must accept because our intuition either comes from experience or previous knowledge. Since as normal human we may never be able to experience space we simply must accept science in many situations.
2)
Me: Science says that a bit of dirt and germs are necessary for the body. Although this is true, this statement has been misinterpreted and has affected the intuition of individuals on cleanliness. Here we see that science and intuition overlap where science has an effect on intuition whether positive or negative.
Other perspective: An individual's intuition may come from experience so although science may state that dirt is good, if your body cannot handle a lot of dirt and you remain healthy then obviously your intuition will tell you that science is not correct when it says dirt is good. Seeing that intuition is the ability to immediately understand something without questioning it, then in this situation intuition wins over science.
3)
Me: Scientist have been able to prove that elements of dark magic existed on earth and still exist. Although this may be true, my intuition allows me to oppose to this statement. I just know that witches or anything concerned with dark magic cannot exist. Therefor in this situation science does not affect my intuition.
Other perspective: Even though intuition is an immediate reaction or feeling towards something, it must come from some research to justify why you feel the way you do even if its just a feeling. This would come from science in some form if dealing with the elements of darkness. It could have been any subject but science is more suitable for this situation. Therefor even if we are not conscious of this, intuition does overlap with science to some extent to affect knowledge.
Knowledge Question 3
How can certainty of knowledge be derived from science as opposed to faith?
Situations for knowledge question 1
me: In the cosmos the narrator used science to be able to have certainty which led to his faith in discoveries that were assumed to be in space. I think many scientist know or have faith in a discovery but until it can be proven they will not make their faith assure their certainty of their knowledge wghh I consider as a very trivial thing.
perspective: Science was more used than faith to aid in certainty. They could not have used faith prior to science because as a researcher science is first used to aid in a discovery and never faith because they cannot provide a hypothesis or answer for something that cannot be seen.
Situation 2
DeleteMe; Even though science provides concrete evidence you need faith to believe in what you know that you know. Science says there is no heaven and they are certain of this because they have not seen it, but my faith allows me to know that there is a heaven. Plus in the bible it does say that heaven is beyond all universes and science cannot assure certainty that there is no heaven because they have not been beyond every single universe.
perspective:
Perspective : Science in this situation to assure that there is no heaven can be more concrete than faith, because we ourselves have faith in something we do not see thus we are not completely certain but we hope that heaven does exist. Since science is the closest thing we have to an answer and also because there may be many religions that believe that heaven is perhaps in a different universe that has been discovered, this gives scientist the right to prove that there may not be a heaven.
Situation 3
ME:The certainty of things in sciences especially when dealing with illnesses seem to affect one's knowledge on the illness and its signs and symptoms and possible outcomes more effectively than having faith to determine the outcome of something. Using the example of a person having stage 5 cancer death is inevitable because scientist have proven that by that stage it has already almost killed your whole body, you are helpless. Even if you have faith that the individual may not dies, you cannot change something as certain as death proven in many cases through scientific theories. Faithful individuals can try to prevent death through faith but it is more certain that it will or will not take place through science.
Perspective: “Faith can move mountains” Although many things especially death can be certain through scientific notions and discoveries, it also has to do with mindset. The physical body is greatly affected by the mental body. If an individual has enough faith that they can fight cancer, it may be possible for them to do so. Others may view their knowledge on faith affecting death as not certain, but once that individual believes that it is certain to them, they can fight cancer or any other lethal illness.
In what ways does technology play a role in finding new discoveries that impact the general knowledge of mankind?
ReplyDeleteAstronomical technology that have and continue to have a significant influence on humans’ increasing knowledge of the universe.
The many astronomical technologies such as satellites, sensors, and precision optics are highly vital in the process of learning about the universe and finding new information that leads to new scientific breakthroughs. For example learning that Pluto has moons or understanding that Mars has livable weather conditions, two highly important facts that have affected the general public’s understanding of the universe would not have been possible without such technology.
Some may refute to this idea that astronomical technology has a very significant influence on humans’ knowledge about the universe. Without technology many people have still been able to come to significant astronomical developments and findings including the man who was able to predict the circumference of Earth before technology even existed which affected the knowledge of astronomical scientists and mankind.
The technology for STEM cell research which helps scientists and doctors understand and identify new health issues and ultimately create ways to fix them.
Scientific, especially medical, technologies are innovated everyday in some part of the world, these new technologies however create a significant impact on the medical field and people suffering with health conditions that are known as incurable. STEM cell research, which is used to understand possible remedies for such incurable conditions call for extreme amounts of highly complicated technology. With such technology, even the more basic things such as microscopes and computers to be able to see the cells, researchers are able to understand the effects of specific variables on the cells which in turn help in understanding cells and finding cures for diseases.
Without STEM cell research however, many extraordinary scientific and medical necessities which affect scientists’ knowledge today were able to be created. Technology is a human made creation to make processes easier and more time-effective, however it is not a necessity and through physical experience of understanding a disease and knowing medicine, one will ultimately be able to come to some kind of conclusion that cures a specific disease.
The special surveillance technology that assists many people in rediscovering many lost civilizations.
High-tech satellites, drones, LiDar, and other technological advancements that allow for new and more precise imaging have lead to many new archaeological discoveries which were very difficult or maybe even impossible to understand before. With the new, accurate information that archaeologists have been able to
understand and find with assistance of such technology, their knowledge of past civilizations have greatly increased and allows for new knowledge in society as a whole as well.
DeleteIn history however, technology did not always provide accurate information, even today through technology used to make more technology accurate and precise, one can not possibly use technology as a reliable source to uncovering lost civilizations. However without the use of technology, some people in the past have been able to find unknown locations without the use of technology.
To what extent can evidence through history create a reason to explore unknown information and develop the knowledge of people?
NASA scientists learning through past scientific evidence that there is more in the universe than humans know of right now.
Through NASA and other astronomical based companies, scientists can understand from past scientific experiences with their contemporary scientific knowledge (which has been affected by scientific studies in the past) that there is most likely more in the universe than they have been able to understand yet. Therefore, many times their inquiry leads to exploring more in the universe and attempting to find ways to make a scientific success. In the Cosmos, it was clear that new discoveries were made through scientists understanding information from the past and attempting to change it or prove it based on their new knowledge. This can be shown through all the discoveries that were clear in the movie such as the rings around certain planets and the snowballs that made up the rings of Jupiter.
Evidence from the past does not always lead for a reason to explore further into a situation. For some people, what is known from the past is what is the truth without any question or debating. From NASA scientists, past evidence shows that planets have moons, but this does not cause all scientists today to explore more unknown information about this fact.
In a crime scene, investigators can use past evidence to understand and predict possible suspects for new situations.
Through a specific investigator’s knowledge from a past crime in robbery for example that proved to have a continuous trend, the investigator would be able to use his or her past information to choose a specific path of investigation when trying to find the suspect. This investigator’s evidence through history caused a reason for him or her to explore a new case with assistance from past evidence which helps their colleagues understanding of the situation as well.
Though there may be evidence in the past that allows for one’s possible prediction of a future event, it should not influence the exploration of a new situation because they are then two different situations. No two situations are always the
same, therefore it would be almost illogical to use old evidence as a reference to a new situation.
DeleteEvidence from past researches and explorers create motivation for others to explore unknown information about pyramids and create more theories for their existence.
Evidence from past researches and explores can push others to be intrigued about pyramids and desire to learn more. In this situation, one would be using evidence found in the past to fuel their desire to learn more in the present and look to understand even more information about pyramids than what the evidence provided. This creates an open opportunity to explore unknown sites and information that can lead to a person’s own development of knowledge about the pyramids and the possibility to share the knowledge with the rest of the world or any other knowers.
Evidence from past researches and explorers may not always create motivation to explore unknown information about pyramids. However, it can help to the extent far enough to understand the different theories of how pyramids came to be and why they existed so that a person could combine this knowledge of the past with knowledge of their time and be able to explore theories that are unknown to the world. This will provide unique knowledge for the person and the world.
How can faith impact one’s knowledge of other perspectives in science?
Many scientists do not use faith in a religion in order to understand factual evidence of different perspectives of the creating of humans.
In this case, faith would not have an impact on one’s knowledge of other perspectives based in science, rather the lack of faith would hold a significant role in understanding fact. Due to the lack of faith that many scientists hold, it is easier to believe in their own studies and other scientists’ studies which add to their knowledge of different perspectives in society (the Theory of Evolution). Many times religious perspectives oppose physical facts that scientists find, and incorporating both ideas together is a very difficult concept. Because of this, faith in religion cannot impact one’s knowledge about other perspectives in science but faith in physical fact can.
Faith in religion versus faith in factual evidence continues to be a great debate as ways of knowing and in trying to understand which to believe more in if any. However, some people work to create a middle place where they can incorporate their religious views and their scientific perspectives to understand evolution especially. Both science and religion leave room for one’s own opinions and ideas, and science did not necessarily become a secular subject until the 18th and 19th centuries.
Some religious people have faith in the existence of a “heaven” which sometimes opposes the beliefs of scientists who believe that outside of Earth there is only universe.
This faith in a heaven can completely impact one’s openness or negligence towards the scientific belief that there is only a universe of planets and other astronomical subjects. In this case, the level of change in one’s knowledge of other perspectives about the universe would vary based on whether or not the person changed their mind about a heaven or was not changed by the scientific view point. However, it can impact some to question whether or not there really, in fact, is a “heaven” or something else that another religion may believe in.
In many cases faith in a religion does not impact one’s knowledge of other perspectives in science. A personally generally sticks to what they believe in, though they may consider the idea of new perspectives it would not always completely change the person’s belief though it may weaken the person’s attachment to that belief.
A farmer’s faith in their organic crops and farming technique may dismiss some different perspectives about farming and natural sciences such as the scientific advancement of genetically modified foods.
DeleteThis farmer’s faith in his organic crops growing properly and producing the financial yield he desires in this case, would definitely impact his knowledge about another perspective of farming and the sciences such as genetically modified foods because he would simply not believe in it. His faith in his own technique would completely impact his opposition to genetically modifying his crops.
Another perspective may be that the farmer’s perspective would be completely impacted when learning more about genetically modified foods and the crop yield that he or she may decide to adopt such a concept despite holding faith in their own technique. Compromise is very possible, especially in situations dealing with faith in one perspective while there are many more potential perspectives that a person can be open too.
KQ 1: How do limitations restrict our ability to gain knowledge through technology?
ReplyDeleteSituations:
1. The limitation of not having the technology to go explore the entirety of the cosmos by space shuttle.
-My perspective: The limitation of not having the technology to go explore the entirety of the cosmos by space shuttle does restrict our ability to gain knowledge. The information that we do have about the cosmos that has come from satellite photos and scientific assumptions is very important to knowledge of the cosmos. On the other hand, I believe that if we had more information by Astronauts going and exploring, it would be even more beneficial to our understanding of our universe. However, the current technology greatly limits how far space shuttles can travel and how long they can travel for. Considering that “The Voyager 1 took three years and two months, Voyager 2 took four years, and the Cassini spacecraft took six years and nine months” to get to Saturn which is considerably close to Earth compared to the entire universe, with the technology now it would impossible to explore that far.
(http://www.universetoday.com/15312/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-saturn/)
-Other perspective: The limitation of not having the technology to go explore the entirety of the cosmos by space shuttle does not restrict our ability to gain because we can gain knowledge from other aspects besides astronaut travel.There are other forms of technology that can help us to gain information about our Universe. It would be great to have astronauts find things in the Cosmos however technology is not advanced enough for that, but this does not restrict our knowledge.
2. The limitation of not having advanced enough medical technology to treat some diseases.
-My perspective: There is a lot of medical technology being used in the world to research and treat diseases; such as, Stem cell research and Radiation therapy to treat Cancer. However, there are many diseases that still do not have a cure or sufficient treatment because the current technology has limitations because it is not advanced enough. This limitation restricts our ability to gain knowledge about diseases that are harming human kind.
-Other perspective: The lack of advanced enough medical technology to treat some diseases, is not something that greatly restricts our ability to gain knowledge. We can still learn and use our experiences to help with diseases, along with faith that can also help to cure and treat diseases. It would be beneficial to have more advanced technology, but it does not exactly restrict us.
3. The limitation of not knowing all consequences of genetic enhancement.
-My perspective: I have conflicted feelings about the use of genetic modification and genetic enhancement. We were learning in Biology about the use of it in plants and how genetically modified plants yield more crops and can also withstand bugs and other harmful things to them. That is all great, however, we are unsure of the possible consequences of genetic enhancement. Could it be harming the plants? Could it mess with nutrition? Could it harm ecosystems and food chains? Therefore I think that the possible consequences are a limitation of this type of technology.
-Other perspective: The unknown consequences are not a limitations of genetic enhancement because there are unknowns and risks for everything in the world. Genetic enhancement has so many positive effects such as for crops or for bacteria that can create insulin for those people with diabetes. The unknown consequences of genetic enhancement could become a limitation, which could restrict our knowledge and future, however based on the positive effects so far, that is unlikely.
KQ 2: In what ways does evidence affect the certainty of knowledge through sense perception and experience?
DeleteSituations:
1. We only have pictures of the cosmos, we can’t experience it ourselves and use other forms of perception as evidence for what happens in the Cosmos and the knowledge that we have about it.
-My perspective: I do not think that not having the ability to experience, ourselves, what it is like way out in the Cosmos and to touch things and hear things there is necessarily a bad thing or affects the certainty of the knowledge that we have of the Cosmos. It would be amazing to have our experiences as another form of evidence to support the knowledge that we have of the cosmos, however that fact that we can’t does not change or negatively affect the certainty of what we already do know.
-Other perspective: Sense perception and experience have a large impact on the evidence and certainty of knowledge. Without feeling and hearing and experiencing the Cosmos, there is no way for us to know the exact certainty of some of the scientist’s assumptions. It is possible that some of our knowledge about the Cosmos is wrong and we will never know that until we experience it ourselves; sometimes pictures and mathematical formulas are not enough.
2. Emotions are something that we feel (not physically, but mentally) and experience, however we do not have tangible evidence of them or if what we’re feeling is real.
-My perspective: Our experiences and feelings of our emotions are basically the only evidence that we have for the certainty of them. Knowledge about our emotions is based on the emotions that we have felt our experienced or heard of. In this way the certainty of knowledge is greatly dependant on perception and experience. However, the may not validify the knowledge. There is no tangible evidence (that I have seen) that emotions are exactly like that the knowledge that we have of them. There is no concrete knowledge about emotions because it is all based on the individual.
-Other perspective: Emotions are a way of perceiving and experiencing things so they are a valid way of knowing the certainty of knowledge. They are also certain because we feel them and experience them ourselves. Although everyone feels things differently, there is no denying the certainty of our knowledge of emotions and how they affect us.
3. Fossils are evidence of past species and evolution
-My perspective: Fossils are certain evidence of species that once existed and were part of the progression of evolution. This is shown through the fossils and homologous structures. I think that these tangible objects are definitely evidence that validates the certainty of knowledge; however, one could say that because we were not there to experience it and see these organisms that that has a significant effect on how certain the evidence is and how certain our knowledge is on these organisms. That is not really how I think of it though because if that was the case for every piece of evidence of the past, we would have no certain knowledge of it. I think there is always room for speculation, but that does not ruin our knowledge.
-Other perspective: Fossils are evidence of species and evolution, however there are still many things that we don’t know about the past of these organisms. Fossils are obviously remnants of the organisms that once lives, however we can be certain of the story behind them. We can not be certain that evolution happened exactly the way that we think it did. We can not be certain of any of the knowledge that we have about this aspect of the past because we were not there to see it or experience it.
KQ 3: How do one’s personal beliefs and faith affect one’s desires to investigate what others may consider to be the “unknown”?
DeleteSituations:
1. Some people may not believe that there are other life forms in space and have no desire to find out if there are.
My perspective: I do believe that there could be life forms in space and I really want to know if there actually are. My beliefs partly affect my desires to know this because I am really open minded especially when it comes to science and I don’t really have an actual religion that would restrict me from having that desire. However, I do think that some people may have personal beliefs and faith that affect their desire to know about other life forms in space. To some it may simply be insignificant and to others, their religion may state that their higher power created humans and humans only and Earth as the only planet with life on it.
Other perspective: One’s personal beliefs and faith definitely affect whether they want to know or believe that there are other life forms in the universe. Everyone has their own opinion and thoughts that they live by and if the theory of other life forms goes against that, then that is understandable.
2. Some people have no interest in finding other ways to explain the unexplainable, they have full faith in their certain beliefs, such as belief in god and religion over scientific theories.
My perspective: Personally, I am more of a science person over a religious person. As much as I don’t want to compare such different subjects, it is undeniable that the two have two very different theories on how Earth was created and how life has evolved. For many people faith and religion is all that they need to explain things that they don’t know. My Grandmother, for example, is very Catholic and if she sees a pretty flower and she says, “Wow, it is amazing how God created that”, whereas other people may say there is scientific way to explain something. And same with Earth. Some people believe in the big bang and some people believe that God created Earth and all of the organisms on it.
Other perspective: It is not that some people have no interest in finding other ways to explain the unexplainable, it is that they have already found peace with their own beliefs. That is the only way to be certain of knowledge, is to find faith in something and believe in it.
3. The reason for why some people have fatal diseases.
My perspective: I think that everything happens for a reason, so my belief has an affect on my desire to explain the unknown. I like to learn about diseases because I love learning the science behind things, but I also sometimes believe that there is not always a way to know why things happen because that is just my personal belief.
Other perspective: Belief and faith plays a huge role in how people explain why some person may have a fatal disease over another. People also use faith as a way to cope and a way to help their loved ones why they go through that. So it definitely affects how they explain the unexplainable.
ReplyDeleteKQ1: How does the knower’s imagination affect their factual knowledge?
Additional situation: (1) Fables or orally told stories (2) Theories of prehistoric animals and humans
Answers:
(Cosmos) The knower’s thoughts of how the planets function, and the possibility that there may be living organisms on them, highly depends on imagination. So far it’s proven that there is no life on any planets we know of. We know this through scientific evidence. The idea of life outside Earth is still debated and thought of as a probability. I personally believe there could be life on other planets, and this belief is based mainly off my imagination. Because I lack factual knowledge of the planets, I jump to assumptions created through my imagination.
For another perspective, one could say that the thought of other organisms living in outer space is factually possible and provable by science, paying no attention or need to imagination. On planets such as Mars, there are places where organisms could live if there was a source of water. Since we haven’t found water, we assume that there is no life, but factually it’s possible for life to exist in other places. For this perspective, imagination does not affect the knower’s factual knowledge.
For orally told stories, the reader relies on the fact that the teller is truthful. With many fables and stories passed through generations, events and facts are exaggerated. For example, the Bible is a controversial book, with some saying it is completely made up with imagination. In this situation, the knower is not affected by imagination as they are depending on factual knowledge and proof that the stories cannot be truthful. I personally do not believe all the events of the Bible are true, and this is because of my previous knowledge.
For another perspective, someone may say that the Bible is not made up at all, and is completely factual. For this reason, people may live by the rules of the bible because they believe so heavily that it is truly factual. In this case, these people trust their imagination and the “story teller.” This affects their factual information (such as proof these events happened, or scientific experiments to show that many events were impossible by laws of nature), as their mind is clouded by imagination.
Imagination affects the knower’s factual information, concerning prehistoric life, simply because there is no written evidence about the animals or humans of the time. The only evidence we have today is some art, no writing. This leaves room for the imagination to take over, picturing how and if humans and animals lived. I think that not only the art, but also the scientific evidence is enough to prove that humans live during this time. How they lived, is more up to my imagination, as there is limited factual knowledge to base my thoughts on. Here my imagination paints a mental picture for myself to compare factual knowledge with, drawing connections. They seem to go hand in hand.
Another perspective may say that imagination does not affect our factual knowledge at all, as they solely base their thoughts off of evidence. The imagination, therefore, does not affect their facts.
KQ2: How does the knower’s past experiences determine their logic or perception?
DeleteAdditional situations: (1) Trust after a bad past experience (such as a car wreck), (2) unusual event seemingly unbelievable to others
Answers:
(Cosmos) In the documentary, the narrator described a situation where there were two towns in northern Africa, that debated over the shadows cast by columns at midday. Both shadows were not equal in length, posing the question of how this was possible if the world was flat. In this situation, the knower’s past experience is the person who accepted the facts and did nothing about them. Neither man immediately realized that the world could be a sphere instead of a flat plane. Both men’s previous experiences led them to believe that the Earth was flat, even though logic (through the cast shadows) proved it was not flat. Perception was greatly different with the fact that no one had thought about the Earth’s shape before.
A second perspective could be of the second man in the situation who took the initiative to measure how curved the world was. This man’s past experiences did not get in the way of his logic, but it did get in the way of his perception at the start. He too thought the Earth was flat and found it hard to believe that the shadows cast different lengths at the same time of day, showing his past experience affected his perception.
After a bad experience, the knower’s past experience can affect their perception and logic greatly. A personal example is the accident of my horse who fell onto concrete and broke his leg. Because of the traumatic situation of needing to euthanize my horse, my perception and logic toward riding is very different now than it was three months ago. It’s extremely difficult to view the sport as fun and full of energy when my past experience overcomes my logic and perception. The bad experience has altered how I see the sport, people, and animals within it. My perception of every thing surrounding me is heightened and it’s mainly because of the event. It affected me logically because I now feel the need to be more cautious in everything I do around horses.
A second perspective would be of a person who had an event such as mine occur, and could overcome it. In that case, the person’s past experiences do not determine the person’s logic or perspective around the sport of riding. Many people are able to easily forget traumatic experiences and have it not affect their future. They are able to keep the same attitude and perspective toward riding.
Another situation that could determine a person’s perception and logic is a seemingly unbelievable situation that no one else believes. For example, if a person said they had seen a ghost or something supernatural, their perception would greatly change on the world. Their logic would also be challenged, as the event would go against all previous standards of logic. This event could even change their perception and how they think on a day-to-day basis, possibly changing a core belief of that person.
A second perspective on this would be from the point of a scientist. A scientist, or extremely logical person, could argue that the unbelievable situation was impossible by laws of nature or by all other logic in life. This person’s perception and logic would not change, as they convince themselves that either the other person is wrong or that they hallucinated etc.
KQ3: To what extent do we need evidence to validate our beliefs?
DeleteAdditional Situations: (1) Miracles in the Catholic Church, (2) Abortion
(Cosmos) In the TV program, we were introduced to many scientific beliefs, one of them relating to outer space in general. For many people it’s beyond their imagination to believe that the universe is so vast and huge. Many people need evidence to somehow validate this belief. On a family trip to Washington D.C, my family stopped at the National Cathedral. One of the stain glass windows has a piece of “moon rock” embedded into the glass. When I saw this I naturally thought that this piece of rock was probably someone’s proof of the moon.
For another perspective, astronauts who went to the moon took videos of themselves bouncing and sticking a flag into the moon. This video seemed like almost a validation to the public, and possibly the astronauts, that the moon was actually a real planet.
One interesting part of the Catholic Church to me is the belief centered on being a saint. In order to become a “certified” saint, the person must prove to the church that they performed a certain number of miracles. This belief is, I believe, is a validation of holiness. To both the church and the public, it is very hard to name someone a saint, as they have strict beliefs, so they require criteria.
For a second perspective I think that many Catholics do not necessarily need this validation to believe in god and believe in saints. Many religious people still hold beliefs without even taking miracle-performing saints into consideration. For many people, I do not think this validation is needed, as their beliefs are strong enough without it.
Another hot topic revolving around beliefs is abortion. For one perspective, many people need validation, or a certain criteria again, to prove that abortion is either okay or not okay. An example of this is the argument that if the fetus does not yet have a nervous system, it is okay to abort them. This belief is validated through science as to when a nervous system evolves in a growing fetus. Validation is key to this argument through evidence.
A counter argument would be that the fetus is technically a human life at the moment of conception. This theory is not proven by evidence, so for this belief, validation is not needed as heavily. This belief is purely based on a concept and emotion rather than scientific evidence.
KQ1: To what extent should a knower use imagination to extract truth?
ReplyDeleteSituation 1: The cosmos. Science is based on facts that humans have discovered, based on laws of the universe. Because of our limited technology, we must wonder, and use imagination to create our own perspective of what is really out there. We must wonder beyond the limits of our knowledge to predict ways to find out what is out in the galaxy. However, because science is reliant on facts, to what extent should our imagination guide our investigation of the universe?
P1: A scientist researching the galaxy must use imagination, for the galaxy is seemingly endless, and without imagination mixed with facts to create different hypothesis about space, science might come to a standstill.
P2: A scientist researching more worldly things, with resources accessible, would rely on much less imagination. Especially if they are working with the earth, they have all the resources they need. They should rely on little to none, seeing as the world provides the answers, the person just has to find them.
Situation 2: A Historian. When learning about history, what everyone tries to do is find the story that is best fit to what actually happened. However, when investigating time periods that are off the record, how can anyone actually know what happened? Other than ancient artifacts and stones, there is nothing to tell the stories of the past. We can create ideas based on what we have, but there are still blanks to be filled in. To what extend should we rely on imagination to fill in the blanks, and make assumptions based off of thought, not proof?
P1: A historian that researches ancient cultures must rely on imagination to fill in the blanks, for there is nothing else. However, that should have a disclaimer, and the historian should have exhausted all possible resources before resorting to imagination to create facts.
P2: If a historian is researching more recent events, such as World War two, there are so many artifacts that tell what happened, so many written records from both the allies and the axes powers that can give the historian a clear idea of what was happening. This historian must rely on much less imagination (if any at all), since they have so many more resources.
Situation 3: A knower can extract truth from oneself by using imagination. For example, a writer. Heather and I debated heavily about this during our knowledge presentation, and she seemed adamant that a writer can discover self-knowledge through creating characters and situations. This involves imagination, doesn’t it?
P1: In one case, if the author is a fiction writer, they have the ability to imagine endless situations, and end up in truth. What they write is not taken as fact, it is simply a story. They can make up anything they want.
P2: If the author is a non-fiction writer, they must rely on truth a little more. People will read their works with the idea that the words on the paper tell events that actually happened. Imagination is limited in this way, much like a historian is limited. However, this also happens with writing an autobiography. A writer must be honest, or enhance their own life with their imagination (with a disclaimer of course).
KQ2: To what extend should humans take risks that endanger their lives for the sake of knowledge?
DeleteSituation 1: The cosmos. Space is dangerous. Just watch the movie Gravity (spoiler alert: people die). Should we risk human life to gain knowledge about our universe? Even if someone explores the lengths of the universe and gains great knowledge, if they die the knowledge dies with them.
P1: We need to explore space, because it could give us answers that we have about our own world and how it works that could improve human life. Death is a risk worth taking. Also, if someone volunteers to venture into space beyond where humans have gone before, they are aware that their life could be at risk.
P2: Something could go horribly wrong, and no human could return. This could scare off perspective scientists, but most importantly, nothing has been accomplished except for death. Humans should accept that the universe’s vastness is beyond our knowledge, and should stick to what we know and investigate that further, not try to explore new territory.
Situation 2: Some more science, but this time, nuclear weaponry. These experiments can be dangerous, and ultimately result in something that can kill thousands of people. Is that safe to have on the earth?
P1: These experiments are conducted in a safe place, and can harm no one if everyone is careful. Also, if the world ever needs to go to the extreme and use a nuclear weapon, it is available. Humans just must be aware of the consequences. Overall, yes, this is safe.
P2: There is no need for these bombs, they can harm the environment that is being used for testing, and they can harm humans. No human should die in a test of a human killing machine. These things aren’t safe, we don’t have enough knowledge to know how to safely use them, and if fallen in the wrong hands the consequences could be disastrous. These are not worth a human life.
Situation 3: Science, again, but this time the ocean. So much of it has not been explored, but is it safe to explore? Its water, for thousands of feet down, with no oxygen available to the human lungs unless strapped to someone’s back. Again, if someone dies, their knowledge dies with them. Is that a wasted human life?
P1: Explore it. We’re on the earth, and the ocean is much easier to explore than space seeing as we have so many more resources. Again, discovery is worth more than the life of someone (someone who knows the risks they are taking).
P2: It’s too dangerous. Walking on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean is not as important as safety. Humans must be completely sure that an operation will be successful before they go ahead and put it into action (however, can you ever be 100% sure?).
KQ3: To what extend do humans have the right to destroy something for knowledge?
DeleteSituation 1: Cosmos, and Space. Like chipping a piece off of the moon. Now, this isn’t actually destroying something, but it could be damaging it. Maybe landing something on another planet will cause harm to it, we don’t know.
P1: Space is so fast, that tinkering with something would not affect the big picture. We should be doing anything we can do gain knowledge of things outside earth.
P2: We don’t have enough knowledge of space to know how everything will effect it. The universe is a very carefully put together thing, and we don’t know how the human touch will effect it. We should gain more knowledge of it first, while leaving everything in its respective place.
Situation 2: Historical artifacts. Do humans have the right to tinker with monuments that have been in place for hundreds of years? Destroying doesn’t mean knocking them down, but would changing them and altering them to have a better appearance destroy the authenticity of it? Do humans have the right to change those monuments?
P1: History is history. It would be disrespectful to change a historical monument that once held so much meaning to a certain civilization. We should not change something for our own selfish knowledge, we must think of the humans who built these things, and pay respect to them by leaving their buildings alone.
P2: The people who built these structures are dead. It would be more helpful to humans if we retouched the monuments, therefor making them safe to explore so that humans can be educated about the people that once built the monuments, and why they did it. Isn’t remembrance one way to pay respect?
Situation 3: Nature. Destroying ecosystems, plants, trees, animals, and other things could be unethical. To what extend do we have the right to do this to gain knowledge of our world?
P1: We do not have the right to take another life for our own knowledge, whether it is a tree, or a squirrel. Everything is entitled to life.
P2: By killing a tree, or dissecting a squirrel, humans could gain more knowledge about the species, and possibly develop techniques to help the species prosper by looking in-depthly at their inner workings. Although it would cost some lives, in the end results would better nature.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. To what extent do future happenings and/or fate depend on what we know now?
ReplyDeleteThis question can be applied to a situation that we as humans are going through now. We know that Earth is going through a global warming, which is causing problems throughout countries in the world. It affects people and various animals.
An existentialist, who believes that the universe does not care about the well being of humans may have this answer “Future happenings regarding global warming does not depend on what we know now, because our world’s decisions are completely decided by the universe, not us. The universe does not care about what we know from what we don’t. It has ultimate power and knowledge of how the global warming situation will end, and we, humans a minor part of the universe do not have the knowledge to predict the spontaneous happenings of the world.”
An environmentalist, may have this answer “ Our knowledge of the melting polar caps, and global warming on the whole can change the outcome of the world, and our future if we proceed to do something about it. We can recycle, lower the amount of greenhouse gasses, conserve water, plant trees and so much more. Knowing about all of this can really alter the future happenings and fate of the world.”
The question can also be applied to a situation in which a person who has a serious disease wants to know how soon she or he will die.
From my perspective, I think that knowing that the person has a disease plays a big role in the fate of that person. That person will probably die because of that disease in one way or another. There is a small chance that the person will not die because of the disease, but it is most likely that they will die from this serious disease.
A person who is very devoted to their religion may say “It is up to God to decide what will happen. Anything can happen. The person with the disease may be suffering today, but may get up and walk tomorrow and be perfectly fine because of God’s doings.”
2. To what extent is faith a factor in sciences ideas?
DeleteI came up with this question when thinking of all of the theories that we believe in in science, so one situation that this question can be in is if a person asks “How do we know that universe exists?”
I would answer this question saying. We do not. And we cannot ever truly know about everything that is out in space. Science is highly dependent on faith, which is ironic because the two areas of knowledge seem like opposites. We have theories of things that we can never know, so we have faith in it instead.”
A scientist would say “We know that the universe exists because of all of the research we did on it. We scientists do have faith that our theories are true, but most of our evidence on this question is based on reason for the most part. Faith is not involved to a great extent.”
Another instance in which this question is apparent is in the law of gravity
I think that there is faith involved to a small extent. Gravity happens, but we as humans have faith in the law of gravity by supporting it, and spreading it and expecting it to happen. Even though that faith comes from experience of having everything fall, faith does play a role in expecting it to happen.
Another person may think that faith plays no role in the law of Gravity. Faith usually refers to spirituality, and The law of Gravity has nothing to do with this. The law comes solely from things that happen due to reason, not faith.
3. To what degree does our experience affect and/or limit what the knower has the ability to know and understand?
DeleteOne situation that this question can be seen is with people in the Ancient times, who discovered formulas in math that they needed for their terrain.
A person living in the ancient times may think that they do not have the ability to understand or learn the formula for slope if they live in a flat place. They may think this because they have only seen and got used to seeing flat lands, and living in that area for their whole lives,they may have never experienced a hill or a mountain, so they would not have the ability of learning the formula for slope living in a flat land.
Another person will think that the people living in a flat land have the ability to learn the slope formula, given that they are the same species, because generally, we humans are the same in that we have the same capabilities. They may have a harder time learning these things because of their experiences, but they can learn it.
Another situation to which this question applies is in the amount of space in the universe, specifically what the term light- years mean
A scientist might say that we can use metaphors to explain what light years are like explaining it as “equivalent to the distance that light travels in one year, which is 9.4607 × 1012 km (nearly 6 trillion miles).” Therefore, experience affects the knowers ability to understand, but it does not limit it because metaphors can be used to describe the things that are hard to understand.
Another person will say that the use of metaphors clarify things, but the knower does not fully know what a light year is if they have never been through one. A metaphor gives an overview but doesn't let the knower know what a light year is because experience is key to knowing something. In short, experience limits what the knower has the ability to know and understand because in this case, the knowers experience does recognize the situation discussed.
KQ 1: How can a theoretical model give us knowledge even if it might be wrong or there is not be a way to prove it?
ReplyDeleteApplication #1: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth by measuring the distance from Alexandria to the city where his friend lives. In this case, his answer was very close to the actual number that was measured with professional equipment.
Answer from perspective 1: It gives us knowledge if we know that the knowledge upon which we built our model is completely correct.
Answer from perspective 2: the model then gives us tentative knowledge that could be used until they are disproven.
Application 2: There were many models made an atom before it came to the one that chemists and physicists use today, each time a new model came out, the previous one would be proven wrong, in Dalton and Thompson’s time, there was no way to prove their models.
Answer 1: the creation of a model is the application of knowledge, and there is no right or wrong in knowledge, there is only progress.
Answer 2: the information that is wrong can serve as part of a process of elimination.
Application 3: newton’s law of motion: an object in motion stays in motion, in an ideal environment. Does it apply to earth?
Answer 1: Although it cannot be proven, it is a theory that provides us with an alternative knowledge on something that is applicable to our world, friction. Newton’s point is not about the ideal society. It is to illustrate the role of friction in motion.
Answer 2: Provides us with knowledge of innovation, that if we assume it is true, and develop additional theories upon the given, to apply when the ideal environment is realized in the future.
KQ 2: To what extent does a piece of knowledge have a period of time during which it is (most) relevant? I.e., under what circumstances could knowledge become outdated? I.e., how can knowledge change with time?
DeleteApplication #1: In cosmos, before the Middle Ages, when the ancient Romans and Greeks invented/discovered/developed many areas of knowledge: Math, language, science, philosophy, and most importantly, knowledge itself. These discoveries and advances made were buried during the middle ages and rediscovered/ “unearthed” during the Renaissance. Are there pieces of knowledge that become outdated with the passage of time?
Answer from my point of view: The discoveries made by the Greeks and Romans are still in use today, for example, geometry. I think that these discoveries or identification of knowledge will never become outdated, but there was a time before their existence to man where man didn’t care if they existed. There is a definite beginning where once it becomes known to man, there is no real end.
Answer from another perspective: Knowledge can have a very strong correlation to the time and society. During the Middle Ages, in the period of the black death, in Europe, knowledge that was relevant was how to cure and prevent the plague. Knowledge in astrology became irrelevant in relation to what was happening at the time.
Application #2: Existential philosophy had its origin way before the end of WWII, yet it wasn’t until the end of WWII that it really reached its peak, and became reasonable and attractive to more people.
Answer from perspective of an exististentialist: Knowledge is irrelevant to time; men make the choice of knowing, knowledge does not become outdated, it is the knower that becomes outdated.
Answer from a religious perspective: A higher power gives us knowledge, so knowledge can change with the higher power, if we are not putting the knowledge to good use, he will take it away. The time and relevance of the piece of knowledge is dependent on a higher power.
Application #3: In the artistic field: before the rules of visual perspective were discovered, artists struggled with the idea of depth of space and perspective. Their main tool for showing space is by overlapping. After the discovery of perspective, artists still use overlapping shapes to create an illusion of depth.
Answer from an artist’s perspective: Knowledge very rarely becomes out-dated, they are constantly being developed to lead to more knowledge. So the initial piece of knowledge might become not as relevant, as newer versions of that knowledge starts circulating.
Answer from another artist- In modern art, overlapping is more to make subjects abstract than to depict space, so at the time that we search for knowledge of new and more effective ways to depict something, an old piece of knowledge can have a new area to be used in. In other words, knowledge can change to keep its relevance, as overlapping did to contribute to a new style.
KQ 3: What role does observation play in the methods used to acquire knowledge in different AOK's?
DeleteApp #1: Ancient Greek astronomers observed the stars and took special notice of the ones that were not stationary to know that the earth and the planets moved, but they still thought that the earth was the center of the universe.
Answer 1: In a field so broad as astronomy, a lot of observation is needed to acquire a little bit of knowledge. So observation is essential, but it plays only a minor role in the acquisition of knowledge.
Answer 2: Observation is the processed version of pure sensory perception, so seeing can immediately enhance the understanding of something.
App 2: In introduction to studio arts, Ms. Mahoney always starts the project with the students, so that they may observe what she does.
Answer 1: In the visual arts, observing how an artist use technique is 85% of completely gaining the knowledge.
Answer 2: experimentation is the major factor in gaining knowledge of the techniques of the visual arts.
App 3: Biology: setting up a repeated, controlled experiment and observing what happens to each of the controlled variable.
Answer 1: observation, in this case provides the proof for a hypothesis that has to be drawn as a speculation to what will happen. Therefore, observation plays only a minor role in the acquisition of knowledge; the majority is to reasoning with the known pieces of information.
Answer 2: Observation is the final piece that will verify and back up a piece of knowledge that is drawn from the experiment, it makes the knowledge a fact.
Far-fetched question: Can imagination be a way of knowing? Although it is dependent on many other ways of knowing, it is nevertheless simpler, and more elementary than reason, and more directly related to perception.
End note: this assignment is like the main course of a thanksgiving dinner: Tur-duck-en-en-ail-ail-ail-ail-duck-en-ail-ail-ail-ail.
Simply put: exponential numbers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. How does imagination alter the knower’s ability to understand logically?
ReplyDeletea. Situation Cosmos: Carl Sagan, in the beginning of the show, mentioned how imaginations must be open when searching the universe as the numbers and facts are often hard to understand, as they are so extreme.
i. Answer 1: Sometimes, logic can be as confusing and unrealistic as fantasy. In order to try to understand we have to use our imaginations. In this example, one has to use their imagination to try to wrap their head around the logical fact that things that we see on earth are billions of miles away. If we did not allow our imaginations to imagine a distance that far, we would not be able to fully understand how far a star is from the earth.
ii. Answer 2: Imagination and logic are opposites and only opposites. Imagination gives truth to things that are not. When searching the universe you must only use logic. Imagination would let someone believe that the universe is only the earth and the things that are on it. Imagination allows for people to create unrealistic scenarios where logic gives only real facts. Logic is the reason that we know how far away the sun is from the earth. No one imagined the number; someone found it using logic.
b. Situation 1: When in English class there are many ways one’s imagination can influence their understanding of certain aspects of a work of literature.
Deletei. Answer 1: Readers use their imagination to understand the setting and symbolism in a novel. Each person has a different imagination and therefore different ideas for symbolism of certain objects or ideas in a novel. This imagination allows the reader to develop a deeper and more logical understanding of the novel. Imagination is used to brainstorm different ideas for what things that seem so simple, like colors, would mean in a more complex manner. Once an idea is settled on the novel becomes more logical and the reason those seemingly insignificant details mean so much more. The reader’s understanding of the novel, or of the character, or of the situation becomes enhanced.
ii. Answer 2: Logic is not at all used in understanding a novel in an English class. Of course one needs to learn how to read and comprehend vocabulary, but a good work of literature should only leave room for imagination. Each person who picks up the same book should have a different perspective on it, as each person has a different imagination. Their imagination is used to determine the meaning of the book to themselves. There is no right or wrong answer. Logic gives strict answers and imagination allows for interpretation and difference. Everyone’s answer is always different to the meaning of a work of literature.
c. Situation 2: A work of art requires imagination to logically understand the artist’s aim in the meaning of the piece.
Deletei. Answer 1: When looking at a piece of art, everyone has their own interpretations and perspective on the meaning of the piece, including the artist himself. To be able to make a logical guess on what the artist’s goal was in making his piece of artwork, one must use his imagination. They must imagine every possible meaning the piece could have, whether they agree with it or not. They must allow their imaginations to run wild with thoughts of symbolism in color and technique as well as imagination of what the artist could have been thinking while creating it. While working through their imagination a plausible explanation for the artist’s aim may appear. However, the logical answer will never be found if one does not search his imagination.
ii. Answer 2: One can never truly find the meaning of a piece of art to the artist himself, even if imagination is used. One can dream up ideas of meaning but they will never know for sure whether or not they are right. Logic is the straight-forward answer one is given to a question. While imagination may lead one to a possible answer, it is not certain one will find the logical answer. The only one who knows the artist’s perspective on their piece is the artist themself. No matter how free one’s imagination is, the artist will always be the only one to know.
2. How does a difference in knower’s location change perspective?
Deletea. Situation Cosmos: There is a possibility that there is life on other planets in this universe and others, which gives the potential for living beings to see the universe differently than we know.
i. Answer1: If this is true, their perspective on universes are different than ours as they have different resources than our planet that give them opportunities to discover things we have yet to or that take those opportunities away. Different technology may be used due to the different resources that different galaxies and planets hold. This could mean that their technology is more advanced and know more about the universe than us, or it could mean that they are less advanced than us. Either way, the point of view on the universe is changed and the knowledge is changed. Also, as we wonder if there is life elsewhere, they may imagine the same, making hypothesizes of what other planets out there have the ability to sustain life.
ii. Answer 2: The universe is a mystery to everyone. Although there is a possibility that other life outside of earth has greater technology or knowledge does not mean their perspectives are different. Knowledge and perspective are two different concepts. If one’s knowledge is greater than another’s their perspectives can still be the same. There is no one who knows every inch of the universe, it is impossible, therefore, just as it is to us on earth, someone on another planet is stunned by the mystery that is space.
b. Situation 1: One’s perspective on war, who only reads about it, is different from one has experienced it first hand.
Deletei. Answer 1: When reading about war, one can only imagine the pain and suffering that soldiers have to endure. They don’t have to encounter the real enemies or the real weapons, they only imagine it. Reading it gives a very safe approach at looking at a very dangerous situation. When in war, one has to encounter the very thing that could kill them. They also need to make the very difficult decision to die or to kill, a choice some people cannot understand. Reading about war allows for criticism towards those who have to fight in it. Being in war allows for the ability to open one’s mind to the reasons someone is killing others, because they are experiencing it and they have their own reasons for being there too.
ii. Answer 2: Reading about war is just the same as being at war. Although it is more dangerous to be in the war physically, writers put you there. Readers often realize that war is a scary place to be and, therefore, go deeper into understanding what it is like to be there. They are more open to trying to understand one’s position there because they know that they don’t fully understand what is like to be there. Their perspective does not change though. Just as soldiers, people reading about war realize that it is dangerous, scary, and that everyone is there for their own good reasons.
c. Situation 2: Different countries have different perspectives on different political matters of the world
Deletei. Answer 1: Many people are always involved in debates going on in the world. The most recent in Ukraine is an example of how many different countries have many different ideas on what should be the solution. Ukraine believes that they should be free, Russia believes that they should own the Ukraine, and the United States wants to maintain their relationship with both countries. Each country has different feelings towards what should happen because of their placement in the political situation and placement in the world. The US is a little more relaxed than the other countries because it is 4,000 miles away, physically. Russia and Ukraine are tenser about the situation because they are neighboring countries. The location of the map is huge in differing perspectives around the world.
ii. Answer 2: While feelings may change within each location, perspective stays the same. The perspective of the whole world is that the Ukraine and Russia need to solve their problems. While some people believe one thing and others believe another, they all just want Russia and Ukraine to solve their problem peacefully. No matter where in the world each person is, no one wants another Cold War or World War. The perspective of the want for peace is upheld everywhere around the world.
3. To what extent does knowledge of the past affect the knower’s knowledge of the present?
Deletea. Situation Cosmos: Sagan often mentioned the past of the universe and how some of the answers of our universe were answered in the past and how that helps us to discover new answers today.
i. Answer 1: The knowledge of the discoveries of past scientists and mathematicians allow us to make our own discoveries today. If we were not given the formulas and the proofs and the photographs that they took and created in the past, we would not know where to start. Maybe eventually we would have been able to make the discoveries, but without the help of our knowledge of the past, we would not have the knowledge we have today. They gave us the opportunity to quickly find out new things about our world.
ii. Answer 2: We are not making our own discoveries today we are merely extending the knowledge that was already given to us. Day after day we continue to enhance the point that was made by scientists and mathematicians before us. We do not make new discoveries we only prove the formulas and points that we were told about in the past.
b. Situation 1: In math, past discoveries of different patterns has led to discoveries of new formulas, which helps us in our math work today.
i. Answer 1: The knowledge of the discoveries of past scientists and mathematicians allow us to make our own discoveries today. If we were not given the formulas and the proofs and the photographs that they took and created in the past, we would not know where to start. Maybe eventually we would have been able to make the discoveries, but without the help of our knowledge of the past, we would not have the knowledge we have today. They gave us the opportunity to quickly find out new things about our world.
ii. Answer 2: We are not making our own discoveries today; we are merely extending the knowledge that was already given to us. Day after day we continue to enhance the point that was made by scientists and mathematicians before us. We do not make new discoveries; we only prove the formulas and points that we were told about in the past.
c. Situation 2: Understanding one’s heritage gives the opportunity to know one’s self better.
Deletei. Answer 1: Knowing where one comes from gives them the ability to better understand who they are. If one person finds out that their ancestors were incredible musicians from Africa many years ago, they now have the ability to follow their ancestors and see if they have the same gift. People can find what they are truly best at by finding out what their relatives were best at. This gives them the opportunity to find out who they are, whether it be a dancer, writer, musician, teacher, anything the find as a part of their family is in them too.
ii. Answer 2: Individuality allows one to better understand themselves. If one only follows what their ancestors and relatives were good at, they don’t have the opportunity to find things they are good at that their ancestors might not have had to opportunity to do. It is possible, if one does not follow their past, that they will find their own path, one that was not taken by their family before, and will find something they truly love and are truly great at.
KQ 1: To what extent is faith applied in the understanding of particular concepts of sciences?
ReplyDeleteSituation 1: In Carl Sagan’s video he says that “The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty”. Carl Sagan mentions basing on his own faith. This is a clear example of how there is a boundary to our knowledge which impels us to make a conclusion basing on facts that we can never understand. As human beings who can never fully understand the nature around us and how everything in it functions, we tend to apply faith while coming up with an answer to the unanswerable.
Second situation: Science has helped the human race to understand in the concept of evolution and that every living has evolved. The good thing is that there is evidence that proves it like the human remains, the similarities in different bone structures of living organisms. But can we be so sure that evolution happened or maybe it is just a concept that was introduced because man wanted to find where he really originated from and why some organisms look similar to other organisms? For example, science proves that whales were once terrestrial mammals but they evolved and now live in the water bodies. My question is, “regardless of the whale’s bone structure which scientists use to prove its evolution, where did its nostril come from?” This question is unanswerable and yet science we still believe in the scientific concept of the whale’s evolution.
Coming back to my first situation, I would say that the answer to all this confusing part of understanding the world we live in is to simply apply faith in believing particular concepts that we cannot answer as humans. For example, having complete faith that the cosmos is lost somewhere between immensity and eternity like Carl Sagan says in his perspective.
For my second situation, I would also say according to my perspective that I would use faith as the only way to avoid getting confused while understanding the sophisticated world that I live in. I would just believe in evolution as one of the ways that explains where I originated from even though the concept itself is still unclear to me.
KQ2: To what extent does believing our reasoning contribute to the knowledge we have?
Situation 1: In the Sagan’s video he says, “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself”. This means that we are responsible for the cosmos because we are the ones who give it different meanings. For example I can say that the light from the sun is useless not until we receive and benefit from it. Carl Sagan shows that believing in one’s reasoning is crucial to the general knowledge that we have because he mentions what he reasons and has belief in, as a way of proving the knowledge that he has.
Situation 2: Descartes once said, “Cogito ergo sum”, meaning that “I think therefore I am”. In this case, Descartes proves his reasoning and shows how his reasoning is what proves that he is there. Therefore, Descartes can only be sure that he is, because he thinks, his knowledge also comes from what he thinks. And the only way for him to be sure in what he understands or his knowledge, he has to believe in it. I don’t know if I am that clear, Descartes is trying to also show that the knowledge that he has comes from his thinking and that he can only have it by believing in his every reasoning.
Coming back to the first situation, I can say that Sagan is not only trying to state that man is the way for the cosmos to know itself, but also trying to prove how crucial his knowledge comes from his reasoning that he believes according to his perspective.
In my perspective, I can say that having belief in what we think is what highly contributes to the knowledge we have because whether we believe in scientific concepts or not, as human beings we have the right to decide whether or not to believe in those concepts. And since we interpret different concepts according to our different perspectives, the belief in what we reason is what contributes to our knowledge. Just as Descartes said “I think therefore I am”, I can say that “I believe in what I think therefore I know”.
DeleteKQ3: To what extent does sensory perception as an evidence for what we know, act as a limitation to our knowledge?
Situation 1: In the video, Carl Sagan says, “No matter where we travel, the patterns of nature are the same as in the form of this spiral galaxy, the same laws of physics apply everywhere throughout the cosmos”. According to me, this clearly shows that there is a limitation to the knowledge we apply from physics because we are unable to trace the whole earth which why Carl says that the patterns remain the same no matter where we travel. Can we be sure that there are not other patterns? I guess no. But because we cannot see any further or walk any further, we conclude by saying that no matter where we go, the patterns stay the same just as Sagan says.
Situation 2: Very many people believe that there is always the sky and what happens to be the ground. Can we be sure of that? No, but because that is what we see as people who live in this world, we tend to think that that is always the same every where we go. Nobody has travelled the whole universe, maybe it is not the same for everywhere we go but because our eyes have only been used to seeing the sky and the ground, we conclude by believing that that is true. This can be seen as a limitation to our knowledge since we cannot even research to know what else can be there.
My answer for the second situation is that sensory perception has much power in contributing to our knowledge and understanding of various things. The only reason why we believe that are unexplainable is that we do not have the power to look further, if there is a limit to our sensory perception, there is a limit to our acquiring of more knowledge. Therefore, sensory perception is highly an evidence that contributes to our knowledge.
According to Carl in the first situation, I can say that there is more knowledge and much to learn. Maybe the patterns are not always going to be the same, there is always something more to learn. But since as far as he has travelled the cosmos in his mind, he has not yet seen further, and is therefore allowed to say that “no matter where we travel, the patterns of nature are the same as in the form of this spiral galaxy, the same laws of physics apply everywhere throughout the cosmos”. Again, I will support the fact that sensor perception highly acts as an evidence of what we know and are going to know.
Why are we here? Okay, that’s not really my knowledge question. But this video definitely made me question my existence. What is our knowledge of the universe based on? Perspective, reason, faith in science? Could you even make an argument for our knowledge of the universe being based on emotion, in the ways we strive to find answers due to the sense of comfort it brings us?
ReplyDeleteOfficial Knowledge Question 1: How is our assessment of the universe influenced by the ways we think? In other words, do we take aspects of the universe for granted (or not for granted) because of the ways our brains make connections?
For Cosmos, I think that our assessment of the universe is seen completely through our human gaze. We take for granted the physical realities we have proven to exist, we take for granted our science, our importance or lack thereof in the scheme of things. Our assessment of the universe is therefore not complete and nor will it ever be complete. It won’t be complete because we can only ever truly look at it from a human standpoint, and therefore can only say that the knowledge we glean is a fact only for the human mind. From a different perspective, our assessment of the universe is not taken for granted because we are the beings discovering this knowledge, and therefore we are the ones defining it. It can be taken for granted or not taken for granted and in the end it doesn’t make a difference because the ways we think are so intertwined with the ways in which we have discovered the universe.
This knowledge question could be applied when considering our relationships with people (or animals). Oftentimes when I see someone new to horses walk up to a horse and try to make friends, they are utterly convinced that one step behind the horse will cause him to savagely pulverize said human with his monstrous hooves. Our assessment of the universe is influenced by the connections we made when approaching the horse. From a different perspective, our assessment of the universe is influenced by the way we think only through the amount of emphasis that we place on the thought process that led us to the relationship/horse situation. If we don’t believe in our own thought processes or if we store a lot of faith in our thought process, the outcome of the situation with the horse will be different either time.
Another way this knowledge question could be applied is through our interpretation of novels. We’ve discussed this topic before, and it has definitely come up in English class a couple times, but I think that it is worth noting again that our assessment of events and emotions is seen through our own individual brains, with our own individual experiences and connections and associations making up a large part of our final interpretations. In this case, our knowledge is affected by our past. From a different viewpoint, our knowledge is not affected by our past because sometimes writing opens up or cchallenges the way we think, especially the best writing. In these cases, our minds expand with the new forms of knowledge that head our way without the patterns our thoughts usually use to lead the way.
Official Knowledge Question 2: Do we have to ‘feel’ the effects of the past in order to fully live today?
DeleteFor Cosmos, I think that it’s really quite difficult to fully feel the effects of the past. The time period we are talking about is so much larger than anything we have ever experienced, I know that I still find it hard to contemplate the year analogy that Carl Sagan uses. In that case, I don’t know if we have to feel the past in order to live from today. I don’t know if I’m fully living my life today, and maybe if I fully felt what happened in the past I would. Or maybe from another perspective I am fully living my life and I have fully felt the effects of the past universe and don’t realize it. I have no freakin idea, and if you think about it for too long your head might explode.
Another situation this question could apply to be any traumatic experiences we’ve had in our lives. If we totally blocked those experiences from our emotions and didn’t let ourselves truly feel the rough times we’ve gone through, could we return to a fully aware state of being? I don’t think so. I think that feeling the effects of the past are important, if only because emotions are a part of being human, and we have them for a reason. To truly answer the question I suppose I’d have to define living, but that’s somewhat different for everyone. From a different perspective, maybe its impossible for someone to truly live with the feelings of the traumatic experience at their side. Maybe they need to block it in order to live life fully.
One more situation this question could apply to is an appreciation of the connection between history and current events. Some people living today in places like the Middle East, Ukraine, Crimea, and even the USA and Russia, fully feel the effects of the past. These effects truly allow the people in these places to react to current issues with conviction and passion. I think that conviction and passion are prime forms of ‘living fully’. On the other hand, these preconceived notions block these peoples from being open to other peoples views, and being able to make peace with each other in a lot of cases. Again, a definition of ‘fully living’ is necessary, so is living without an open mind fully living?
Official Knowledge Question 3: How does our perception of ourselves as knowers change as we explore the unknown?
DeleteIn Cosmos, I think that we as knowers become more important. All of a sudden, it seems like there is all of this knowledge out their waiting to be discovered and we are the only ones who can do it. Is this correct? Maybe. From a different perspective, we as knowers become smaller. The world and universe is always expanding, and at the same time the amount that we as knowers actually know is shrinking in relation.
A different situation where this question could be valid is in the classroom. The purpose of school and education is to make the unknown more known to us. There is a difference here, however, because we become more confident in ourselves (as knowers) as we learn. From a different perspective, we grow as people and so see ourselves as different physical people as well as mentally and emotionally more mature (well...debatable on that last point but you catch my drift).
One last situation where this question could be valid is during the teenage years. Everyone over the age of twenty has been through the teenage years (no duh). I’m seventeen years old and therefore kind of two thirds of the way through them, and I think that my perception of myself as a knower has dramatically changed since when I was twelve. Exploring the unknown is basically the purpose of the teenage years’ as I understand it. In this last situation, I don’t think I can really give an answer. We change based on the adventures we go on.
Knowledge question #1: To what extent does faith affect the legitimacy of scientific evidence?
ReplyDeleteSituation #1: Using the bible as a way of knowing/evidence over the knowledge gained from scientists and scientific theories.
1.) One perspective that can be used in this specific situation is that of my Russian Grandmother. For her whole life she has put the Bible and the word of God first. She has never questioned the legitimacy the Bible nor the knowledge she has gained from it. Although she has studied science and understands the studies of evolution, the big bang, and the solar system, she chooses to out God’s ‘word’ before it. In her eyes God created earth and everything on it, including man. Many others believe that the earth was created through the Bug Bang and that man cane about through evolution. Although she understands and values those theories, she always puts the Bible above anything. In terms of the KQ through this perspective, faith can challenge the legitimacy of scientific evidence when there is a coalition between the knowledge’s gained. The example to prove this is the theory of Evolution verses the theory of God creating earth in 7 days.
2.) Another perspective that can be used under this situation is that of a scientist. Contrary to my Grandmother, most scientists believe that God and the Bible are a myth and that scientific evidence is the only way to gain legitimate knowledge of the world. In this since, their believe and trust in scientific evidence can be considered their own ‘faith’. Although many scientists have very conflicting views on the specificity of scientific evidence, in the gist of things, it all comes down to solid facts, which as of yet, the Bible lacks. In terms of the KQ, faith, for scientists does not challenge the legitimacy of scientific evidence, for it has none.
Situation #2: The knower having trust and accepting the word/knowledge of scientists concerning the unknown.
ReplyDelete1.) In art class, the IB Art Year 1 has been studying prehistoric art and the origins of art in general. As a majority, people have excepted that professionals in the field of archeology have studied in depth about the origins of cave paintings. However, for some, putting trust in a scientists opinion is not enough. For example, in my eyes there is no real way of knowing that humans made prehistoric paintings, at least to be 100% sure. I base this opinion on the fact that I have no physical proof that it was humans who made the paintings. Sure there is specific technology that aid in the research of cave paintings, but really, in my eyes, there is no way of knowing. When I study the origins of prehistoric art I am have no choice but to put my faith in the research conducted by scientists. But if I do not trust the opinion of scientist, my ‘faith’/opinion affects the legitimacy of scientific evidence based on the fact that I do not believe it to be true. Of course I am using my self as an example, but there are other people who find it hard to put their trust in the words of scientists who themselves have no physical experience to back up their research.
2.) A second, and contradictory perspective is that of an archaeologist. In their field, archaeologists research the origins of (essentially) dead things and from that gain an understanding of how they came about, how they died, and how they affect the world today. For an archaeologist, the trust lies solely in crucial evidence such as the evidence they find underground. Although they were not present during prehistoric times they use technology, history, and scientific evidence to conduct their research and investigations. In terms of the knowledge question, their faith would be scientific evidence, thus it would not affect the legitimacy of their understanding of scientific evidence.
Situation #3: Putting faith in other peoples knowledge
ReplyDelete1.) The first perspective that falls under this situation is my understanding of the solar system. While watching the Cosmos episode, I was putting my trust and my faith in the knowledge that was being shared with me through the video. Although I personally am no were near a advanced knower of the cosmos, I used my judgment as a learner to extract the knowledge the video shared. In terms of my knowledge question, my faith did not affect the legitimacy of the scientific evidence I was gaining through watching the video because I put my trust in the knowledge being shared. However, another perspective would be someone who had conflicting views on the knowledge being extracted, thus it would affect the legitimacy of the scientific evidence.
2.) In todays society we have very diverse opinions. Some of those opinions are extremely contradictory when compared to one another. Specifically I am referring to scientists with deferring viewpoints on specific scientific evidence. In my IB ESS class we were examining two scientists who views climate change in two very different ways. One of them thought that a specific greenhouse gas that did not necessarily come from humans, whereas the other saw it as being the responsibility of human action, caused it. The legitimacy of the specific scientific evidence was affected by the diverse ‘faiths’ of these two scientists.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge question #2: To what extent does a perspective change once new knowledge is gained
Situation #1: Earth in comparison to space
1.) The first perspective that I can think about in terms of this situation is one that I gained from watching Cosmos. On earth the majority of humans do not understand what life beyond theirs is really like; based on the fact that they have physically never experienced anything else. In the episode of Cosmos I realized that there is much more about the solar system and the cosmos than I realized. The perspective of an astronaut concerning the solar system is much broader then mine. This perspective is gained through their physical experience of being in space. Because of this they gain a new perspective of earth when they return from being somewhere else. This perspective is only gained when they have experienced it. Once they have experienced it the knowledge gained is change drastically. The gain a knowledge that they had not yet been exposed to which shows that once the perspective changes the knowledge gained does as well.
2.) On the other hand, a person who has only read about the solar system and space does not have the same change in perspective that the astronaut does based on the fact that they have never been to space therefore their perspective was not changed and neither was the knowledge they gained. Although they have read books about the solar system their physical perspective is not changed therefore the knowledge they extract will not change.
Situation #2:Knowledge gained from family history
ReplyDelete1.) History is everywhere. So many families have different historical background that affects their perspective of life, and thus the knowledge they gain. A little boys whose grandmother was a holocaust victim will have a very difference perspective on life and the various knowledge’s gained through their perspective of family history. When this (fictitious) boy shares his perspective with someone who as a different one, that persons knowledge will be affected based on the new perspective gained.
2.) Another perspective that is different to the Jewish family example is a German family who have ancestors in the Nazi party. This families perspective will change the knowledge they gain when they learn about the Holocaust. Their perspective, their family heritage gives a bias, which affects the knowledge they are able to receive.
Situation #3: The ideology of meat production
1.) There are two perspectives when it comes to the ideology/morality of meat production. The perspective of a butcher is that animals make money. Their perspective will change the knowledge gained, because of their understanding f meat production.
2.) The perspective of some vegetarians is that eating meat and slaughtering animals is morally wrong. Their perspective affects the knowledge they extract, because it is different from those who support the production of meat.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge question#3: Does knowledge have to be gained through physical experience?
Situation#1: The understanding of the solar system through books versus real life experiences
1.) As I have mentioned before, knowledge gained from physical experience affects the perspective of the knower. However, is can be said that knowledge can be gained from research rather than physical experience. Not everyone is gifted enough to be an astronaut. Those who are not, have to resort to books. I use myself as an example. I have read books about the solar system and the knowledge I gained was extracted was not from physical experience. In my opinion knowledge does not have to be gained through physical experience all the time
2.) However, in the eyes of, lets say, an astronaut, the only way to gain knowledge about the solar system is through physical experience. For example, how can the knowledge be gained in the first place has there not been those people who physically experienced it.
Situation#2: A whales understanding of life in Sea World versus in the free ocean.
1.) Hear me out. Please. Whales in Sea World are captivated animals who know only the life that they are restricted to on the other side of their oversized fish tank. A whale cannot know what life I like outside of their fish tank if they are not released into the while 9aka the free ocean). In this situation, the whales can only gain knowledge of the outside world through physical experience.
2.) Activists who fight for the freedom of captivated whales argue that humans have ruined the chance of the knowledge the whales could have gained through freedom. However, humans are not whales. Thus the question is, have humans truly experience captivity as well as freedom? So I see it as being that humans have gained their knowledge not through physical experience, but through observations.
Situation#3:Riding a horse versus watching someone ride a horse.
1.) The knowledge I gain from riding horse is through physical experience. In my opinion the knowledge of riding a horse has to be gained through physical experience.
2.) The knowledge my mother gains about horseback riding, as an observer come from observation, not physical experience. She gains knowledge through watching me ride. So in this perspective, knowledge does not have to be gained through physical experience.
KQ #1: How the knowers change, improve or correct their thoughts and belief under the influence of previous knowledge or belief?
ReplyDeleteCosmo: the earth is a sphere
Perspective #1:People used to believe the earth is flat. Then after Colombo traveled around the earth and proved that the earth is a sphere by his journey, the people change their thoughts. Other’s experiences can correct wrong knowledge.
Perspective #2: One needs to see the picture of a round earth to change their previous belief. Now, human beings are able to take pictures of the earth and proof that it is a sphere. But before the launch of the satellites, people can still have reasons to say that Colombo’s journey could not prove that the earth is a sphere. It can be some other shapes or it’s just because of some magic power on the edge of the flat earth that send the ships back.
Other situation #1: Not all parts of Africa are the same as those portrayed by media.
Perspective #1: Before I came to Stoneleigh, I thought Africans do not have food and clean water. They live in tribes and do not wear much clothes. That’s all I know about Africa. I think I was pretty ignorant. After I came here, I met so many people from Africa and they are actually the same as all of us. My wrong knowledge about Africa fade away in one second. Once I have seen and met the evidence which proves my previous knowledge wrong, I suddenly changed my thoughts.
Perspective #2: One need to go to Africa to see the real situation in order to have the correct knowledge, and then he or she will correct their wrong thoughts. There are enough people in the TV, such as the presidents, the singers and movie stars look really nice. There are also plenty of documentaries and news about the poverty and undevelopment of African countries. Media are really unreliable. One really need to go to Africa to look at the real situation over there.
Other situation #2: 2 +2=4 a symbol in 1984
Perspective #1: Previous knowledge and belief can be totally powerless that the knowers’ knowledge can be easily manipulated. Under Big Brother’s Propaganda and pressure from him, people change their thoughts instantly because they don’t want to get hurt. They abandon their previous knowledge which is considered wrong by Big Brother so their previous knowledge does not play any role in their changing of knowledge.
Perspective #2 (from the perspective of Big Brother): their previous knowledge and belief is totally unhelpful. They don’t need anything but what I tell them. My citizens should give up all of their old and wrong knowledge and welcome the glorious world of mine.
KQ #2: To what extent can our identity as being human beings limit our knowledge?
ReplyDeleteCosmo: human beings are only a puny part of the history of the cosmo.
Perspective #1: Our knowledge about the cosmo is really limited. We can only conjecture the facts about the cosmo by trying so hard to search for small evidences. Our extremely short participation in the whole life of cosmo limit our knowledge about almost everything other than human history and future.
Perspective #2: As human beings, we are born to solve mysteries. Although our life time is really short, we use our intelligence and effort and have solved so many questions about the cosmo. Human beings are the smartest creature and we are strong enough to break all the limitations!
Other situation #1: human brains can not remember as much things as computers
Perspective #1: We can research online for information and record these information into computer. Although all of these things are done by human beings, we can not remember them for a long time. The loss of memory really hinder human’s development.
Perspective #2: Our brains are the best things we can ask for. We don’t need brains like computers. If we do have brains like computers, the world is going to be like that in the fiction, Feed. It is going to be really scary. Human beings brains are actually have a lot of potential. It is said that human only use 6% to 8% of their brains throughout the whole life. If we try really hard and make it possible that we can use all of our brain one day, we are going to be absolutely omnipotent. The thing that limit our knowledge is not our brain. It is actually our indolence.
Other situation #2: human being’s emotion influences the knowledge they get.
Perspective #1: As everyone has bias, they interpret history events with different emotion and in different ways. For a historian, although he or she would be able to know the different sides of the conflicts or other events, they can not accept them in an equal way. The work they write and the things they tell the others must be biased. Human being’s emotion can really influence how people process information and eventually limit their knowledge.
Perspective #2 (from the perspective of Meursault in the Stranger): Human emotion should not exist at all. The universe is indifferent to human beings
KQ #3: How do people’s sense towards number vary in different situations?
ReplyDeleteCosmo: There are uncountable numbers of suns in the cosmo.
Perspective #1: Normally, we only pay attention to our sun. There is an ancient Chinese story saying that there were ten suns in the sky during some time in China. Ten suns are really a lot. However, there are actually much more. However, for me, I was not shocked when the episode talks about how small our world is. That is science. Everything happens. But when I was reading the Chinese story, ten suns are really a lot. People’s sense towards numbers are really dependent on their involvement with it. The other suns are too far away. People do not put them into consideration so no matter how big the number of suns is, people like me would not feel surprised. However, in the situation when there are ten suns above my head, I really feel ten is a big number.
Other situation #1: number of casualties and injuries in different situations
Perspective #1: A lot of big earthquakes in countries such as Australia had less than ten casualties and injury. When I saw that news, I felt no sympathies for Australia, honestly. There were over 50,000 people died in an earthquake in 2008. For me, the casualty of less than 10 sound like nothing but it might be a lot for Australians. The difference is result in the different countries people grow up in. 50,000 people may mean a whole city for Australians but only may 1% of a city in China. The environment people grow up in can affect people’s sense towards numbers a lot.
Perspective #2: When there is one person break a bone in an Olympic game, that would be a really big deal. However, I would be indifferent to 10 person’s death in a car accident. Although this event may not seem relevant to numbers, it is still show people’s different reactions to different things. People’s sense towards numbers change when the incidents which are less common or in other words, more special.
Other situation #2: the same amount of money means different things to different people, or the same person under different situations
Perspective #1: When I was in elementary school, one dollar means a lot of things to me but now it’s just a bag of chips. People’s experience changes their sense towards money. A bag of chips means a lot for a person when he is poor or he is gluttonous. A person’s own psyche is the base of his or her sense towards numbers.
Perspective #2: When a person is on an island without any person, any money would seem to be helpless and valueless. People’s sense towards money change due to the different situations they are in.
KQ1: To what extent does the scale influence the knowers’ perspective?
ReplyDeleteSituation 1: At the very beginning of the movie, Carl Sagan picked up a dandelion seed, and told the audience that we are like the dust in the cosmos.
Perspective 1: Human beings are lost in the cosmos. Even though scientists explore and introduce the galaxy to people, they have limit ability to do more.
Perspective 2: People are living in the world of themselves. They are too busy to work for a livelihood, and they leave no time to worry about what they can devote to the cosmos.
Situation 2: At the end of the movie, Carl Sagan gave the audience an idea of Cosmic Calendar. All the civilization, history, culture, and memory of human is only 10 seconds in the Cosmic Calendar.
Perspective 1: In the perspective of Meursault, he thinks his life is meaningless and small in the cosmos. No matter what he contributes to the world, it does not change. The world does not care about you as individual. All the humankind will die eventually.
Perspective 2: Some knowers might consider themselves important. Past already past, but we are living in this moment. If we do something that means to the cosmos, we can change the future.
Situation 3: In the different scale of map, the knowers gain different things.
Perspective 1: A world map might lead the knowers to think of seven continents were one continent. A map of Middle East might lead the knowers to think of the Mediterranean and the conflict between the Palestinian and the Israeli people.
Perspective 2: It has nothing to do with different scale but with the individual knower. A Palestinian knower might first see the area of Palestine on the world map and question why does Israel exist as a country on the map. A Palestinian knower does not need a map of Israel to think about this question.
To what extent does time work in appealing the truth to the knowers?
DeleteSituation 1: In Bruno's era, the religious community was in charge of the social thinking, and many people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Regardless of a long period of imprisonment, Bruno claimed that the universe is infinite, which outraged the religious community, and Bruno was sentenced to death eventually. Meanwhile, nowadays, people accept the truth that the sun is the center of the solar system but not the center of the galaxy.
Perspective 1: Meanly because of time, it proves that the church’s belief is wrong and the Bruno’s theory is false. However, the current scientists’ theory might be inaccurate too.
Perspective 2: Not because of time, but because of the evidence and the human knowledge that built up from past to now, the knowers recognize that the sun is only the center of the solar system.
Situation 2: In the Darwin’s era, members of the religious community, as well as some scientific peers, did not acknowledge the Darwin’s theory of the origin of the species by the means of the natural selection. Nowadays, people admit his revolution theory.
Perspective 1: Time helps the knowers to abandon the conservative thought and to recognize the truth.
Perspective 2: There are still a group of fundamental religious people believe that human born because of god. The time does not change their thought and knowledge.
Situation 3: Many of books, for example, The Awakening was not popular at the time the author published it. But it was called masterpiece after centuries.
Perspective 1: Time proves the value of the book. In the Victorian Era, people are conservative, but nowadays people are open and they are willing to try new things. In addition, people are more familiar with the idea of feminism. Therefore, it is easy for people to understand the novel now.
Perspective 2: The culture play the most important role of deciding whether the book is good or bad. In the Victorian tradition, people believe that wives are the possession of the husband. It is opposite to the feminism that the novel The Awakening has. Therefore, the novel is not accepted by the society.
KQ3: To what extent does knowers use hypothesis and imagination to gain knowledge?
DeleteSituation 1: Astronomers use imagination to portray the cosmos.
Perspective 1: The spatial imagination helps the astronomers to arrange the evidences and to complete their theories.
Perspective 2: If the astronomer went to a wrong way but the spatial imagination still can work. It hard for them to distinguish the truth.
Situation 2: Scientists raise the hypothesis when they design a lab.
Perspective 1: Hypothesis is an assumption which based on the reasoning. It can also guide the further research. Hypothesis gives the knowers the right direction toward the truth most of the time.
Perspective 2: Sometimes, the hypothesis is wrong, but the conclusion of the lab is more accurate to the truth. The conclusion of the lab plays a crucial role in gaining the knowledge.
Situation 3: The mathematical conjectures are very important.
Perspective 1: Since the mathematic is intangible, and there is few laboratory human can do to prove the mathematical laws, the mathematical conjectures are very important.
Perspective 2: Mathematicians use other mathematical laws to establish the mathematical conjectures.
1. How can knowledge of the universe expand one’s knowledge of oneself?
ReplyDeleteSituation 1: Cosmos
My Perspective: My dad always said to know your history in terms of yourself. I think that his statement relates to this because most of the knowledge of the universe is from the past so, history and knowledge of the universe almost equal the same thing. Knowing yourself can better be applied to yourself if you know the world around you. All humans evolved or came from the same God or Gods, as the Cosmos. Just having a common aspect of life like living calls for a better understanding of the universe which wec can then apply to ourselves...that was confusing.
Other Perspective: The knowledge of the universe can not expand ones self knowledge because self knowledge depend on the individual not the rest of the universe. You can only know yourself through yourself, not a middle-man, in this case the universe. It like the saying the only way to be happy is to make your own happiness, well, for this instance the only way to know yourself is from your personal history.
Situation 2: Foster Child
My Perspective: This could be applied to a foster child who does not know where they came from, what nationality they are or their background. By knowing more about the universe they can better make a connection to themselves, because they know that they evolved or were put on Earth by God. From knowing the universe they know themselves because they know that they came from the universe.
Other Perspective: Knowing oneself depend on the foster child. A child may want to take the identity of their family, in which case that foster child does not need to know themselves through the universe but, through the family that the become apart of. Once the child becomes apart of that family they inherit their customs and background and nationality. However, the child could choose to know themselves by looking into the universe, or the child could do both.
Situation 3: Phenotype
My Perspective: An individual with the a particular phenotype can better understand themselves through the universe because they can learn about where that phenotype came from and how the physical characteristic came to be on them. By doing this their knowledge of themselves have expanded by knowing about their allergy.
Answer 2: The universe has a lot to offer but, a lot of it is hard to get to. How can one ever really know when their physical characteristic was first seen on humans? It is highly unlikely since many with that trait may have not even known they had it in the first place. Relying on what the universe has to say about a trait puts too much trust in the universe. the trust should be more applied to you and the immediate people around you. Know yourself to know yourself.
2. To what degree can the knowledge of the past help to shape the knowledge of what someone knows today?
DeleteSituation 1: Cosmos
My Perspective: Just like in the Cosmos, the narrator used his knowledge from the past to explain the present. The history of the galaxy allows us to see how the galaxy now has changed over time. From stars to moons to suns the galaxy is all around us our knowledge from the past helps us to understand the galaxy today and how it works. I knowledge from the past was not around it would be difficult for us to understand something so complex such as the galaxy.
Other Perspective: Not only is history books and scrolls but, it is also your own self experience. Your self experience is your history, everything that you have done is your history so it defines you, because in your history it has happened. The galaxy does not define your history, only you do. To experience something for yourself makes it real because you have created it for yourself, you are the history that will happen. In this we are arguing on the same team because self experience is your history. It is true that you have experienced it (past tense) so it is your history. The knowledge of your own history can help what you know today.
Situation 2: History Class
My Perspective: We know what we know today because of history. George Santayana:"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," (1905). I believe that this statement is true because it is just like learning from your mistakes; if you do learn from them then you tend to not do them again but, if you don’t learn from them you will probably keep making the same mistake. The history that we learn in class always relates back to our current lives. For example the current situation with Crimea, Ukraine and Russia and how many think that the recent annexation was imperialistic relate back to WWI and imperialism. People may have not been able to make the connection between Ukraine, Russia and Crimea if imperialism was not established and written about all those years ago.
Other Perspective: In history class someone might say that history is history and that we should pay no mid to history because It is good to try new things because it will better your understanding and make you more open-minded to ideas. Even if an idea was tried in history before and it failed, it makes sense to see what in the idea failed and how the idea can be made better to work the second time around. If the knowledge of the mistake is used as a learning tool, then knowledge of the past can help but, if we use it wrong then there is no point to the knowledge gained from the past. Many people will use the knowledge in a wrong way.
Situation 2: Math
My Perspective: Almost everything in this world involves some sort of math ( I was proven that this was right by my dad). Math concepts from ancient civilizations are probably still used today. Maybe they have evolved or maybe not but, they are still with us now. The knowledge of math from ancient civilizations has been used, and advanced in so many ways. If the civilizations before us did not make such history than many of the ideas today we would not have such as market, taxes and more.
Other Perspective: Math and history are totally different. First, history involves self experience and math does not. The knowledge of math history is not needed to know math now. Think about the very first inventors of math concepts; they probably did not have a lot of math if any math history to build their foundation of of. However, with history it is different because self-experience is history, a humans life is history.
3. How can the evidence and explanation of knowledge in the natural sciences affect the knowers faith?
DeleteSituation 1: Cosmos
My Perspective: The Cosmos is definitely an interesting and intellectual piece of work. The cosmos are very factual and very literal unlike faith. Faith has more leeway of mystery. The evidence of knowledge in the natural science such as cosmos can really diminish one's faith. I know that for Christianity God is and will always be the creator of everything. To see that there is a theory in the Cosmos without God is strange to me because I have faith. However, this goes for all science; the idea that God did not create everything since there is so much fact and proof behind one idea. Ones faith can become very cloudy due to the contradicting ideas of science and faith. It can either be altered or decreased.
Other Perspective: Instead of looking at the Cosmos with a critical eye, one may see it with an open-minded eye. The cosmos do not have to contradict the knowers faith because the knowers could put the natural science into their own faith and redefine it to fit their own faith.
Situation 2: Existentialists
My Perspective: Since most existentialists do not have a faith the knowledge of the natural sciences does not really affect their “faith”. However, the knowledge of natural science can affect the existentialist essence before existence. This can happen because in evolution we evolved from something that we shared with African Apes. As this early homosapien were they really thinking about their essence or were they thinking about survival? This is where an existentialist view can become rocky because back in the early stages of human life it was existence before essence; your presence before your purpose.
Other Perspective: This could also apply to existentialist because there are some who do have a faith and are not atheist. In this case their faith may or may not be compromised because as an existentialist they are exposed to ideas that contradict their faith all the time. With an existentialist who is not atheist the knowledge of the natural science affecting the knowers faith depend on how important and crucial their faith is to them.
Situation 3: Artists
My Perspective: For artists this may not be a difficult concept to understand because artist are usually very free and open-minded about a lot of things that come their way. The idea of the knowledge of natural science affecting the artists faith is probably not an issue because the artist may accept either way.
Other Perspective: For artists who base their art off of religion or their faith might have a dilemma because there will be nothing for them to put their emotion into. Science may be too literal and with faith there is more mystery to work with that invites more creativity.