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

Dear Everyone,

In our current exploration of the natural sciences, it is important to get some experience of the development of science and how this happens. Although you certainly should draw on your personal exposure to science from your science courses and lessons, in some ways this will not be enough to gain a full understanding of what we want to talk about in TOK with regard to science. This is because much of what you learn in science classes is about how science is understood NOW rather than how that understanding developed in the past. We need both.

You will find a fascinating documentary on the development of physics in the 20th century at:

K:\Staff_To_Students\IB Subjects\Core\TOK

There is a worksheet at the same location with the same name - use it to guide your viewing and to focus on the key points that are made. We expect you to make the time to watch this video between now and next Monday as we will ask you for your reactions next week in class.

Dear IB1 TOKers,

I am excited by the development of this new blog and grateful to those who have spent their time setting it up. A round of applause for you! This blog provides a vital channel for TOK discussion beyond the classroom, and we intend to use it to the limit of its potential. We expect everyone to contribute, not least because these contributions will be considered when we come to decide on semester grades from now on. So get involved!

Here is my first contribution.

Some of us have been thinking about whether science is better described as a body of knowledge or as a way of thinking. Please give this some thought, and then go to the following college network location and read the short article from the New York Times that I have entitled "Anthropology as Science":

K:\Staff_To_Students\IB Subjects\Core\TOK

If we consider the body of knowledge in anthropology to be about human culture(s), would that subject matter allow anthropologists legitimately to call their subject a science?

If science is better thought of as a way of thinking, then what should anthropologists be doing or be able to do in order for them legitimately to call themselves scientists?

The article suggests that there are those in the anthropological community who "see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights" - do you think that the anthropologists who see themselves in this way can legitimately call themselves scientists? Why or why not?

Lastly, why should people get so serious and heated about whether the word "science" is or isn't included in a mission statement? It's just a word, isn't it?

Looking forward to some interesting dialogue on this...