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

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...

Seeing as we closed the chapter on Semester I studying EMOTION, it would be nice to refresh our mind on this topic. Accordingly, this excerpt on Pascal Bruckner’s book, The Tyranny of Guilt, suggests that the Western world’s expression of guilt in certain instances allow us to infer certain truths about them. However whether this proposition about emotion ultimately revealing inherent truths about people or societies is true or not is up for discussion:

With slavery, the Holocaust, and colonialism behind us, we in the west like to lay claim to all that is corrupt and evil in humanity. "The Euro-American is simultaneously cursed and indispensable," writes Bruckner. "Thanks to him, everything becomes clear, evil acquires a face, the dirty rat is universally designated. Biological, political, metaphysical guilt."
Thus it was that so many fine minds could greet the incineration of 3,000 people live on television in 2001 with cries of: "We had it coming"; "What did we expect?"; or, in Baudrillard's case, something close to jubilation.
But, Bruckner argues, this self-recrimination amounts to little more than delusional narcissism, a means of sustaining a sense of our own importance not through the exercise of power but through the expression of remorse. As European influence contracts, so do our claims on responsibility expand. "Our superiority complex has taken refuge in the perpetual avowal of our sins," writes Bruckner, "a strange way of inflating our puny selves to global dimensions."