R.I.P. Certainty?

For a larger image of this comic strip, click here.

Questions & issues to consider:

A) What is the cartoonist's point about certainty? What do you think, or make, of his point?

B) What is the relationship between certainty and knowledge? How about the relationship between knowledge, certainty, "proven," and fact?

C) The last two frames of the comic strip present an ironic juxtaposition of ideas regarding certainty -- consider the boy's comment in the second-to-last frame ("The world's a less silly place...") in comparison with his exchange with Opus in the last frame. Comment on the ideas contrasted between the two frames. [e.g. Compare the content of Opus' comment in the last frame with the content of the statements quoted in frames 2 - 7 of the strip. Consider the implications of the boy's declaration in the next-to-last frame when applied to Opus' closing comment. Think about your initial reaction to the boy's statement in the last frame.] What observations, conclusions, and/or implications about knowledge and certainty are sparked by the strip?

D) Comment on the quality, quantity, and content of the evidence (examples) the three characters provide in support of the boy's declaration, in the second-to-last frame of the strip that "The world's a less silly place without you!"

D) Why did the cartoonist choose to add the last frame? Why didn't he just draw the headstone in the next-to-last frame and end there? Note: I'm certain ;-) it wasn't just to fill up space.

[Be sure to focus your comments on the knowledge issues raised in the comic strip. This comic strip clearly has a political overtone and slant. However, responding to that political element should not be the primary focus of your comments.]

Welcome to TOK-OC Online 2007-08

TOK is not intended to be "just another" academic class that lacks any apparent connection or relevance to your current life. To the contrary, TOK is intended to be an opportunity for you to synthesize your learning from both inside and outside of school, and to more fully integrate those ideas and insights into your way of thinking. The purpose of the TOK-OC journal/blog is two-fold: A) to encourage you to look for and make connections between the ideas that we've considered in class and your experiences & observations outside of the classroom; and
B) to serve as a place for you to record and reflect on some of these “real world” connections.
Please check the class policies sheet for more information about the purpose and expectations for the journal/blog.

So, here's how I envision this working...I will post items here that are both appropriate and potentially effective as topics for a TOK-OC journal entry. I will also pose some questions or comments to jump-start your thinking about the knowledge issue(s) implicit in each item. You can then post a comment reflecting on the knowledge issues raised (this can include additional knowledge issues that you identify). Or you may respond to other students' comments, using them as jumping off points for adding your own comments. You may make multiple comments on the same posting, thus creating a dialogue with other students. All of your comments on a particular posting will be considered as a single journal entry; consequently, multiple comments may improve your score for that "entry."

Your comments will be scored based on: a) knowledge issues you identify and address; b) the quality of thought and reflection evident in your comments; and c) the level of respect and consideration you demonstrate toward other viewpoints. [It should go without saying that comments that fail miserably on the last criterion will be removed by the moderator, but I'll say it just to make sure everyone understands.] (Reminder: Quality is valued over quantity...but they are often related.)

Dark Energy on Parade

Courtesy of Melanie Gibson...

Check out the cover story on today's Parade Magazine, titled "The Secrets of Dark Energy." Some time on Tuesday, the full text becomes available on Parade's website; clicking here will take you to it. (Yes, I will leave the blog open for comments thru the school's 3 p.m. Wednesday deadline for seniors to turn in work.)

Questions & issues to consider:

•Melanie specifically points out the following quote from the author of the article, Meg Urry:

What excites me personally is how the discovery of Dark Energy illustrates that science is not a set of beliefs that one constructs. Instead, scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.

This quote raises connections to several readings and discussion topics from this year:
A) How might the author of the reading, "Ten Things We Think We Know About Science," regard or respond to this quote? Would he say it is consistent with an accurate understanding of science, or another example of where science education falls short?
B) During the mathematics unit, we briefly touched on the question of whether mathematics are discovered or created. And for those who attended the lecture on Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, the speaker raised this issue again, indicating Gödel's position on the issue. Use this quote as a springboard to compare and contrast the natures of science and mathematics to one another, particularly with respect to the philosophical question of discovered or created.
C) Dr. Urry's quote and the issue raised in B above become still more interesting when considered in light of the nature of the very close relationship between science and mathematics. Take a look back at the 3 articles we read as a jigsaw activity in class about that relationship (one article had the clever title, "Math has π on its face"), then comment on Dr. Urry's quote.

•The article is filled with knowledge claims about "dark energy" -- its impact on the universe, its place in science history, and its potential economic uses and impact. And yet, ironically, the caption to an accompanying picture of the author includes this quote, "Dark Energy makes up two-thirds of the universe -- and we don't know what it is." The article itself includes this paragraph:

But first, we have to figure out what exactly Dark Energy is. So far, we know only that it causes the expansion of the universe to speed up. We call it 'dark' because we don't directly see it. 'Dark' is code for 'we have absolutely no clue what it is!'

(Emphases in each quote added.) It seems rather ironic to have so many knowledge claims about something the author says we know so little about. What is your response to this irony? How do you reconcile these seemingly conflicting comments?

•Immediately after the quote that Melanie pointed out, Dr. Urry writes: "As new facts emerge, scientific theories can be proved wrong or in need of modification, but scientists cannot ignore them. Eventually the facts will lead to the right theory."
A) To reprise some questions I raised in an earlier post: What is a "fact?" We've spent a lot of time this year wrestling with the concepts of "knowledge," "truth," and "belief," but we've never discussed the term "fact." What do we mean by that term? What makes something a "fact?" How is a fact different from knowledge, truth, and belief? Or is it different from any one of those?
B) And as I asked about another quote above: How might the author of the reading, "Ten Things We Think We Know About Science," regard or respond to this quote? Would he say it is consistent with an accurate understanding of science, or another example of where science education falls short?

•Consider the knowledge claims contained in this quote from the article's concluding paragraph: "The answers are there, and I have no doubt that we will figure them out with the contributions of the smart young people now taking high school physics...." Consider and comment on the nature (psychological, epistemic) and intensity of the certainty expressed in that statement. What bases, what justifications do you think Dr. Urry might point to in support of her expressed certainty and knowledge claims?

Rediscovering the Dinosaurs

The link below is to an article that originally aired as a news story on ABC World News Tonight: "Rediscovering the Dinosaurs". And it reminded me of a "Bizarro" comic strip that can be seen at
http://gh.gresham.k12.or.us/~currier/Bizarro%20re%20dinosaurs.jpg.

Questions & issues to consider:

In light of this report, what will be your reaction to the next dinosaur exhibit you view? Explain.

Consider the short reading you read and summarized earlier this semeser titled, "Evaluating Scientific Claims." What are some questions that you would want to pose to the scientists and museum exhibit creators about the new exhibits? Why would those questions be important to you?

What is your reaction to the argument presented for a shorter tail for tyrannosaurus rex? Do you find it convincing or credible? Why or why not?

What is your reaction to the following quote from the article? "These bones begin to dictate to you the way that they want to be put back together again," says Fraley, "the way they want to be lifted up or held."

Robin, Britney, & Christina, or Pop (Music) Goes Lakoff

The basis for this post came from Katie Carlson.

The discussions of the Lakoff ("You Are What You Say") and Nilsen ("Sexism in English") readings apparently reminded Katie of the works of those famed modern philosophers, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. For personal reasons, Katie did not have time to make extensive comments but she did suggest the following song lyrics (click on the links) and potential lines of thought and consideration.

"Boys" by Britney Spears -- uses the type of language discussed in the readings; I would add, take note of the arena where the female has "mastery" in the song

"Can't Hold Us Down" by Christina Aguilera (caution: contains some explicit lines) -- talks about women not being allowed to speak like men (and I would add, or act like men)

Mathematics, Probability, and God

This post comes courtesy of Joseph Delaney. It is a meaty article and topic, so to provide incentive to take it on, I am making the following offer: If your comment makes it readily apparent that you have read and are responding to a legitimate aspect of the article, your comment will count as two journal entries.

Review of The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne

This article is a review of a book called The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne. He essentially is presenting a philosopher's response to the arguments in the book and covers almost all the topics we have dealt with in class. It is interesting to see an actual philosopher using phrases like "justification of one's beliefs" or "epistemic probabilities". Clearly he picks apart Swinburne's logic until the core is exposed and only the most stable of arguments are upheld. To be noted is how the reviewer hardly seems to question his use of mathematics in his argument but instead focuses on the reasons and presuppositions behind the numerical values. Probability and certainty are weaved into every argument leading to the fact that this is not a proof and was not meant to be. This of course brings up ideas of "degrees of beliefs" and "relative certainty" about even our most passionate of beliefs. A few decades ago, people would have dismissed this as being too vague and not poignant enough to bring about change. Today, people are just relieved if the probability numbers fall their way.

Lakoff, Language, and Women's Place

While searching for bibliographic information (or at least a publication date) for the Robin Lakoff reading, "You Are What You Say," I came across this blog post by an individual who claims to know Lakoff. And I get the impression that he is responding to essentially the same ideas as those presented in our reading.

"Language and Women's Place" [his title, not mine, so please don't throw rocks ;-) ]

This post may present a nice place to continue, extend, and ultimately bring some (though not complete) closure to our class discussions.

For now, I'm going to let the linked item stand on its own, as I think it provides ample and obvious material to respond to. But, I may come back and point out some elements to consider and comment on.

Update on 5/28:
"...bring some closure to our class discussion." Ha, ha! That was a good one, and I should have known better. With 13 comments on this post and 12 comments on the "Robin, Britney, and Christina..." post, it appears the debate rages on.

How do you say, "Stay out," forever?

The following is an article rich in TOK connections and an accompanying post, courtesy of David Masulis:

I was just poking around the Internet the other day, and I ran across
this article:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-forever3may03,0,6513414.story

It's about figuring out how to warn people 10,000 years in the future
about a buried nuclear waste disposal site.

The interesting and ToK-ish thing is that they are trying to figure out
whether there are ways to build something on top of it to communicate
the danger, even if people can't read any of the languages the warnings
are written in. This brings up the question of whether there is any way
to share knowledge between humans even if they don't speak the same
language or share any cultural elements. Is there some common way of
communicating without language? Are body language or facial expressions
possible ways to communicate without using language? I am reminded of a
story I heard once about an anthropologist. He found an island full of
people who had never been contacted before. He tried to learn their
language by pointing at things and saying their name in English, hoping
that they would name it in their language. He had some success the first
time he tried, so he tried pointing at something else and got the same
response. He tried pointing at several more objects, but got the same
response. After being puzzled for quite a while, he realized that he had
learned their word for "index finger". Turns out, that culture used
their chins to point at objects, rather than their fingers.

-David Masulis

In addition to David's questions and observations above, there are several quotes from the article that have significant TOK implications that you could choose to comment on. They include:

A) "No culture has ever tried, self-consciously and scientifically, to design a symbol that would last 10,000 years and still be intelligible," said David B. Givens, an anthropologist who helped plan the nuclear-site warnings. "And even if we succeed, would the message be believed?" [Why wouldn't it be believed? What would creating a believable message require of us? What does the first part of the quote imply about the development of language? Do you agree with that implication?]

B) "I understand those cave drawings and I don't speak Neanderthal…. He's killing a bison, 'bison — food!' I can do pictographs just as well," he said. [Consider the knowledge claim Roger Nelson, the chief scientist of WIPP, makes in this statement. If he doesn't "speak Neanderthal," how can he be so sure he understands the cave drawings? What is his basis for claiming to know this? How plausible do you find his knowledge claim?]

C) "Such views reflect WIPP's one certainty: No one knows what will happen far in the future." [Think about the paradox in that statement -- "one certainty" vs. "no one knows." Is the fact that the Energy Dept. and WIPP press ahead with the project consistent with this "one certainty?" If "no one knows what will happen...," how do the people on the WIPP project know how to proceed with their work?]

What's in a name?

The link below is to a column recently published in The Oregonian about the practical effects of a change in the name of a geographic landmark. It takes on particular interest in the wake of our recent class readings, "You Are What You Say" and "Sexism in English," and our subsequent class discussions.

"Word rarely used -- good advice for all"


Questions to ponder:

Midway thru the column, Parker writes, "I guess it's understandable how people get attached to names," but he doesn't explain any further. Why do you think people get attached to names, and what does it say about the relationship between language and the world?

Parker's comments about both Mt. Hood and Squaw Mountain Road raise the question -- What gives a name significance? For a personal perspective on the question, consider: what is your response to his suggestion for re-naming Mt. Hood? Why do you feel that way? Before reading this column, did you know what the significance of Mt. Hood's name was? Did, or does, that matter?

What decision should the Clackamas County commissioners make about Squaw Mountain Road? Why? What does your answer say about your view of the relationship between language and the world? Why do you hold that view?

R.I.P. Certainty?

For a larger image of this comic strip, click here or here.

Questions & issues to consider:

A) What is the cartoonist's point about certainty? What do you think, or make, of his point?

B) Comment on the quality, quantity, and content of the evidence (examples) the three characters provide in support of the boy's declaration, in the second-to-last frame of the strip that "The world's a less silly place without you!"

C) The last two frames of the comic strip present an ironic juxtaposition of ideas regarding certainty -- consider the boy's comment in the second-to-last frame ("The world's a less silly place...") in comparison with his exchange with Opus in the last frame. Comment on the ideas contrasted between the two frames. [e.g. Compare the content of Opus' comment in the last frame with the content of the statements quoted in frames 2 - 7 of the strip. Consider the implications of the boy's declaration in the next-to-last frame when applied to Opus' closing comment. Think about your intial reaction to the boy's statement in the last frame.] What observations, conclusions, and/or implications about knowledge and certainty are sparked by the strip?

D) Why did the cartoonist choose to add the last frame? Why didn't he just draw the headstone in the next-to-last frame and end there? Note: I'm certain ;-) it wasn't just to fill up space.

[Be sure to focus your comments on the knowledge issues raised in the comic strip. This comic strip clearly has a political overtone and slant. However, responding to that political element should not be the primary focus of your comments.]

Just what is the shape of the Earth?

I can hear it now... "Oh no, not this again!" And, "Don't go there, Mr. Currier!" But seriously... Why are you so certain that you know the true shape of the earth? What is the highest point on the earth? How do you know that? On what basis do you claim to know either the shape of the earth or the highest point on it?

Click on the following link for a short video from a recent ABC evening news broadcast that reports some new findings on these two issues:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2983361
(I apologize in advance for the advertisement you'll probably be forced to watch.)

Questions & Issues to Consider:

Is this report enough to make you revise your knowledge claims about the shape of the earth and it's highest point? If your answer is "Yes," explain why. What would you say is the basis for your claim to know the new knowledge claims? If your answer is "No," explain why not. What would it take to convince you to change your knowledge claims on the shape of the earth and its highest point?

What do you think about the definition of "highest point" the reporter uses in the piece? Explain/elaborate.

What do you think about the following knowledge claim (including the basis for it) made near the end of the report: "And while from space you can't see the earth's bulge (it's too little), it's there...."

Global Warming, Science, Fact, and Belief

Click here for a larger image of the comic strip.

Questions & issues that could be considered:

A) What is a "fact?" We've spent a lot of time this year wrestling with the concepts of "knowledge," "truth," and "belief," but we've never discussed the term "fact." What do we mean by that term? What makes something a "fact?" How is a fact different from knowledge, truth, and belief? Or is it different from any one of those?

B) On a related note: The first frame of the comic strip juxtaposes the concepts of "fact" and "belief." What do you make of that juxtaposition? (To see a definition, click on the word.) What is your reaction, or what thoughts does it prompt? Are the two concepts related to one another? If "yes," why and how? If "no," why not?

C) The punchline of the comic strip obviously turns on the play-on-words with the title of the Al Gore film, "An Inconvenient Truth." What are the two "inconvenient truths?" Why are they each inconvenient? If we accept the comic strip at face value, can both "inconvenient truths" be true? Why or why not?

D) Consider the ideas discussed in two of our science readings, "Science" (the reading about science as telling explanatory stories) and "Evaluating Scientific Claims." Share insights you gain by applying concepts from those readings to this comic strip.

E) Was this comic strip drawn in support of those who claim to know that global warming is real? Or was it drawn in support of those who claim to know that global warming is not real? How do you know? What is your basis for claiming to know that?

True Love, Knowledge(?), Truth, and Belief

One interesting response to Edge's Question of 2005 (see the preceding post) was provided by Dr. David M. Buss, a psychology professor at the University of Texas whose primary interests include the evolutionary psychology of human mating strategies; conflict between the sexes; prestige, status, and social reputation; the emotion of jealousy; homicide; anti-homicide defenses; and stalking. [Hmmm, that's an interesting mix!]
Dr. Buss' answer: True love. Read his full (albeit short) response at http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html#buss

Questions & issues that could be considered:

A) Analyze and reflect on the final lines of Dr. Buss' response: "It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement, and seems scientifically wooly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it."

B) Most people would call love an emotion. Emotion, in turn, is identified as a Way of Knowing in TOK. What does Dr. Buss' response seem to say or imply about the reliability of emotion as a way of knowing?

C) Dr. Buss' draws a distinction between "love" and "true love." What seems to be his basis for making that distinction? Do you agree that there is a distinction? Do you agree with the distinction he makes, or do you make a different distinction? Why? How does someone know if they are "in love," and if they are, how do they know if it is "true love?"

[Thank you to Ellen J. for bringing the source for this post and the previous post to my attention. She will receive credit for completing a journal entry as a result, because she showed me these (in a book) before I started the blog. See the comments in the Introduction post to find out how you can turn in one journal entry and have it count as two entries.]

"What Do You Believe Is True Even Though You Cannot Prove It?"

According to its website (www.edge.org), the purpose of the Edge Foundation is "to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society." (Obviously, it is not to be confused with "The Edge," the diversion on page 1 of The Oregonian's Living Section.) Each year for the past 10 years, Edge has posed "The Edge Annual Question" and published online the responses of acclaimed thinkers and scientists. The question for 2005 is a classic TOK question:

"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"
Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the "esprit de divination"). What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

[See http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html for comments from the editor-publisher of Edge.org about the question and the published responses.]

Questions & issues to consider:

A) Keeping in mind our readings and discussions from the first part of the school year, what do you make of this question? Analyze it in terms of the concepts of knowledge, justification, truth, and belief. Is the Edge question a valid question?

B) As you think about it and analyze it, what thoughts and ideas does it spark about the relationships between those concepts (i.e. knowledge, justification, truth, and belief), as well as the concept of proof?

C) What does it mean to "prove" something? What is "proof," as it seems to be used here? What constitutes proof (and not just in a strictly mathematical sense)? How is the concept of proof related to the concepts of knowledge, justification, truth, and belief?

D) What does the question seem to imply about the nature of belief? the nature of truth? Why isn't the word "knowledge" used in the question?

[Please note that you are NOT being asked to answer Edge's question. Appropriate comments should focus on analyzing and commenting on the nature of the question and on the concepts that comprise it.]

Clarifications

Clarification #1: If a post contains more than one heading or question, you are NOT expected to comment on each of them. I will try to suggest at least a couple of different directions or avenues for response in order to appeal to the various personalities, interests, and mindsets of different students in the three classes. Pick one and do it well! (Hence my advisory in the Introduction that quality is more important than quantity.)

Clarification #2: Be sure to focus your comments on the knowledge issues raised in the post. For example, the comic strip in the post "Language, Open-mindedness" clearly has a political undertone and slant. However, responding to that political element should not be the focus of your comment. Unless...

Clarification #3: You do not have to limit your comments to the issues that I suggest for a particular post. You are encouraged to raise other knowledge issues that you see implied in the post. The operative term here is "knowledge issues." Thus, with respect to the example cited in Clarification #2 above, you could center your comment around what you think the political message or slant of the comic strip is as long as you talked about the basis for your claim to know what that message or slant is.

Language, Open-mindedness

Click here for a larger image of the comic strip.

Language:
Consider the word play used in the comic strip. What does it say about the value of language as a way of knowing? Does this flexibility and malleability of language help or hinder our efforts to acquire knowledge? (Take special note of the second definition given for "malleability.")

Open-mindedness:
Consider the final frame/punchline of the comic strip, and reflect back on the readings from the beginning of the year: J.S. Mill, "On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion;" Plato's Allegory of the Cave from The Republic; and Edmundson, "On the Uses of Liberal Education...." What would be the response of any or all of those authors to the comic strip? Taking into consideration their comments, what is your reaction to Opus' comment in the final frame of the comic strip?

Introduction

So, are you behind on your entries in your TOK-OC journal? (You should have 8 entries by the end of this week.) Are you having trouble identifying subjects or experiences to reflect on and write about in your journal? Are you lost, dazed, and confused? Well, take a deep breath, let it out real slow, and relax...This blog provides an alternative route to fulfilling the TOK-OC Journal portion of your class grade. (You still have the option of making journal entries in the traditional paper-pen format.)

By way of reminder, the purpose of the TOK-OC Journal is to encourage you to make connections between the ideas that we've considered in class and your experiences & observations outside of the classroom. However, a number of you have indicated that you're not sure what to write about. So, here's how I envision this working...

I will post items here that are both appropriate and potentially effective as topics for a TOK-OC journal entry. I will also pose some questions or comments to jump-start your thinking about the knowledge issue(s) implicit in each item. You can then post a comment reflecting on the knowledge issues raised (this can include additional knowledge issues that you identify). Or you may respond to other students' comments, using them as jumping off points for adding your own comments. You may make multiple comments on the same posting, thus creating an exchange or dialogue with other students. All of your comments on a particular posting will be considered as a single journal entry; consequently, multiple comments may improve your score for that "entry." Your comments will be scored based on: a) knowledge issues you identify and address; b) the quality of thought and reflection evident in your comments; and c) the level of respect and consideration you demonstrate toward other viewpoints. [It should go without saying that comments that fail miserably on the last criterion will be removed by the moderator, but I'll say it just to make sure everyone understands.] (Reminder: Quality is valued over quantity...but they are often related.)

In order to give everyone an opportunity to get caught up, I will post several items each week for the next couple of weeks. Each post will be available for comments from students for one week.

Finally, if you discover something online that sparks an idea for a TOK-OC journal entry, forward both the web address for the item and your journal entry to me by e-mail. If I agree that the item is both appropriate and potentially effective, and I use the item and your comments as a post on the blog, you will receive credit for two journal entries.