Do you KNOW what your 'sign' is? Are you sure?

The little-known "Solecismon, the Person Using the Word 'Ironic' Incorrectly"

Recently, a furor broke out when an astronomer in Minneapolis made a statement in a newspaper interview that the zodiac calendar had shifted. As you look at the following items (just click on the titles), pay attention to statements made by the authors and interviewees that give insight into the role that belief and justification (i.e. evidence) play in what people claim to know, even about themselves. Use those statements as starting points for your comments.

"Zodiac Sign Switch Brings Horoscope Horror" (video) -- pay particular attention to astrologer Susan Miller's comments and host Robin Roberts' apparently-in-jest comments at the end 

New zodiac signs 2011: Can one guy just change the zodiac like that? 

So, Now What's Your Sign?

Astrology Sign Panic: Five Reasons to Calm the Eff Down

[The picture of "Solecismon, the Person Using the Word 'Ironic' Incorrectly" was downloaded from here. Other "little-known astrological signs" can be viewed at that link.]

Knowledge, Belief, Proof, Love, & Commitment

Below are two pieces of dialogue between John Nash and his wife-to-be Alicia from the movie, "A Beautiful Mind." Use them as a jumping off point to reflect on the relationship among knowledge, belief, and proof (a.k.a. justification?).

Nash: Alicia, does our relationship warrant long-term commitment? I need some kind of proof, some kind of verifiable, empirical data.
Alicia: I'm sorry, just give me a moment to redefine my girlish notions of romance.

Alicia: How big is the universe?
Nash: Infinite.
Alicia: How do you know?
Nash: I know because all the data indicates it's infinite.
Alicia: But it hasn't been proven yet.
Nash: No.
Alicia: You haven't seen it.
Nash: No.
Alicia: How do you know for sure?
Nash: I don't, I just believe it.
Alicia: It's the same with love I guess.
Most of this last piece of dialogue can be viewed starting at the 52 second mark in the trailer at

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2279866649/

Knowledge, Belief, and Climate Change

Edit

Read the NPR article "Belief in Climate Change Hinges on Worldview" (click on the title). Reflect and comment on the connections you see between the article and our readings and discussions about the role belief plays in knowledge. (The focus of your comments should be on knowledge, belief, justification, and truth, NOT global warming.)

Do You Know? Do You Believe? How Gullible are You?

Click on your choice of the links below to take one of the Museum of Hoaxes' gullibility tests: Science & nature test History & culture test Once you've taken one of the tests, create a post to report your score and reflect on what the test and your performance have to say about the nature of knowledge, truth, belief, and/or justification (i.e. "good reasons," to use Abel's term).

Do You Know? Do You Believe? How Gullible are You?

Click on your choice of the links below to take one of the Museum of Hoaxes' gullibility tests:
Science & nature test
History & culture test
Once you've taken one of the tests, create a post to report your score, then reflect on what the test and your performance have to say about the nature of knowledge, truth, belief, and/or justification (i.e. "good reasons," to use Abel's term).

Mysteries of Stonehenge

CLICK HERE to visit National Geographic Magazine's recent exploration of Stonehenge and it's purpose or significance. Consider the knowledge claims made in this feature about what Stonehenge is/was and compare them against the various claims that have been made in the past (e.g. religious shrine, giant clock, monument built by aliens, etc.). What do you think you know about Stonehenge? How does that compare to the knowledge claims discussed in the National Geographic feature? It might be interesting, from a TOK perspective, to take their 10 question "Stonehenge Quiz" before reading the article. (CLICK HERE for the quiz.)

Which came first, language or perception?

The title of this post is intended to be a play on the old philosophical question, Which came first - the chicken or the egg? CLICK HERE to go to the New York Times article, "When language can hold the answer," discussing research findings on the role language may play in sense perception, including things as basic as recognizing colors. Use the article as a prompt to reflect on the relationship between these two Ways of Knowing.

Additional writings about this subject can be found at:
"Hues & Views: A cross-cultural study reveals how language shapes color perception"
"Do our languages shape the nuts and bolts of perception, the very way we see the world?" (Scroll down to the second response/entry on this page. Interestingly, this statement was made by Professor Boroditsky in response to the very TOK-ish question, "What have you changed your mind about?"
"Reframing: How language shapes perception" (this "article" is really a blog posting, and the blogger has an
interesting background/perspective that is worth thinking and reflecting about)

Just how gullible are you?

Visit the Museum of Hoaxes (www.museumofhoaxes) and take one of the "hoax photo tests" or one of the "gullibility tests." You will find the links for them in the second row of links at the top of the site's home page. Report your score and comment on: a) the significance and implications of your performance on the test, or b) test items you found interesting, confounding, or even that you disagree with the site's answer for.

Truth, Lies, & War

Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

Click HERE to read about a study contending that the Bush administration made 935 false statements (read 'statements' as 'knowledge claims' in TOK parlance) over a two-year time period as it made its case for going to war in Iraq. [As you reflect and respond, resist the urge to pursue the political partisan angle of the story. Focus more on issues of knowledge, truth, justification, belief, certainty, etc.)

"...And fifteen minutes ago, you KNEW that humans were alone..."

The town of Stephenville, Texas was recently in the national news because a number of townspeople publicly claimed to have seen a UFO on several different nights. After initially saying there were no military jets in that area when the sightings occurred, the military later announced that Navy F-16's were training in that area. Ironically, the people who claimed to have seen the UFO said the second announcement served as proof for their claim. The following links will take you to two news stories with accompanying video clips about the controversy.

Dozens in Texas town report seeing UFO

Officials: UFO sightings were military jets

Questions & issues to consider:

• Do you believe the townspeople's claim that they saw a UFO? Why or why not?
• If you don't believe them, what would it take for you to be convinced that they are right? What kind of evidence (justifications) would you require, and why?
• What role do you see the concepts of "epistemic certainty" and "psychological certainty" playing in this story?
• To what degree is your willingness (or unwillingness) to believe the townspeople a reflection of your prior knowledge and beliefs? To what degree is that appropriate and/or reasonable? Are your prior knowledge and beliefs a help or a hinderance to you in evaluating the knowledge claims presented in this story? Elaborate.
• Consider/evaluate the role that sense perception plays in this incident. Do you consider the sense perception of the townspeople a reliable justification? Why or why not?

Real DaVinci Code?

Questions & issues to consider:



1) How credible do you find this theory to be? Why? What is the basis for your judgment?

2)What would it take for you to be able to say that you know that this is, or is not, the true DaVinci Code?

3) What do you believe about the claim, any claim, that there really is a DaVinci Code? Why? What is the basis for your claim? Are you willing to say that you know that there really is, or is not, a DaVinci Code of some kind? On what basis?

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."

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.

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?]

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?

"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.]