Blondlot and N-rays Article Reflection

In relation of the N-Rays, the scientists were trying to prove the existence of this new found radiation. However in science you cannot prove anything, you can only disprove it, and this is is why their observations were skewed because they were trying to see what they wanted to see to support their theory. Perception doesn’t always have to do with the tangible things we see but also how our mind can alter them or trick us into thinking we see what we want to see. Perception can also be biased and perhaps trying to favour another, like a social cognitive response. The prism was the thing that affected people's perception of the prism. The assistant who was certain that he couldn't’ see the N-rays based what he expected to see with what he saw when Wood “removed” the prism.

Are we the only ones in this universe?

What can we learn about what is really out there? How certain can you be that there is a world out there, that is independent of our experience?

Perhaps this can tie back to Conceptual Perception because sometimes (well I know i tend to do this) people tend to think of things that could happen even though we are uncertain. For example a dream is an abstract idea that is distinctive to each and every one of us, but it is basically a projection of what we wish to happen in our mind that has not yet occurred. But how can we be certain that this idea that we made up might or might not exist. Because maybe another reality if we work towards our dreams, they might end up coming true. So even though we have no idea if something might happen, instead of imagining it, we should work towards it. We can’t possibly know what is out there or what our potential is if we don’t start working towards it. Our experiences from this can also depend on our journey of exploration; to find the tree that fallen.

From these 2 months of TOK, it has made me question everything I have understood and perceived. From the article of “Perception is not Reality” it highlights the idea of perception is a projection of what we take in and perceive neurologically. So it kind of argues that, how can we certainly know or perceive a world out there when we have no grasp or detection of it. Which I do agree in some sense, that we would not actually know what is there because we haven’t seen it or can’t exactly predict what is going to happen.

Should you always try to be as rational as possible, or are there dangers in being too rational?

“The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything but his reason” (G.Chesterton, 1874-1936). Should you always try to be as rational as possible, or are there dangers in being too rational?

I suppose if someone is too rational they can come off as very harsh and unfriendly. Sometimes people do things that are irrational because they might want to seem different or they aren't necessarily thinking clearly. But sometimes you can't help but be irrational even if we try really hard to. I do feel that when we are irrational we tend to base our opinions from emotions. I think heartbreaks are irrational, because all one does is cry and get distressed over what was once a person whom they had a connection with. But we as humans can't always be rational. A "rational" person would definitely move on, throwing away their ex's momentos and carry on with their daily life. However because human beings have feelings and emotions, the average person would most likely be substantially sadder than they would normally be. It would probably take one or two months months before they can get back up on our feet and continue life normally. So I guess even if we try to be rational, we aren't exactly robots either. We would always have some degree of irrationality in us.

I think in life or death situations I would defiantly be very rational. If we have to accommodate for our daily needs, we would most likely try to think of the most efficient way possible and maximize what we are given with. Being rational comes from deriving your way of knowing from reasoning, like having logical thinking and basing it on facts. I think in that way we should definitely try to be rational to avoid any complications in one-shot-moments.

Compare and contrast the reliability of perception and reason as possible sources of knowledge. If they conflict, which would you trust?

Compare and contrast the reliability of perception and reason as possible sources of knowledge. If they conflict, which would you trust? 


Perception is something that can be defined as becoming aware of directly through any of the senses especially sight or hearing and to achieve understanding of something. Whereas reason is the action of constructing thoughts into valid arguments. People always unconsciously reason in their heads and it's also a way to achieve knowledge and understanding. Perception is active, selective and interpretative process of becoming conscious of the external worlds through sense experience, the experiences should be examined and critically evaluated. So if we rely on that for our source of knowledge, were more so relying on our brains that are trying to fill in a pattern to an unknown. Also not everything that we see is real, they are always different from others, like colour. 
Perception doesn’t always have to do with the tangible things we see but also how our mind can alter them or trick us into thinking we see what we want to see. Perception can also be biased and perhaps trying to favour another, like a social cognitive response. However sense perception is not always reliable because there are fallibility of the senses. For example we may misinterpret what we have seen. Like any illusions or camera tricks. We may also fail to notice something. Also relying solely on the memory of the incident may confuse information of what we have seen. Reasoning in some ways can be better because it can give us certainty that perception can't. Reason is the most important source of knowledge and it can also be inductive or deductive so there are more ways to arrive to the conclusion rather then using your senses.

I would use reasoning to come to my conclusions and knowledge because at least I can gather substantial evidence to come to my way of knowing.

TOK Presentation Reflections

1. 1. What is the real-life situation and knowledge question? How are they connected? Does the KQ arise naturally from the RLS?

2. 
   

The first real life situation the group discussed was concerning the Syrian Crisis. Their knowledge question was "In the dissemination of knowledge should we always strive for objectivity?" The sub questions they presented were "is bias detrimental". The group connecting objectivity in the media that provide us different ways of knowing to how we know what we know from the news. Because of the recent BBC articles which have different pictures and perspectives of how the Syrian crisis is portrayed, it can play a part in peoples sense perception, reasoning, language and emotions. The knowledge does show how we should question reality and that objectivity is beneficial in the pursuit of truth. 

2. 2. How is the KQ explored? What is the evidence? How certain is it? What were the other ways of looking at it? Give at least two details to explain why you think this presentation did or didn’t show a good understanding or had a lack of analysis of the KQs

3. 
   

It was explored through looking at sub branches of sense perception, reasoning and emotions that we gain from the media. The group talked about Sapir Whorf's linguistic determinism in connection to language, common sense realism in relation to sense perception and how imagination can affect emotions. However we can never be certain of things if we only apply our sense perception and emotions to them, because with common sense realism there are some limitations that come with it. So do emotions because the media can exaggerate and manipulate them to make us feel a certain way. They also talked about how objectivity in that aspect is not so good because the people behind the news article are making us think and feel according to them. They also looked at confounding variables like hoe people might have used sources like those pictures in the news reports to support their claim or an innate desire for subjectivity. I thought the presentation did show understanding and explanation of the KQ however they should have used more sources to back there statement up.

3. 3. What impact does the conclusion have on the real-life situation? What other real-life situations were used to explore the conclusion and its implications?
4. 
   

At the end, since it was a pair presenting, they used to real life situations; one was concerning war songs and the other about Donal Trump. Their conclusion was that we should always strive for objectivity (defined as "consensus between large groups of people" and a way that limits transparency in knowledge) as this allows the knower to make rational judgements and also give negative sides to the argument. For the war song situation they said that tho it was objective it does not inform a large audience ( I didn't really understand this part) and it doesn't let the audience take action. For Donal Trump they said that he is subjective and irrational, because he uses the media as a platform to raise awareness. 

False Paradigms

Lately I've been noticing a lot of things in the two sciences I take that really tie in to the questions we discuss in TOK. In Chemistry we talked about how "belief" in a certain thing paradigms everything. We tend to stick to a certain set of rules we think are the definite answers to life, however everything is subjected to change. In science there are a lot of theories that were falsified, but prior to that, people that tried speaking out against it ended sounding bizarre.

I sort of related this back to the things we learned in TOK like the ways of knowing and perceptions. We should keep in the back of our minds that things are always subject to change. Though it seems hard to move past that adjustment and have a new perception, thats how the world turns and how people keep moving forward with new discoveries.

Sometimes we can't just depend on our sense perception because that would make us a naive realist. In science we have tools to aid us in seeing what the naked eye cannot. However in life, we shouldn't always take things for "face value" I suppose. In a way, we should aways think and not make rash judgements just because we SEE something thats happening and we rely on our sight. The whole idea of