Getting started

Guide Frontpage; or "What the Hell is Theory of Knowledge?"

Welcome, reader. This is the Hitchhiker’s Guide to Theory of Knowledge, since it is being written for my Theory of Knowledge (TOK) class, ...

2017/06/04

Sixteenth lesson; or "Historic take on the history of history - with Alfred Dreyfus, Richard Owen and Rosalind Franklin"

Bonjour, everybody. After seven days of travel around southern Europe, it was time for more ToK back at school. Thankfully, it was my topic: history. And before I launch into some ToK-ish stuff, I need to mention two men and a woman: Alfred Dreyfus, Richard Owen, and Rosalind Franklin.

I believe that, by now, Rosalind Franklin's work in uncovering the structure of DNA is widely respected, but she was near-forgotten in the decades closest to the very discovery, especially as women were not regularly awarded Nobel prizes. For years, schools taught that Watson and Crick had discovered the structure of the DNA - double helix - without mentioning Franklin, who was, according to some, pivotal to the discovery. In that opinion, Franklin analyzed the X-ray shots of DNA and made the conclusion which led to the Watson-Crick model.

"Think anyone will remember Maurice?" 
(There was a fourth member of the team, Maurice Wilkins. You probably don't know him, though).

Richard Owen was, as a quick online search can confirm, a brilliant paleontologist, biologist and comparative anatomist; he was the Knight Commander of the Order of Bath and coined the word dinosauria. However, don't let his impressive list of titles and achievements fool you. He also carries the title of the only man Charles Darwin ever hated, and is credited with plagiarizing the work of Gideon Mantell and restricting work of several people, among them Robert Grant, Hugh Falconer and T. H. Huxley. The latter three discovered, at varying points in time, that their positions, samples, works and permits have been taken or revoked under Owen's influence, but that cannot even compare to Owen's handiwork against Mantell. After taking several works from Mantell, most importantly discovery of Iguanodon, Owen celebrated Mantell's spine injury by plagiarizing remainder of his work and renaming the species Mantell already named. Icing on the cake happened after Mantell committed suicide, both influenced by pain from his injuries and constant destruction of his work; his obituary was written anonymously, although many saw Owen's style in it, and it mentioned Mantell as mediocre scientist at best, and his work as sub-par. Have you heard of Mantell? Didn't think so. On the other hand, Owen is celebrated.

Owen was later kicked out of the Royal Society for plagiarism (finally). 
Now, Mr. Owen, what does the IB Organization say of plagiarism...

Last historical "fact" before we start: Alfred Dreyfus, Jewish-French artillery officer, is guilty of treason against France. This lie has became so famous it has been named "The Dreyfus Affair"; in short, it was discovered in 1894. that somebody, probably a member of General Staff, was selling information about new artillery parts to Germany. Dreyfus was accused, and in less than three months was sent off to the Devil's Island to serve his sentence, after being publicly shamed and dishonored.

Devil's Island prison. Top-notch accommodation for traitors.

New French intelligence officer, Picquart, found evidence Dreyfus was innocent, but was forbidden from presenting them. After multiple threats and demands towards the court, Picquart was allowed to bring Dreyfus back for a second trial, after the true traitor, Esterhazy, was allowed to flee. Guess what? He was found guilty again, despite the evidence presented by Picquart. This sparked a vicious, occasionally violent debate about his guilt and antisemitism in France. He was only cleared of guilt in 1906. In history's eyes, in those 12 years Dreyfus was a traitor.

Dreyfus being named a traitor and stripped of rank.

This brings us to history and ToK. It would be idiotic to assume history as we know it today is absolutely true, especially as different nations have varying versions of events. Still, some history is better than no history, as long as it is not used to provoke emotions. History, in essence, is a set of stories, and all stories have potential to awaken emotions, as they talk of easy-to-relate personalities. Whether it is a last stand, an act of mercy, biography of a scientist or revenge for a genocide from centuries ago, there is something so deeply, personally enjoyable and attractive in each of these.

History can be said to contain all other fields in its body, as any event, discovery and work is placed in a coordinate system of time and place, in which history operates. You saw that for yourself: two out of my three examples of false history and mistakes relate to natural sciences. Tendency to note down important events has saved works from ages ago, and enabled us to advance as far as we did. It contains examples for nearly every occurrence imaginable, and if your search through alternate history and conspiracies, for all others as well. It is often said history will judge all of us, all actions and words. But how reliable it is? And how reliable was it for Mantell?

Which one do you trust more? Creepy "Walder Frey meets Scrooge"...

...or nice Victorian gentlemen scientist (disregard the Nick Cage look)?

It is impossible to observe any field separately from others, especially in ToK, as the modern world has connected everything in ways unimaginable and unforeseeable. In another era, this will be far history, and French and US elections and Erdogan referendum and South China Sea dispute will be footnotes, no matter what they lead to, since more modern times are always more important than ancient ages.

As this year nears its end, we might not have ToK until September. But I have a feeling we will...
Till next time. Bring the damn towel 😉

2017/04/05

Fifteenth lesson; or "Love for Malta"

Thank god it's ToK, am I right?



To open up last class of ToK, my group presented a poster which posed a CKQ (Central Knowledge Question) and its claim and counter-claim. It was meant as a practice for our final ToK presentation, which will be in October, or... six months! Cue shock, terror and hoarding of energy drinks. Also, in other news: pre-mocks in three weeks. Time to get started on working.



Back to our poster, though. The CKQ was related to an article we read, which debated about articles in field of physics written by amateurs (the "outside physics") and how those articles may be published for the wider community. Our question was something along the lines of "Is it justifiable for subjectivity to determine research usage?", and it was based on the dilemma whether personal gain in form of profit, interpersonal relations or prestige can determine which studies are used in a certain magazine or paper, and can subjectivity be forgiven in case of irresistible personal gain. The claim was that, since humans want to secure the best possible life for themselves, they should be able to receive "bribery" of sorts to publish certain scientific papers; this thesis was supported by ethical egoism.



The counter-claim was backed by utilitarianism: the needs of many and the well-being of many is more important than one's personal gain. The counter-claim essentially included moral absolutism, since it states that some actions are either right or wrong, regardless of standpoint or their ultimate cause.



Also, our Maltese friends are back in the focus, as we have made another video to convince them that we are nothing to be shy from or scared about, and that we should have a Skype conference. That would be incredible, since it would precisely be one new activity which would increase our cooperation.

So far, so good. Don't expect anything new until my exams are finished, though.
See you after I complete my pre-mocks. And with a towel, I hope 😉

2017/03/12

Fourteenth lesson; or "Just a test... and a tragedy"

ToK test - grab your chocolate and wands.



All in all, it was just a test. Nothing special.



Still, this Wednesday a tragedy happened. Remember Malta? They lost a natural monument, the Azure Window, during a storm.

Then...





...and now.


Moment of silence for it, please. You will always be in our hearts.
See you next week. With a towel 😉

Thirteenth lesson; or "Machiavelli rising (thank God it's not Friday the 13th)"

Guess who's in a bad mood? Our ToK teacher. Since some "brainiacs" tried to dodge homework, Neo style.



Still, I got my weekly dose of Machiavelli in form of utilitarianism and deontology. In short, These two are opposite: utilitarianism claims that the end justifies the means (#TeamMachiavelli) while deontology claims that it doesn't (#TeamPuritans). Most common example for this problem is the "trolley problem", where one must choose whether they kill one person directly, or let several others die by doing nothing.

Trolley problem

But I will use a different example: the doctor.
Imagine a doctor, a surgeon. He has five patients, random people, who all greatly need various organ transplantations. Suddenly, a young traveler comes to the doctor for a routine checkup, and the doctor notices that the traveler's organs match perfectly with the ones needed for the transplantations. If the travaler were to... disappear, none would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor take his organs and transplant them into his five patients? Now, some means are unethical on their own, not observing the end; but the greater good, in my opinion, wins over petty debates over who was the traveler and who were the patients. Just thinking like that is, for me, too subjective for an ethical argument. In total disconnection from the people, five lives are worth more than one; and saying that, say, a CEO's life is worth more than an IRS inspector's, teacher's, writer's, taxi driver's and hairdresser's is just one opinion and cannot be used to support deontology. Of course, not all ethical bounds may be crossed this way, but some may. However, defining "greater good" is tricky, and a new area upon itself.



Obviously, I'm #TeamMachiavelli to the (greater good) end. Spread these hashtags all over, and don't forget a towel 😉

Twelfth lesson; or "How ethical is it... vol.2"

Don't kill me immediately, this one is short, although not sweet.
We just studied key thinkers: folks who are considered basic for their area of knowledge. For ethics, those are Bertrand Russel, a Sioux name Black Elk and Jeremy Bentham.



Also, fun fact: did you know most IB students do not study ethics, because it is too complex?

I see no need for more words, so "Praise the Sun!", and bon voyage. With a towel, of course 😉

Eleventh lesson; or "How ethical is it... vol.1"

Yay, ethics.



Now, ethics are not a bad thing at all; imagine being sold into slavery. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Of course, forcing someone into marriage is awful... in Western culture. And would it be ethical to forbid arranged marriages in cultures such as the ones in sub-Saharan Africa or southern Asia? Those arranged marriages didn't happen on someone's whim; rather, we are talking about centuries of tradition these people follow. Say you think it is awful anyways and that tradition isn't an excuse. Then neither are ethics necessary, since most basic rules of them were established centuries ago.

Founders of ethics debate premarital sex (cca. 1500 BC, colored)


What is the difference between ethics and tradition then? Who can judge whether something is ethical? The most representative system of this would be if a member of a culture judged whether actions of a culture were ethical. Still, then the said sub-Saharan people would (obviously) judge their arranged marriages as an ethical thing. And then we would have the US play the playground policeman again (not that we need more of them, or anyone, doing that).



The elephant in the room? Ethics philosophers have differing stances on what is ethical and what is not, mostly because they lived in ancient times and a large number of them worked for religions. Thus, if we follow master Socrates blindly, then all criminals are just ignorant; he argues that people do good when they know what that good is, and that a person which knows what is right will never do wrong - so, all criminals are just ignorant. Woohoo, Socrates has saved the world, let's turn the prisons into classrooms and libraries. Still, religious ethics claim that premarital sex is unethical, and that opiates of any kind are also unethical. Who decided which ethics are to be followed? It's like one person telling you to cut off your leg with a guillotine, while another person is telling you to just shoot yourself in the knees, while you just want to keep your walking abilities.


Gehrman chose both

Just don't become anarchists, please. Anarchists are one of the few things worse than ethical and moral preachers, right down there with militant believers/atheists and moldy cheeses (not the good kind).
Still here with me? Good. See you next time for more ethics (note the "vol.1" part of the title...)
Au revoir. N'oubliez pas une serviette *french winky face' 😉

Tenth lesson; or "Milestones of work"

We have reached the tenth lesson! A milestone in this trip across the Galaxy, but also a milestone in my ToK education, since last class was all about our ToK presentations.




Remember the "Mission Impossible" lesson? I feel sorry for the first group which had to present their work, since they had it hardest. But both groups that presented chose helpful topics and had just minor mistakes, so all in all it was survivable.Even when talking about a topic of one's choice, it is hard and can become a nightmare when this many rules are included.

It went like this...


Not much to say. First class was about the Maltese video, and then two presentations.Low excitement last week, apparently.
Auf wiedersehen, faithful readers. And where are your towels? 😉

2017/03/02

Ninth lesson; or "Malta Knights and friendship"

Guess where we are going today? Malta!



Well, unfortunately, not really. Last class, we were filming a small video for students from Malta. The purpose of it was to have us answer questions about Malta in general and a town named Zabbar, from which the said Maltese students are. Of course, we were forbidden to search anything about Malta beforehand, so this little quiz was all the more interesting. Several questions were easy (like "Where is Malta located?"), others were tough ("What is Zabbar?" or "How do the Maltese say 'My name is...'?") and some were just plain weird ("Do people from Zabbar enjoy winter sports?"). Naturally, we started acting like smart-asses:
-What do people from Malta eat?
-Food... Usually.

-How do the Maltese say 'My name is...'?
-Well, English is one of the official languages, I think, so I guess they say 'My name is...'.

This is a small, innocent activity, but it can definitely create some connection between our two schools, perhaps even a partnership in the future. The Maltese will send us the video they filmed about our location, so expect and update when that happens.

UPDATE
So we got the Maltese video!
Apparently, they are primary-school kids, but they still made about as many mistakes about us, as we did about them. I honestly appreciate the effort they undertook to speak English for this activity. We'll see whether this will become a partnership or something similar.

After our 42nd destination in this galaxy, Malta, we continue on course 211-49. You know what you cannot forget 😉

2017/01/22

Eighth lesson; or "Mission Impossible"



Last post for this semester! Woohoo!
Now, its presentation time again. But this time around for me…

Task: make a ToK presentation
Team: solo, a pair or three people
Topic: self-chosen (“How ethical is it to kill?”)
WOKs: any and any number
AOKs: any and any number

The task is to practice for our ToK presentation by making a sample one over the winter break. Any topic, any length, any number of ways of knowing and areas of knowledge. This is a tutorial, a practice. With 25 days to spare, this should work out quite nicely. But blog and CAS and other things also await, so I’ll need to be efficient to finish before 15th (if the teacher sends what she needs to send). Lock and load!

Weather: cold, snowy
Loadout: internet, PowerPoint, brain, coffee
Rules of engagement: anything goes



See you after the break and the presentation. And you know what to bring ;)

Seventh lesson; or "Religion 'n' Prince Ali"



Welcome to next lesson. I bet you had faith I would deliver, and you were right.
Topic - faith.

Now, I’m an atheist. And I tried, truly tried, to see how faith on its own can be a way of knowing. And tried. And tried. And failed.

Until I realized this isn’t about faith on its own. This is about faith in symbiosis with other ways of knowing. Regardless of its usefulness, I made another mistake: faith isn’t the same as belief.

Belief would be the system of church and religion, an organization, while faith is simply trusting that something will happen. One can have faith that his friend will take something where he should.

And a superstition is a belief not based on any organized religious foundations, only different from religion since nobody made a Church of the Lucky Red Thread (or coin, or elephant, or black cat…).



Or  seventy-five golden camels
Purple peacocks he's got fifty-three!
 




That’s it for this time. Next up: last post for this semester!
And remember the towel ;)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyLjbMBpGDA

Sixth lesson; or "Prisons&Empiricists (IB Dungeons&Dragons)"



Welcome to Hitchhikers’ Game Night! Tonight: Prisons and Empiricists

A party of four Rationalists enters the Stanford prison: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Random IB Student. The beginning seems fairly easy, as they follow their trusty instincts. They know that they will be a part of an experiment, but there is still a large amount of surprise as the Game Master Plato announces that Spinoza and Random IB Student will be placed in the Empiricist camp for the rest of the experiment.
Uproar.
Spinoza rolls for “fainting”, but fails.
Leibniz rolls for “punching Plato”, and succeeds. Leibniz +10XP; Plato -3HP



Without further ado, the party is split. Spinoza and Random IB Student receive the batons of Nurture and the Empiricist manifesto. Leibniz and Descartes leave for their cells, and they receive their outfits. To pass time, they start a Rationalist discussion. Empiricists tell them to stop. Descartes refuses.
Empiricists roll for “sense experience”, and hit. Descartes  -2 Faith
Leibniz rolls for “language”, and fails.
Descartes rolls for “language”, and hits. Empiricists feel it physically: -2 Faith and -3 HP
Empiricists roll for “summoning Locke”, and succeed. Locke summoned.
Leibniz rolls for “morale” and gets 13.
Descartes is too scared to act.
Locke rolls for “morale” and gets 20.
Locke rolls for “power” and gets 19.
Leibniz rolls for “mother instinct” and hits. Locke absorbs.
Locke rolls for “adoptive family studies” and hits. Leibniz paralyzed.
Descartes rolls for “criminal gene” and hits. Locke -1HP; Leibniz revived.
Locke rolls for “language acquisition device” and hits. Descartes and Leibniz lose.

The next few days are uneventful. Prisoners Rationalists slowly start to obey the Empiricists, and the Rationalists in the Empiricist ranks are molded into new Empiricists. Random IB Student and Spinoza start a discussion, which Leibniz overhears.
Spinoza rolls for “mathematics are learned” and hits. Leibniz -999 Faith and -999HP. Leibniz dead.




In the end, Stanford prison proved that men placed in certain positions may start acting as they usually wouldn’t, because of the expectations, and how easy it is to make free men slaves.

Join us for the next game night for CASopoly: collect at least 150 hours across three areas before the time is up!

Like this, with Sith lords


And don’t forget a towel ;)