Pick one of your GCSE/IB subjects...
What sorts of 'knowledge' and/or 'truths' does this subject convey?
I chose my GCSE Humanities subject, Religious Studies, to answer this question. Religious Studies (in short form, RS) reveals to us the differences and similarities between cultures and religions. We explore their beliefs, morality and ethnicity.
In this course, I studied Hinduism and Christianity. It is quite funny how two different religions based on the same general concept (the belief in supreme power) can be so diverse when it comes to worshipping, thinking, and ‘the way of life’.
I believe that RS is all based on prepositional knowledge. After all, the teachings of Christianity are all based on the bible. Religion is just, let’s say, a group to assist and guide you along one of the many paths to living life. There is no ‘truth’ and there is no ‘correct way’. In religions, everything is based on faith and personal beliefs.
To put it crudely, I think that the ‘truth’ in RS is that every religious person has a different concept to ‘what religious truth is’.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
What sorts of knowledge or truths does this subject convey?
The subject I have chosen to do is History, history is basically built up from what has happened in the past and is taught to the future so as not to 'repeat their mistakes'. But what we learn in history is based on what people have seen/done/said because we weren't there at the time, so we can't say whether the history we learn is true or false. We just accept its true and because of how everyone else around us accepts this information as truth, and we cannot question what we are told because for example the fact that Neal Armstrong was the first man on the moon, we just accept that as fact because we weren't there at the time, but have to rely on what others have to say because they were there.
Also when we are taught history there are questions on whether different sources on a certain topic e.g the vietnam war, and whether we think that the sources are reliable or not because a lot of them are based on memories it cannot always be reliable because one person cannot remember something for so long, and not in that much detail. In a way history is like that, based on memories but we assume its based on different memories of the same event, but then there is no wrong answer, just different points of view. History is based on information that was written or made over time until it is finally taught to us. But also we believe that what we are taught is true because to us its basic knowledge, we read books that all say the same thing and the news tell us the same and those around us say the same, so because we are so revealed to hearing things a certain way and that everyone agrees with one version of history we all go along with it.
What I mean by some parts of history being basic knowledge is that before I actually learned about history in a subject I knew that China had a dictator called Chairman Mao because my parents told me about him and I had also heard about him on the news and in books I read. Also I knew about the revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara again because I grew up with my parents talking about him, and I again had read it in books and heard it on the news about how he was first known for the motorcycle diaries and that he was pro-communist so on and then how he was killed. So basic knowledge first comes from our parents or material around us, and once we become accustomed to these versions of history and we learn the same thing in school. We call it the truth on what really happened in history.
Also when we are taught history there are questions on whether different sources on a certain topic e.g the vietnam war, and whether we think that the sources are reliable or not because a lot of them are based on memories it cannot always be reliable because one person cannot remember something for so long, and not in that much detail. In a way history is like that, based on memories but we assume its based on different memories of the same event, but then there is no wrong answer, just different points of view. History is based on information that was written or made over time until it is finally taught to us. But also we believe that what we are taught is true because to us its basic knowledge, we read books that all say the same thing and the news tell us the same and those around us say the same, so because we are so revealed to hearing things a certain way and that everyone agrees with one version of history we all go along with it.
What I mean by some parts of history being basic knowledge is that before I actually learned about history in a subject I knew that China had a dictator called Chairman Mao because my parents told me about him and I had also heard about him on the news and in books I read. Also I knew about the revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara again because I grew up with my parents talking about him, and I again had read it in books and heard it on the news about how he was first known for the motorcycle diaries and that he was pro-communist so on and then how he was killed. So basic knowledge first comes from our parents or material around us, and once we become accustomed to these versions of history and we learn the same thing in school. We call it the truth on what really happened in history.
Things you need to do
By 13 November you should have printed-out and pasted your 2 Sophie's Worrd assignments into your journals together with 6 follow-up posts.
For next lesson please return your copy of Sophie's World. If you want to buy/keep the novel please see Mr. Jabal.
Gorilla link is http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html.
Claire - you have been accepted into the class blog.
Steffi, Emily and Shivani - you have just been invited(for the THIRD time) to join our class blog.
For next lesson please return your copy of Sophie's World. If you want to buy/keep the novel please see Mr. Jabal.
Gorilla link is http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/demos/15.html.
Claire - you have been accepted into the class blog.
Steffi, Emily and Shivani - you have just been invited(for the THIRD time) to join our class blog.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sense perception
Some quotes for your consideration!
There's more to seeing that meets the eye." (K. T. Cole)
"There is no truth. There is only perception." (Gustave Flaubert)
"Everyone hears only what he understands." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
"True science investigates and brings to human perception such truths and such knowledge as the people of a given time and society consider most important. Art transmits these truths from the region of perception."(Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy)
"We hear and apprehend only what we already half know." (Henry David Thoreau)
"Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic." (Edward de Bono)
"We shall see but a little way if we require to understand what we see." (Henry David Thoreau)
"There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception." (Aldous Huxley)
"We sometimes get all the information, but we refuse to get the message." (Cullen Hightower)
"The eyes see only what the mind is prepared to comrehend." (Henri Bergson)
"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is -- infinite." (William Blake)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." (C. W. Leadbeater)
"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings." (Richard Dawkins)
"Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing." (Camille Pissarro)
"Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted. Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world." (Hans Margolius)
"Science is nothing but perception." (Plato)
There's more to seeing that meets the eye." (K. T. Cole)
"There is no truth. There is only perception." (Gustave Flaubert)
"Everyone hears only what he understands." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
"True science investigates and brings to human perception such truths and such knowledge as the people of a given time and society consider most important. Art transmits these truths from the region of perception."(Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy)
"We hear and apprehend only what we already half know." (Henry David Thoreau)
"Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic." (Edward de Bono)
"We shall see but a little way if we require to understand what we see." (Henry David Thoreau)
"There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception." (Aldous Huxley)
"We sometimes get all the information, but we refuse to get the message." (Cullen Hightower)
"The eyes see only what the mind is prepared to comrehend." (Henri Bergson)
"If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is -- infinite." (William Blake)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." (C. W. Leadbeater)
"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with color, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn’t it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings." (Richard Dawkins)
"Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing." (Camille Pissarro)
"Only in quiet waters do things mirror themselves undistorted. Only in a quiet mind is adequate perception of the world." (Hans Margolius)
"Science is nothing but perception." (Plato)
Monday, October 29, 2007
What sorts of knowledge and or truths does this subject convey
The subject that I have chosen is Economics.
Economics is also known as a social science, this subject tries to study human behaviour during changes in various factors in relation to how resources are best used. As the concept of economics is far too complex models are created to simplify things.
It is with these models that economists use to test human and economic responses when a variable (such as the supply of rice) would change (with all other things being the same). However, the real world works in a much more complex way. By trying to represent the world with a simplified model, we would only have a glimpse of the inner workings of our economies. As a result of us using models to learn about economics, how can we be sure that the knowledge provided to us are true?
Then theres the prediction of human behaviour, economists assume that people will make rational decisions and go for the best choices available to them while entreprenures will choose to produce goods for maximum profits. However, we have seen many times in history when people have made the wrong decisions and have caused castrophic problems. Assumptions are also involved in economics, for all we know these assumptions could be wrong. This reliance on something so abstract and unverifyable leaves us wondering whether we'll ever grasp the truth of economics.
With different people seeing and observing the world in different ways (which is shaped by their experiences and their tinted glasses) different opinions and theories are presented. The conclusions reached can sometimes contradict one another. I would think that the truth and knowledge for this subject would only be perfectly correct for the person who thought it up, this is because people perceive the world differently and they have different values and opinions.
Economics is also known as a social science, this subject tries to study human behaviour during changes in various factors in relation to how resources are best used. As the concept of economics is far too complex models are created to simplify things.
It is with these models that economists use to test human and economic responses when a variable (such as the supply of rice) would change (with all other things being the same). However, the real world works in a much more complex way. By trying to represent the world with a simplified model, we would only have a glimpse of the inner workings of our economies. As a result of us using models to learn about economics, how can we be sure that the knowledge provided to us are true?
Then theres the prediction of human behaviour, economists assume that people will make rational decisions and go for the best choices available to them while entreprenures will choose to produce goods for maximum profits. However, we have seen many times in history when people have made the wrong decisions and have caused castrophic problems. Assumptions are also involved in economics, for all we know these assumptions could be wrong. This reliance on something so abstract and unverifyable leaves us wondering whether we'll ever grasp the truth of economics.
With different people seeing and observing the world in different ways (which is shaped by their experiences and their tinted glasses) different opinions and theories are presented. The conclusions reached can sometimes contradict one another. I would think that the truth and knowledge for this subject would only be perfectly correct for the person who thought it up, this is because people perceive the world differently and they have different values and opinions.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Pick a subject; What sorts of knowledge and or truths does this subject convey
For this area of discussion, i have chosen the subject; History
Practically since the dawn of time, mankind has been trying to document experiences whether through carvings on a cave wall, or by passing via word of mouth. History transcends culture and time and is a thoroughly "enriching" subject.
However, how much of this history is believable? Such is the cruelty of mother nature that all humans will inevitably die. This means events witnessed or experienced by individuals cannot be recounted to a perfect degree of accuracy. Yes some may argue there are videos and photographs but these offer limited dimensions from only one perspective. But then undoubtedly, there would be another set of people that experience the same event. As a result, what we now have will be several, subtly different accounts leading to an argument as to what really happened.
Now here is what i think a problem when it comes to the subject of history. Historical accounts you read from a textbook or see from a video will only give you a one-dimensional, slightly warped perspective of the event. This is by no means a wrong perspective, but just the experiences of someone with a different way of re-telling or recreating an occurence. The next generation of historians will take these already slightly altered accounts and distort them a little more, for not wanting to be accused of plagiarism. The cycle then repeats with more people reading this, by now, relatively inaccurate re-telling and alter it a bit more.
So, if technology somehow allows us in the future to go back and revisit an event when it actually happen; i'm afraid History will always be fraught with a degree of inaccuracy.
Practically since the dawn of time, mankind has been trying to document experiences whether through carvings on a cave wall, or by passing via word of mouth. History transcends culture and time and is a thoroughly "enriching" subject.
However, how much of this history is believable? Such is the cruelty of mother nature that all humans will inevitably die. This means events witnessed or experienced by individuals cannot be recounted to a perfect degree of accuracy. Yes some may argue there are videos and photographs but these offer limited dimensions from only one perspective. But then undoubtedly, there would be another set of people that experience the same event. As a result, what we now have will be several, subtly different accounts leading to an argument as to what really happened.
Now here is what i think a problem when it comes to the subject of history. Historical accounts you read from a textbook or see from a video will only give you a one-dimensional, slightly warped perspective of the event. This is by no means a wrong perspective, but just the experiences of someone with a different way of re-telling or recreating an occurence. The next generation of historians will take these already slightly altered accounts and distort them a little more, for not wanting to be accused of plagiarism. The cycle then repeats with more people reading this, by now, relatively inaccurate re-telling and alter it a bit more.
So, if technology somehow allows us in the future to go back and revisit an event when it actually happen; i'm afraid History will always be fraught with a degree of inaccuracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)