INTRODUCTION
"Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty,
whether of knowledge or ignorance."
Bertrand Russell
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty,
whether of knowledge or ignorance."
Bertrand Russell
Thinkingthink·ing (thngkng)
n. 1. The act or practice of one that thinks; thought. 2. A way of reasoning; judgment: To my thinking, this is not a good idea. adj. Characterized by thought or thoughtfulness; rational: We are thinking animals. Source: The Free Dictionary |
Knowingknow·ing (nng) adj.
1. Possessing knowledge, information, or understanding. 2. Showing clever awareness and resourcefulness; shrewd. 3. Suggestive of secret or private knowledge: a knowing glance. |
Lookingto look (lk) v.intr.
1.a. To employ one's sight, especially in a given direction or on a given object. b. To search: We looked all afternoon but could not find it. 2.a. To turn one's glance or gaze: looked to the right. b. To turn one's attention; attend: looked at the evidence. c. To turn one's expectations: looked to us for a solution. ---ALWAYS----- ---REFERENCE---- YOUR -- SOURCES |
Skepticismskep·ti·cism n.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety; uncertainty. 2. Philosophy. a The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism. b. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general. c. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty. 3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets. |
Dogmatismdog·ma·tism (dôgm-tzm, dg-) n.
1. a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact. 2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises. — dogmatist, n. --dogmatic, adj. |
WHAT IS CERTAINTY?
cer·tain·ty (sûrtn-t)n. pl. cer·tain·ties
1. The fact, quality, or state of being certain: the certainty of death.
2. Something that is clearly established or assured: "On the field of battle there are no certainties" (Tom Clancy).
Synonyms: certainty, certitude, assurance, conviction
RELATED QUESTIONS
Can you link the quote above ("Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.") to the definition of certainty as the assurance or the conviction that something is clearly established?
If "Knowledge is knowing that we cannot know", as R.W. Emerson claims, or knowing that we (can) know nothing, is the certainty that we know something, i.e. "knowing that we know", knowledge or ignorance? Now think of assertions like 2+2 = 4, or "the Earth is flat", which everyone considered to be true until the 16th c., and answer:
Can certainty be both knowledge and ignorance?
What is theory of knowledge?
From WIKIPEDIA
Unlike standard academic disciplines, the theory of knowledge course uses a process of discovering and sharing students' views on "issues" (an umbrella term for "everything that can be approached from a TOK point of view"), so "there is no end to the valid questions that may arise", "there are many different ways to approach TOK," "the sheer scope of the TOK course is daunting" and "teachers and students need the confidence to go a little—not too far—outside their traditional comfort zones." Teachers have freedom to select a teaching methodology and course material that will convey the theoretical foundation of essential concepts, and provide an environment in which these concepts can be discussed and debated. The focus of the discussion should not be the differentiation between "right" and "wrong" ideas, but rather on the quality of justification and a balanced approach to the knowledge claim in question.
The TOK course uses a combination, in no particular order, of:
Ways of knowing: (sense perception, reason, emotion, and language). How do we gain knowledge of the world, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each way in which we learn of the world and our place in it.
Areas of knowledge (mathematics, natural sciences, human sciences, history, the arts and ethics): their distinct natures and methods of gaining knowledge, the types of claim each makes and the issues to consider (e.g. "How do you know that the scientific method is a valid method of gaining knowledge?", "What is the reason for having historical knowledge, and how is it applied in life?").
Factors that transcend individual ways of knowing and areas of knowledge:
Nature of knowing: what are the differences between information, data, belief, faith, opinion, knowledge and wisdom?
Knowledge communities: what is taken for granted in a community? How can we decide which beliefs we ought to check further?
Knowers' sources and applications of knowledge: How do age, education, culture and experience influence selection of sources and formation of knowledge claims? If you know something, or how to do something, do you have a responsibility to use your knowledge?
Justifications of knowledge claims: Why should claims be assessed critically? Are logic, sensory perception, revelation, faith, memory,consensus, intuition, and self-awareness equally reliable justifications? Use of coherence, correspondence, pragmatism, and consensus as criteria of truth.
WEEK 1
TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE & BELIEF:
DOES IT MATTER IF WHAT WE BELIEVE IS TRUE?
DOES IT MATTER IF WHAT WE BELIEVE IS TRUE?
WHAT IS A BELIEF?
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Source: The Merriam Webster Dicitionary
WEEK 2
WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?
1: obsolete : cognizance
2: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) :acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>
c): the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d) the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
3: a) the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b) archaic : a branch of learning
Source: The Merriam Webster Dicitionary
2: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) :acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>
c): the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d) the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
3: a) the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b) archaic : a branch of learning
Source: The Merriam Webster Dicitionary
ways of knowing
The ways of knowing refer to the different ways we, knowers, interact with both the world of physical objects, or Nature, and the world of ideas or representations of that same world. That is, the ways of knowing are how we access reality. There are many ways in which we do this. In fact, it is almost impossible to come up with an exhaustive list of the ways of knowing. Furthermore, they are not separate from each other. In TOK we will only study four ways of knowing (PERCEPTION, REASON, LANGUAGE AND EMOTION) and TOK students should be able to discuss in a great deal of depth how these ways of knowing interact and depend on each other.
Sense Perception We will start with the way of knowing that is probably the most ‘immediate’: our senses. We are talking here about our sense of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch. There are arguably more than these 5 senses, and certainly the human range of sense perception is one that is extremely limited when one compares our species to others in the animal kingdom. The key question to contend with is how reliable our senses are, and to what extent we can rely on them.
Emotion Our second way of knowing is emotion. This is less measurable and tangible than our senses – it’s hard to count how many emotions there are, for example, and each of us is affected in a different way by our emotion. One of the key questions to do with emotion is to what extent it helps, and to what extent hinder, us in building up an objective picture of the world.
Reason If emotions are sometimes regarded as the unreliable weather vane of knowledge, reason, at least in theory, is meant to be the reliable version. A lot of our reasoning is done unconsciously, but a lot of it is something we are aware of, and can actively shape. A key question in terms of reason is thinking about the different ways we use logic to arrive at our conclusions.
Language is a little different, because not only is it a way we understand the world, it is also the way we express ourselves, and allow others to understand us. One of the key questions in language is to what extent is our vision of the world limited by the language that we speak, and the vocabulary we command.
KNOWledge issues
Have a look at what the IB guide says about knowledge issues.
What are Knowledge Issues?1) ‘Knowledge Issues’ often start with the question “How do we know…”
How do we know if a source or claim can be trusted?
How do we know what is morally right or wrong?
How do we know what our conclusions rest on?
How do we know if results are accurate?
2) ‘Knowledge Issues’ can be related to the four ‘Ways of Knowing’
Reason(logic / inductive reasoning / deduction / syllogism)
Emotion(intuition / feelings / moods)
Sense Perception(the 5 senses / Kinaesthetic awareness etc.)
Language (all forms of structured communication)
Questions could relate to:
definition / use / importance / limitations / negative effects etc. in relation to your subject area
3) ‘Knowledge Issues’ can be questions about subject areas
Is Mathematics present in Nature?
How reliable is ‘proof’ in the Natural Sciences?
Are the human ‘Sciences’ really Science?
How useful is knowledge gained in History?
4) ‘Knowledge Issues’ can be related to Distinctions & Connections between subject areas
What makes one subject area different from other subjects?
What is Scientific about Science?
How is a subject defined – are there disagreements?
Where are the boundaries of your subject?
What is the relationship between one subject area and other subject areas?
What does your subject have in common with other subject areas?
Why is your subject area clustered in a specific Area of Knowledge? (See diagram above)
How should the various Areas of Knowledge be structured in a diagram, and why?
What are Knowledge Issues?1) ‘Knowledge Issues’ often start with the question “How do we know…”
How do we know if a source or claim can be trusted?
How do we know what is morally right or wrong?
How do we know what our conclusions rest on?
How do we know if results are accurate?
2) ‘Knowledge Issues’ can be related to the four ‘Ways of Knowing’
Reason(logic / inductive reasoning / deduction / syllogism)
Emotion(intuition / feelings / moods)
Sense Perception(the 5 senses / Kinaesthetic awareness etc.)
Language (all forms of structured communication)
Questions could relate to:
definition / use / importance / limitations / negative effects etc. in relation to your subject area
3) ‘Knowledge Issues’ can be questions about subject areas
Is Mathematics present in Nature?
How reliable is ‘proof’ in the Natural Sciences?
Are the human ‘Sciences’ really Science?
How useful is knowledge gained in History?
4) ‘Knowledge Issues’ can be related to Distinctions & Connections between subject areas
What makes one subject area different from other subjects?
What is Scientific about Science?
How is a subject defined – are there disagreements?
Where are the boundaries of your subject?
What is the relationship between one subject area and other subject areas?
What does your subject have in common with other subject areas?
Why is your subject area clustered in a specific Area of Knowledge? (See diagram above)
How should the various Areas of Knowledge be structured in a diagram, and why?
WEEK 3 & 4
WOK: PERCEPTION
Per·cep·tion /pərˈsepSHən/
Noun
Synonyms
realization - understanding - comprehension
Source: Google Dictionary
Noun
- The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
- The state of being or process of becoming aware of something in such a way.
Synonyms
realization - understanding - comprehension
Source: Google Dictionary
MORE ON SENSE-PERCEPTION
SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs. For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory and expectation. Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input.The "bottom-up" processing is basically low-level information that's used to build up higher-level information (i.e. - shapes for object recognition). The "top-down" processing refers to a person's concept and expectations (knowledge) that influence perception. Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs. For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory and expectation. Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input.The "bottom-up" processing is basically low-level information that's used to build up higher-level information (i.e. - shapes for object recognition). The "top-down" processing refers to a person's concept and expectations (knowledge) that influence perception. Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.
The process of perception begins with an object in the real world, termed the distal stimulus or distal object. By means of light, sound or another physical process, the object stimulates the body's sensory organs. These sensory organs transform the input energy into neural activity—a process called transduction. This raw pattern of neural activity is called the proximal stimulus. These neural signals are transmitted to the brain and processed. The resulting mental re-creation of the distal stimulus is the percept. Perception is sometimes described as the process of constructing mental representations of distal stimuli using the information available in proximal stimuli.
An example would be a person looking at a shoe. The shoe itself is the distal stimulus. When light from the shoe enters a person's eye and stimulates their retina, that stimulation is the proximal stimulus. The image of the shoe reconstructed by the brain of the person is the percept. Another example would be a telephone ringing. The ringing of the telephone is the distal stimulus. The sound stimulating a person's auditory receptors is the proximal stimulus, and the brain's interpretation of this as the ringing of a telephone is the percept. The different kinds of sensation such as warmth, sound, and taste are called "sensory modalities".
Psychologist Jerome Bruner has developed a model of perception. According to him people go through the following process to form opinions:
1.- When a perceiver encounters an unfamiliar target we are opened different informational cues and want to learn more about the target.
2.- In the second step we try to collect more information about the target. Gradually, we encounter some familiar cues which helps us categorize the target.
3.- At this stage the cues become less open and selective. We try to search for more cues that confirm the categorization of the target. At this stage we also actively ignore and even distort cues that violate our initial perceptions. Our perception becomes more selective and we finally paint a consistent picture of the target.
An example would be a person looking at a shoe. The shoe itself is the distal stimulus. When light from the shoe enters a person's eye and stimulates their retina, that stimulation is the proximal stimulus. The image of the shoe reconstructed by the brain of the person is the percept. Another example would be a telephone ringing. The ringing of the telephone is the distal stimulus. The sound stimulating a person's auditory receptors is the proximal stimulus, and the brain's interpretation of this as the ringing of a telephone is the percept. The different kinds of sensation such as warmth, sound, and taste are called "sensory modalities".
Psychologist Jerome Bruner has developed a model of perception. According to him people go through the following process to form opinions:
1.- When a perceiver encounters an unfamiliar target we are opened different informational cues and want to learn more about the target.
2.- In the second step we try to collect more information about the target. Gradually, we encounter some familiar cues which helps us categorize the target.
3.- At this stage the cues become less open and selective. We try to search for more cues that confirm the categorization of the target. At this stage we also actively ignore and even distort cues that violate our initial perceptions. Our perception becomes more selective and we finally paint a consistent picture of the target.
SOME THEORIES OF REALITY
Naïve realism
Naïve realism, also known as direct realism or common sense realism, is a philosophy of mind rooted in a theory of perception that claims that thesenses provide us with direct awareness of the external world.
The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following beliefs:
The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following beliefs:
- There exists a world of material objects.
- Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
- By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."
SCIENTIFIC REALISM
Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science (perhaps ideal science) is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be.
PHENOMENALISM
Phenomenalism is the view that physical objects cannot justifiably be said to exist in themselves, but only as perceptual phenomena or sensory stimuli (e.g. redness, hardness, softness, sweetness, etc.) situated in time and in space. In particular, phenomenalism reduces talk about physical objects in the external world to talk about bundles of sense-data.
OPTICAL ILLUSIONS
optical illusions plural of op·ti·cal il·lu·sion (Noun)
Noun
Noun
- An experience of seeming to see something that does not exist or that is other than it appears.
- Something that deceives one's eyes and causes such an experience.
Optical Illusions: When Your Brain Can't Believe Your Eyes
SOURCE: ABC NEWS, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/EyeHealth/optical-illusions-eye-brain-agree/story?id=8455573
Look at an optical illusion and you may think you're seeing things -- such as a curved line that's actually straight, or a moving object that's standing still. You wonder if your eyes are playing tricks on you.
It's not your eyes. An illusion is proof that you don't always see what you think you do -- because of the way your brain and your entire visual system perceive and interpret an image.
Visual illusions occur due to properties of the visual areas of the brain as they receive and process information. In other words, your perception of an illusion has more to do with how your brain works -- and less to do with the optics of your eye.
An illusion is "a mismatch between the immediate visual impression and the actual properties of the object," said Michael Bach, a vision scientist and professor of neurobiophysics at the University of Freiburg Eye Hospital in Freiburg, Germany, who studies illusions and has a large collection of them on a Web site.
WEEKS 5 & 6
WOK: REASON
DEDUCTIVE REASONING is any form of reasoning that moves from the general to the particular
SYLLOGISMS are deductive arguments containing TWO PREMISES and a CONCLUSION:
All dogs are mammals
Fido is a dog
Therefore Fido is a mammal
These are also syllogisms:
Premise 1: Typically men earn more money than women.
Premise 2: I am a man.
Conclusion: Therefore I earn a lot of money.
Premise 1: I am human and I’m blonde.
Premise 2: You are a human.
Conclusion: You are blonde.
Premise 1: I am an IB student.
Premise 2: All IB students suffer from an unbearably large workload.
Conclusion: Therefore I must suffer from an unbearably large workload.
As you can see, the arguments above move from a general claim in premise 1 to a particular conclusion. In order for the conclusion to be true (which is not always the case), both premises must be true and the argument must be (logically) valid.
VALID AND INVALID ARGUMENTS
Truth vs. Validity
Logic and reason alone cannot determine the truth of an argument. However, they can provide the basis for determining the validity of an argument. This leads us to the battle between truth and validity. An argument can be valid but not truthful, if its phrasing is technically correct but the point it is ultimately making is false. An argument can also be truthful but not valid, as it can raise a true point and yet not be properly phrased so as to be logically valid. Why, then, should we bother with logic if it cannot present us with the truth? The answer is this: if we are making an argument and our point is true, but we don’t have the knowledge of logic to form a valid and sound argument for it, then our argument could fall apart simply because it is not validly phrased or supported. Thus we need both logic and a true point in order to form a perfect argument.
An argument can be valid, but not truthful. An argument can also be true but not valid. If someone were to say, “If he cooks, then I will stay. He didn’t cook, so I didn’t stay,” then their argument would be invalid, although it could reasonably appear to an amateur logician to be true.