History

Does the way (the language) that certain historical events are presented in history texts books influence the way that the reader understands these events?

- According to me, the way that historical events are presented in history textbooks play a significant role in the way the reader understands these events. This is for several reasons. Firstly, when people read the history textbooks, there is a definite credibility associated with them as compared to web sources such as Wikipedia. People immediately believe what they are consuming is legitimate and don't take the time to assess their sources as compared to if the source they were viewing was a website since textbooks almost have a stamp of legitimacy associated with them. This stamp is created because when in school, people were taught with textbooks and many a time didn't question the contents of it. Thus, whatever is posted in these textbooks is almost immediately believed and so any false propaganda or fake events can easily be synced in without any student or person being the wiser. Since the textbook is usually one of the only ways the people consume this information, any propagandas pushed by govt's or powerful individuals is the only way to receive this information. This information will significantly distort the reader's understanding of these events due to the fact that 1) The textbook may be the only way to find information on this topic. And secondly, unlike Sciences there is no definite way to collect evidence or prove the information on the book and all the content read must be taken at face value. Real Life Example - Personality of Christopher Columbus and his actual contribution to humanity.   

How can language introduce bias into historical events? How does language help or hinder the interpretation of historical facts?

Language can instill bias into historical events in several ways. One way is to simply use derogatory terms towards the side of rivalry and using positive language towards the side of bias. Another possible way to introduce bias would simply be the absence of language. Sometimes, in cases like the African colonizations only the European narratives have been narrated and the voices of the Africans have been suppressed. This can include aspects such as only including the positive events that the Europeans have done such as furthering trade in African countries but having the absence of language for the horrendous and dehumanizing methods deployed on the poor Africans. Language helps the interpretation of historical facts by providing a medium of narrating the history to those who weren't able to witness it and this a huge positive. However, the limitation with language is that it can sometimes not encompass all the true emotions and feelings attached to the history that is being told in the textbook. Also, a textbook has a limited amount of pages and the author of the book chooses to include what is most important to him/her, and the contents that seem trivial for the author may have been of actual significance to the reader. Thus, language provides both pros and cons for humanity's interpretation of History.

Knowledge Questions - 

1) Is altering history ethical?

2) To what extent is societies knowledge from textbooks based on faith?

3) To what extent do emotions reflect the historical information available today?

4) To what extent can information in textbooks be trusted?

5) When publishing history is it more important to be ethical or honest?

Natural Sciences Quanitification

2) To what extent can information in the human sciences be quantified?

Human Sciences, such as Economics and Business have always been topics of interest since there is usually not one correct answer as contrasted to the Natural Sciences of Physics or Chemistry. A real life example of this would be the 2016 calculation of the Indian GDP. A GDP, is supposed to measure the value of goods and services produced within a country in a fixed amount of time. These values have lots of different limitations in being quantified.

For calculating the GDP, quantifying the results have several problems. For example, in a GDP calculation, the value of the underground market hasn't been counted. Since a GDP is supposed to count the total value of ALL goods and services produced within a country. The fact that the GDP can't account for this is a stark limitation. Next, GDP values are taken from calculating all expenditures of citizens in a country. Sometimes, these expenditures are unregistered such as small grocery stores and don't get counted again.

The GDP, also fails to display where the expenditure or goods have come from. In the GDP, we can never know exactly who was produced these goods (Nationalities, Gender, ETC.) and we only get one penultimate numerical value.

Next, GDP values are calculated from using samples across the country. Yet again, sample values are taken from different districts and definitely don't account for the variety and distinction along all cities in the country.

Thus, as can be witnessed quantifying information in the human sciences can be very challenging due to problems with grasping all the variety and distinction amongst the country.

Metaphors in Scientific Language

Is there a place for metaphor in scientific writing? 

- Yes, according to me there is definitely a place for metaphor in scientific writing fro various reasons. I may be slightly biased towards this side because as a learner, I always learnt better when shown or given an analogy to trigger my imagination. This is how my brain works, however, this may not be the same for everyone and I can see where the other sides argument comes in.

What are the arguments that each side makes? 

The arguments that the Metaphor side makes are for imaginative learning and visual aid, which helps people learn. It also makes reading the science a lot more enjoyable. The other side, however, states that people could get confused with the metaphors and this might wreck their important conceptual scientific understanding.

What do you understand about the role of language in science?  - Personally, I understand that Science has always been associated with very complex English language, since the beginning of its days. However, English has always been at the forefront of the Scientific language, so Scientists which published articles in English weren't taken very seriously. In regards to the metaphors used in Science, I am completely for them since they make the text more enjoyable to read and as a visual learner, sometimes, even more, easier to understand. However, metaphors shouldn't be used very extensively as they might cloud up the scientific terminology that is required in exams and tests. (Sorry, I am an IB Student)

Why is this an area of ongoing discussion? - This is an area of ongoing discussion because both the parties in the case make very valid points, and there is no one right answer. The pro-metaphor side states that humans aren't robots and should be allowed to learn how they want, and scientists need to gain a sense of humour. The opposing side makes a valid point by stating sometimes the language is unclear for people to understand and a formal register makes the language used worldwide consistent.

In what ways does this relate to Alfred Korzybski’s assertion that “the map is not the territory”?

This relates to Alfred Korzybski’s assertion because this shows that there isn't always one way of doing things. There can be various different manners according to your approach and etc. This may cause differences in the field (as seen above), but this is good since we have a variety, and people are standing up for what they believe in. And a world where no one is different would be quite a boring one.

TOK Essay List

Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of  facts.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

This Essay Prompt could be answered with the following ideas according to me:

- Quantum Physics Field

- The Black Hole Theory 

- Atomic Structure 

- Periodic Table Explanations

- Economic Demand-Supply Model

- Theory of Relativity 

- Medical Theories such as Cancer Treatment

- A Pseudoscience Existence Essay

- Quantum Computing 

- Big Data - Mathematics 

- Astrologers Validity

Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline?    Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

This Essay Prompt could be answered with the following ideas according to me:

- Look at Cultural Differences

- Upbringing Differences  

- Income Differences 

- Education Differences 

- Maybe even Language Differences 

- Faith Differences (Religion) 

- Personality Differences 

- Use WOK of Faith & Reasoning 

The Theory of Black Matter - The theory of black matter was created to account for the "unknown" matter in the universe. The basis of this theory is that there must be matter/mass which doesn't emit electromagnetic radiation (such as light), so we can't see it. This theory has recently evolved, with the new theory called "Emergent Gravity". The new theory invented by Erik Verlinde, states that Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime. And According to Erik Verlinde, there is no need to add a mysterious dark matter particle to the theory. 

The major challenges of this theory is the absolute inability to collect results. Also, since they are measuring space activities it is even harder to collect results. However, Erik Verlinde struggled very hard to collect these results since they involved finding the velocity of planets and etc. The methods of questioning Verlinde used were perhaps reasoning and faith. This new research might lead to the complete scrapping of the Black Matter Theory.

This proves the difference between a theory and law. A theory can be proved/disproved and change over time, whereas a law is fixed and true.