As we end our Human sciences lessons in theory of knowledge. The events taking place in North Africa and the Middle East brings up some interesting knowledge issues.

 What role has the use of technology played in the success of these revolts?

 Is there a pattern being played out, as to which countries would experience these revolts?

  Can the Human Sciences come up with a theory which would serve as an indicator for making predictions on future revolts? If yes what would this theory be like? how precise would it be? can it ever move on to become one of the laws in Human Science?

                                                                                                 Michael Djan

Dear All,

Having assimilated assiduously Mr. Ofei's remarks during his assembly presentation last week, we have subscribed collectively with renewed vigour to the idea that modern information and communication technologies provide an important type of educational tool, but not the only one.

Accordingly, we intend that our forthcoming TOK weekend should be governed by the general rule that digital devices are not welcome, so that other avenues for learning and acquiring knowledge are given full advantage on this particular occasion.

What do you think about this idea? What could be gained and lost by such a policy during a TOK weekend?

The Turing Test

“Each year for the past two decades, the artificial-intelligence community has convened for the field’s most anticipated and controversial event—a meeting to confer the Loebner Prize on the winner of a competition called the Turing Test. The test is named for the British mathematician Alan Turing, one of the founders of computer science, who in 1950 attempted to answer one of the field’s earliest questions: can machines think? That is, would it ever be possible to construct a computer so sophisticated that it could actually be said to be thinking, to be intelligent, to have a mind?”
Can a computer know? What does it mean to know?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/03/mind-vs-machine/8386

I think it would be interesting to take a look at the findings of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is a regularly updated study commissioned by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The latest complete study of 15-year-old students from OECD member countries shows clearly that students from the People’s Republic of China outperform students from all the other countries in the study (in the fields of language-related skills, mathematics and science), including highly developed countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia and so on.

Results are to be found in an executive summary called PISA Report 2009 that you will find at:

K:\Staff_To_Students\IB Subjects\Core\TOK

Please look at page 8.

If you prefer, you can look just at the results page online at:

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf

Now we are starting to examine the human sciences in our TOK work this week, and the question I would like to pose to you is this: how would you start to investigate the possible causes of the fact that Chinese students outperform students in other countries? I don’t want us to discuss how reliable the PISA results are – that is another, and equally interesting, question – let’s just accept them for now. But the question is WHY? How could you start to find the causes of this phenomenon (Chinese excellence) in a way that would be scientifically acceptable?

You will notice that on the final page of the report, the OECD member countries are listed, and none of them is African – therefore there is no African data included. Are there any implications of this? But answer the first question first…

Here is a new thread from Mr. Kidane:

Thaler’s Question

I am asking you this on behalf of RICHARD H. THALER, Director of the Center for Decision Research at the University of Chicago. He requested:

“I am doing research for a new book and would hope to elicit informed responses to the following question:

The flat earth and geocentric world are examples of wrong scientific beliefs that were held for long periods. Can you name your favorite example and for why it was believed to be true?

Please note that I am interested in things we once thought were true and took forever to unlearn. I am looking for wrong scientific beliefs that we've already learned were wrong, rather than those the respondent is predicting will be wrong.
Several responders pointed out that the phrase "scientific belief" in my question was not well defined. Did I mean beliefs held by scientists or beliefs by the lay public about science. The answer is that I am interested in both.”

Let’s help him. I believe we will learn a lot about the nature of science answering this:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/thaler10/thaler10_index.html

Kidane S