Blog Post #9: Real-Life Application

Task: Choose two examples that help your audience understand competing views or different perspectives of the same issue you focused on for your group inquiry. Provide an understanding of the situation, what issue it helps to discuss, and how that issue relates to your chosen essay title.
Be sure to link your topic into the appropriate area of the knowledge framework and use TOK terminology where possible. This blog post should in sufficient detail to show deep thinking about the AOK. You have lots of time to complete this post so take it seriously and practice applying your TOK terminology and concepts.

A is a simplified representation of some aspect of the world. In what ways may models help or hinder the search for knowledge?

In this blog post, I will explore different real life models that we use in day to day life in the scientific field. I don't want to focus on just two because I feel many models have the same problem as well as the same benefit. Models within the field can be sparked by either inductive or deductive reasoning as it may depict a theory, observation or both. Google defines a model as either "a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original," or "a thing used as an example to follow or imitate." They key concept from both definitions is that they are supposed to be a "smaller scale" or an "example" which implies that they are a simplified version of something larger. This is evident in the natural sciences as models are supposed to be simplified versions of concepts or theories that aid the understanding of knowledge. They can be used to depict methodology, theories or historical development. However, the fundamental quality of the simplicity of a model is what restricts science and the scientific field.

Models are used to understand information on a certain level, no matter how detailed a model is they are simply used to develop our knowledge and reason within the field rather than express the entire story as that would over complicate concepts. This simplistic nature is what makes the most basic models "wrong" to some extent but you can't say they are exactly "wrong" as they just do not express the fine details that may be important.

A simple model used for health and biology is the Harvard Food Pyramid which expresses the foods individuals should focus on in order to maintain a healthy body and satisfy their biological needs. This display of the "healthy diet" condenses thousands and thousands of studies down into one generalised portrayal of the human diet which causes the assumption that a substantial amount of information of side notes was left out. Over the years it has been manipulated and changed so many times which makes us question whether the human race is evolving. However, the biggest cause of its constant manipulation is due to the constant realisations nutritionists go through using new experiments or reevaluating the old ones. The basic pyramid manages to printed examples of food it is discussing and presents a slight variety but many say it focuses on specific foods too much or the pyramid group's certain groups together which should be separate. This pyramid is the perfect representation of a simple model as has the ability to provide a wide range of data from numerous studies across a large duration of time. Its information manages to express the fundamentals that most of the human race must consume taking results from people of multiple races within the US. It may have many benefits but the constant change is evidence that it may confuse or harm the community in certain ways due to its simplicity which is common in all models. Things like proportion confused the public which transitioned the pyramid to a plate but the plate fails to provide as many examples as the pyramid. Nutritionists also complain that the grouping of certain items allude to false ideas of that product, for example, the grouping of carbohydrates continues to be a problem as they do not divide complex and simple carbs or good and bad carbs. It bases a heavy amount of its data on what people like to eat but not what they nutritionally need as it has been proved that it is not necessary to consume processed wheat like bread or cows milk. This imagery implies that it is needed to be healthy even though are other "healthier" forms of consumption for nutrition like dairy.

https://utw10426.utweb.utexas.edu/Topics/False.models/Text.html
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/centennial-food-guides-history/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramidtest/

Another model which is commonly used in the field often used for the methodological side. Animal testing has been used for years due to animals similar and the reduced ethical considerations surrounding animal testing. They are used for cosmetics, diseases, cures, gene manipulation and other scientific developments as well as human sciences like psychology. The experimentation on animals which are similar in humans genes aid many biological and medical developments. Their physical and mental growth is faster than a human with them usually having a shorter lifespan which allows scientists to identify and manipulate the experiments easier receiving faster results. It is considered the most accurate form of experimentation without using as human as testing on cells does not provide sufficient information or observational knowledge. Scientists can test on animals a little bit more freely as there are less ethical concerns subjected to animal testing in comparison to human testing. Even though many animals have DNA similar to humans it is not the same which means there are a number of unknown factors and affects transitioning to human trials. This different DNA also makes it hard to create claims which require a significant amount of research exposing hundreds of animals to testing. Ethical considerations may prevent the animals from some harm but they also prevent scientists from experimenting a number of methods restricting their aims and results. Since the growth of many animals used is faster than humans any results found may be completely different over the entire lifetime of a human.

Animal testing may be a methodical model and more complex than certain diagrams or visual models but it is still a simplified version of reality in order to understand knowledge and manipulate it. Its simplicity is what makes it so useful to scientists and the public while making it unreliable as it is not the real thing or the whole picture.

http://futureofworking.com/12-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-animal-testing-on-cosmetics/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241690681_Advantages_and_disadvantages_of_the_animal_models_v_in_vitro_studies_in_iron_metabolism_A_review 

Blog Post #8: Natural Sciences and Personal Knowledge

1. What impact have the natural sciences had on the way you understand yourself? 
2. How has technology affected the form and content of your personal knowledge? 
3. How has your study of your group 4 subject affected the knowledge you employ in your day-to- day dealings with the world?

The natural sciences have helped me build an understanding of myself and my life in many different ways. Over the years learning biology has aided in my comprehension of my physical self which has allowed me to adapt certain forms of my lifestyle to fit the human biology and more specifically my body. This basis of knowledge has to lead to certain actions that might take place in response to some things due to the knowledge that I hold. My education in biology allows me to understand the fundamentals of what my body needs to grow and be well so I have shaped my life around that so I can be physically well which helps in being mentally well and fit to undergo tasks. A mixture of biology, chemistry and physics has extended my assessment of dangerous situation caused by external factors which heighten my fight or flight reflexes in certain fields. Constant developments within these fields change my way of life in either small ways or big ones as the more you understand then the more you can change or manipulate something. 

Technology, in my opinion, has had the biggest impact on our personal knowledge within our lives. It is such a massive platform which can easily mould or influence your personal knowledge based on the things you are exposed to or the things you use. Social media or internet platforms have the ability to completely form your personal knowledge due to the websites you join, the articles you read or the opinions you are exposed to. With its connective behaviour, it allows people to grow perspectives and become extremely open-minded but due to its variety, there is the possibility of the opposite to occur. It is versatile allowing the user to observe what they want while publishing what they want, this publishing can be a record of your growth of personal knowledge while shape this knowledge as well. Your publishing is your personal knowledge and getting it our there may cause it to change or for it to be reformed by the public response. 

Studying group 4 has made me assess thing differently, it has extended the importance that correlation does not equal causations. The Paradigm reading was the most important to me as it showed me how our societal or scientific paradigms allow us the question or dismiss ideas that are false but also have the ability to restrict our knowledge. If something goes against the paradigm of our society we tend to immediately think it is wrong or criticise which could be dangerous or ignorant when developing. 

Blog Post #7:The Language of Science

20/2/2017

What are the arguments that each side makes?
Philip Ball's article "A metaphor too far" discusses how the use of metaphors in the scientific field may distort the values and contextual aspects of science. Their open-ended nature will only cause more confusion when studying the big complex topics which will make it harder to further develop scientific ideas. He uses Thibodeau's and Boroditsky's Stanford study as an example, with participants changing their answers of how crime should be dealt with in correlation to the metaphor used. Crime being described as a wild beast produced more cynical answers associated with the caging and killing of it, however, when it was described as a virus, participants leant towards more open-ended understanding and problem-solving tactics. He used this to build his own point that metaphors may create confusion leading people down the wrong path and give them the wrong ideas which will lead to misconclusions.

Caleb A.Scharf discussed the opposite side of this case in " In Defense of Metaphors In Science Writing". He discussed how metaphors may be used to make concepts more understandable with the simplifying and personalisation of the ideas at hand. These personalizations would allow people to be more incised by the subject as well as being able to work through it due to the personalizations made. It is also mentioned how the disputes of metaphors in science could just be caused by scientists wanting to stay to the facts since that is what they are more comfortable with and accustomed to.

What factors influence the language choices of writers of science?
From reading these two articles, I think the author's personal ideas, opinions and targeted audience greatly impact the form of writing they produce. Some scientific writers may write with metaphors to give the audience a better understanding or personal linkage in order to help them gain the concepts or expand on the concepts. This form of writing allows for scientists and normal people to read it and form opinions and perspectives about the topic at hand. Writing with no metaphors expects the readers to understand what they are discussing purely from facts presented, they expect the audience the form opinions based on fact which could be more a scientific base. This is supported by Scharf discussing how fellow scientists thought it was unnecessary or informal to put these concepts in metaphorical form, urging him to go back the  factual presentations they are used to. 

Blog Post #6: Ethical Limitations of Science

To what extent should scientific knowledge be open to the public? 

This is a very difficult question to answer as there tend to be two sides to each leaf with this have the many reasons scientists should reveal information and other reasons which dictate why it should be kept a secret. Science is a field dedicated to exploration and investigating the unknown which can lead to a variety of new information and possible benefits. Scientists are constantly learning from old research or current research to hypothesise new ideas or develop old ones. With this mindset, it seems logical to share as much information as you can with the hope of further evolving our society in order for us to become the superior race. 

Many scientists agree with the notion as a study published in the international journal PLOS expressed how modern scientists use social media as a form of communication with fellow peers. "Led by Kimberley Collins, Dr Jenny Rock of New Zealand’s University of Otago and David Shiffman of the University of Miami, it surveyed 587 scientists from a range of academic disciplines."(http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/releases/otago624116.html). A majority of the science population believed that social media has a lot of advantages which could the scientific field. They even appreciate forms of social media like twitter as it allows them to share their findings, results or information with fellow scientists and the population. This openness allows a for a dialect to easily be created and with multiple minds working together or even discussing results there is room for growth. All these compelling points make it seem like an easy choice but there are a lot of implications that may take place if all scientific knowledge is open to the public. 

Humans are driven in science by curiosity which can be driven by logic, reason, imagination and emotion. Scientists do a lot of procedures to acquire their data which may conflict with the public's own morals. Animal testing has a lot of mixed signals from the public with some supporting it and some being against it, scientists use animal testing to avoid risking human lives but they do affect the creatures life. We only know some of the tests going on and there has been a lot of laws and regulations set into place to avoid the harm of animals as much as we can. These precautions were due to the public's morals criticising scientist's experimentation methods but what if these extreme measures lead to the cure for cancer? If 1,000 rats could die to save thousands and thousands of humans then would it be morally correct for scientists to test on them? Well, the real questions are if the public knew of this choice would they even be able to decide as we are very torn as human beings due to our emotion and logic based on our mental differences.

Let's take another point, humans naturally can panic and if governments were working on dangerous materials for radioactive warfare would the public have ethe right to know? Well, if they did then there is a possibility they would get support as it may defend their nation in the future or even get help from public scientists. However, this shared information may lead to the public's panic leading to revolutions or other political battles. This act of defence may even lead to other countries to panic in fear of what this product could lead to when the original country simply wants protection. The public knowledge would cause too much controversy that may stop they research of this radioactive warfare or aid it. 

Humans are extremely unpredictable with their responses caused by emotion which may cloud their judgement so you might think it would be better to not release information thepublic. However, this emotion and logic are what dictates fear and morality which prevents the scientists from going too far with their technology. It mainly just depends on what is being released and what kind of research is being conducted. 

Blog Post #5: The Limits of Logic

16/12/2016

What is the purpose of argument? Is it important to argue with proper reasoning?

To answer this question I think you have to understand what an argument is first so this is google's definition, "an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. A reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory." When we hear the word "argument" we associate it with heated or intense discussions of two people trying to prove a point which could be considered a verbal fight. However, I believe they can be extremely civil if the two parties are civil with this is mind I think there are many reasons for people to argue.

Arguments have to purpose of resolving two conflicting thoughts, opinions or ideas with the result of one being on top, right or seen as the better option. People start arguments to disprove others, this drive to disprove someone else can simply be caused by them wanting the other party to realise how they are wrong or what they are supporting is wrong. The drive may be caused by them wanting to the other party to understand their own logic or how their logic is wrong. It may be caused by personal emotional issues of two people which believe they have been wronged in some way, if someone has been wronged they want the cause to understand what they did was wrong, feel bad for it and apologise or change something. Arguments can be caused by a human's ego or pride with them wanting to be the ultimate "winner" that's why some people can be characterised as argumentative or looking for conflict. They have the ability to be well structured and logical with the purpose of the greater good of a cause like the presidential elections, you may consider it as a form of arguing. As the candidates are trying to argue and prove that they are better and could help the country the most with their points.

Is it important to argue with proper reasoning? This is quite hard to answer but I think arguing with proper reasoning is extremely important as it can be the deciding factor of whether or not it is a discussion or fight. If someone were to argue their point with proper reasoning and ideas to support a point they have a passion for then it allows them to focus more on civilly discussing their points with the intent of getting the other party to understand. A person who is arguing with a point and logical reasoning will be more focused on the discussion of points at hand than the argument itself. Someone who has this in mind will be more understand and communicative of their points while listening to the other person's perspectives. Many get so caught up in "being right" they forget what the argument is about or base it off something that has no actual logic or reasoning like grasping at straws. 

Blog Post #4: EMOTION

14/11/2016

EMOTION

This blog post will tackle a number of provided questions so I will attempt to organise it as best as I can. I based the selection of these questions off topics that fascinated me the most or if I had a strong opinion on.

Can there be 'correct' or 'appropriate' emotional responses?

My response is quite blatantly no, this answer may seem quite absolute or narrow-minded as it is an extremely open-handed question but let me explain. In my opinion, there isn't a possibility of a "correct" or "appropriate emotional response as we are all individuals with completely different mindsets and emotional reactions. The idea that certain responses in situations are "correct" is simply due to the norms or conformity of our society. Many are told in certain circumstances how they are supposed to act or behave which manipulates their specific organic responses. This is the biggest issue of an emotional disconnect in our society, people do not communicate certain emotion or mimic emotions that do not relate to them because it is what is expected of their behaviour.

This generalisation and stereotyping of responses create an unconscious conformism within our community. We are expected to act sad when a loved one dies because of our species this is the natural response. However, if you think about it, it is not as natural as we think as it is in actuality to expected recreation. For if someone were to not be evoked by this event they would be discriminated against as it would appear "odd" or "inhuman". We cannot place expectations of emotion on people as it is well known that each and every human process and thinks differently. This is what creates the prominent idea of individuals within society.  It is similar to studies within psychology or science, no matter how many times you recreate a study or experiment you cannot say that it proves a certain theory. You may only assume that it is true due to this support, this support leads you to make generalisations of what is expected to occur.

Let's look at a situation a bit more open rather than a death. A break up most commonly will cause a negative emotional response to the person who was not aware or a part of the decision. Like if someone were to break up with someone, the person broken up with will mostly have a negative or depressed response. We say "most likely" as this response is generalised by the public however it is not uncommon for both parties to have a positive or neutral response. The unbalanced emotional responses from both parties are expected due to our communities stereotypical customs with situational reactions. Though, a negative response is expected a different root may take place which could shock to bystanders of the situation but it is a bit more understandable than someone being happy that a relative died.

Each person has their own triggers but some are more excepted in certain situations. I don't think these expectations should dictate whether a reaction is right or wrong, who are we to tell others how their feeling or their responses are wrong. It is as if you were telling someone they are not allowed to be sensitive or offended if that is the way they feel then who are you to say what they're feeling is wrong. In life, my feelings and reactions tend to be extremely insensitive as that is just the person I am but it does not give me the right to tell someone how is sensitive that they are wrong. It is about me respecting their emotions as I do not share them, and they are to respect mine as they do not know mine.

This whole concept of "appropriate" emotional responses is how I believe psychopaths and the psychopath checklist was established. Psychopathic behaviour is usually associated with mental disease but many elements on the psychopathic checklist are based on reactions that are not "accepted" within our society. Which again brings me to my point of who are we to decide what is the right way to act in society. One of the thing on the checklist is the lack of remorse or guilt but why is this aspect of an individual expected. Another thing is the lack of empathy, how can you expect someone to be empathetic just because everyone else is. We all know individuals are different but why is their lack of empathy seen as something wrong or lead them to be perceived as a danger to society. This also ties into the next question.

Is it 'correct' to be horrified by the accounts of torture?

I don't think there is a correct response to torture, the expected opinion of someone is to be horrified, disgusted or feel remorse for the victim. However, if someone does not respond in these ways how can you say that is wrong as they might just be desensitised to the situation at hand. This desensitisation may seem like a negative thing but if that specific individual is doing nothing harm with these emotions or reactions then how can it be seen as wrong. Let's look at the more extreme point of view, what if someone were to gain enjoyment from torture as much as we do from a joke? To think of this turns my stomach but I still don't consider it an 'inappropriate' response as I am not that person, my brain and personality are not wired like them. If someone were to have this natural response how can you say it is wrong, you would be dismissing their natural form of enjoyment. Whether they acted on such feelings or emotions in a negative way would determine is they behaved appropriately. In saying this, actions can be heavily based on emotion but I still can't it is wrong to feel a certain way.

You can't expect everyone to have a horrified response to torture because it is not even like that in pop culture. With horror movies like Saw, some are so disgusted they do not watch it, some get past the gore to watch the story, some like every aspect of it and some just love the fake effects. All are responses to the movies which are fake forms are torture, these may be fake but still forms of torture that people pay to observe.

Is it possible to experience an emotion, a feeling, an attitude or sensibility that cannot be expressed in language?

I think it is incredibly possible to experience something internally that is indescribable. The human language was created by multiple human beings in order to aid communication between one another but it is not perfect. Many of this generation did not create the vocabulary we use so we can't be expected to relate to something that we did not exactly experience or create. We use language as a tool in the hopes to convey what we are feeling to communicate effectively but many words do not reflect how we actually feel. They may not reflect what we feel exactly but we still use them in an attempt to describe ourselves as creating new words to depict attitudes is just as useless. These words aid the expression of feelings as they can describe but they will never be concrete ways of communicating our feelings. This is caused by the differences in emotions between individuals. Your sadness may be radically different from mine but we use the same word to give each other an idea of how we will in that current pint in time.

A difficulty like this causes emotions to get lost in translation, we may use certain words to describe exactly how we feel but the interpretation of those words depends on the second party. This interpretation will never be the same as everyone processes information and attitudes differently. It allows us to be individuals but allows countless miss interpretations to take place as people may try to the best to convey their emotions part how the person interprets this information is out of their hands.

(may add more later)

Blog Post #3: Sense Perception- "Rippin' the Rainbow a New One"

I apologise if this blog post is a little bit more unorganised or a mess but today the topic is a little more difficult for me to grasp an answer. After listening to "Rippin' the Rainbow New One" which is a podcast we are meant to respond to the prompt, "write a response about how imagination and culture may play a role in the way that we are able to perceive the world around us. Use at least one personal example. Remember that making links to real life situations is a crucial aspect of the course so feel free to give multiple examples.” This is hard to pinpoint as at first, we have to identify our own form of imagination and culture that may influence our judgement or view of the world. Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate the aspects of life that influence you as it usually is happening subconsciously so we usually aren’t aware of it happening. However, I will try my best to delve into what has made me perceive the world the way I do.

Let’s keep into the topic of colour like the podcast for a second, everyone sees some degree of colours. Even people who are colour blind usually cannot see certain colours but can see a degree of them. Yes, we know that your blue may not be the same as my blue, your yellow could be my blue but let’s not get into that for now. We may see different colours or shades but from an education and from what we have been told is yellow or blue, we know the colours. Colours are all around us, present in nearly everything, but there is more to what we see. No matter what colour you see or if mine is different than yours, colours contain a spiritual or symbolistic property. This quality is heavily influenced by your culture or religion, artists can choose colours meticulously to convey a certain message, to evoke a reaction with the audience or simply on what is visually pleasing. It is our background which interprets the colours and tells us how to respond. Red can be a symbol of communism, good luck, passion, anger, love or danger depending on the culture or religion you are part of. Let’s say there is a room with two artworks, one is heavily washed with the colour of white while the other is enriched with black. If people from a more western background saw them, they would assume the black painting was presenting a darker scene of death or mystery while the white was pure and peaceful. However, if a person originating from a more Asian background like China, they would assume the opposition, that the black piece was purer and held prosperity while the white had a sense of morning, death and misfortune. The two people would assume different things while the artist could have just wanted to create a contrast between the works.

I can admit to this as everyone should, in Art it is very easy to push your own ideas onto a work you did not create but then again that always could be the goal of the artist. See most just want to evoke a reaction or emotion in the audience, but you always have to be aware of other perspectives that were influenced by different things than your own.   

Sorry, this blog will mainly be discussing how culture and imagination develop your perspective on the world dealing with art because it’s what I have experienced the most…Well, what I personal can think of right now.

A big influence of my own perspective of the world was not from my culture but more from the ideas and concepts presented to me from an early age. I have an unusual appreciation for forms and shapes that most people would lack, I shouldn’t say "lack" because it’s not a bad thing. It is just something heavily dominating my imagination of the world around me, it doesn’t matter if you do it or not it’s just how we grew up. In my life, I grew up with two parents who were heavily artistic in their own ways. My father being a graphic designer and my mother being a florist and gardener, they both had the main thing they were captivated by like the natural world or stylistic qualities. However, they both retain an appreciation for art and the forms around us. I have been exposed to this for as long as I can remember and it has caused me to have the same views. Not only the same appreciation for art in general but the appreciation for forms which many would simply overlook. Forms around us or even us, I see the world in a more dysfunctional way as I pay an absurd amount of attention of shapes and figures. These two appreciations come hand in hand, I got into art because of my influences and found body painting because of my appreciations of form especially the human form. I tend to visualise or analyse the human body in a way because of my love for shape but also the possibility of what I could do with mediums. While others won’t even care to focus on anything like the form that much but my parent's influence has pushed me down the road of art, which lead me to analyse or appreciate shapes more than others.

I know, it is something minuscule but it is a change in perspective and imagination as many times I will look at something or someone and manipulate with qualities of them in my mind. I sound really crazy right now but I promise it’s not that weird. It is just something I have a habit if caused by my up bringing that others will not have caused by theirs which may give them traits or perspectives I lack.