I Think Therefore IB

Different Research and Documentation Styles

Look at Picture #6, of a little boy in a Palestinian refugee camp. Heartbreaking if you ask me. It’s also a perfect example of how we see things through a particular lens – such as the lens of the environment we are brought up in (one would just wish that a little child like that wouldn’t know the world in this way just quite yet).
The Lens, by the way, is a relatively new NY Times blog, which focuses on photojournalism specifically. There a many interesting posts, often raising unsettling ethical questions (“Is it acceptable to make art out of human suffering?”) and publishing uncomfortable images (Between Life and Death: Photographing an American Soldier a Moment before His Death).

From elsewhere (Double X, Slate’s recently launched online women’s magazine) comes a provoking article on Pakistani women who come to the US to give birth, just so their child can obtain American citizenship.

Four versions of 450 years of British history: The Subjectivity of History
Laws are based on reason, but sometimes reason makes no sense: A Sudanese Family Reunites in Brooklyn

The Long Debate of Adding Ununbium to the Periodic Table: I find this to be a very interesting subject – but am still pondering to understand how exactly these recent elements are “created” (the idea that some chemical elements are discovered, and other are created…. yes, that’s just fascinating to me).

It also makes me think of the whole Pluto renaming. Articles on this:
You Call That a Planet? (prior to Pluto being reclassified)
Articles on Pluto (including some that discuss Pluto’s 2006 reclassification as a “dwarf planet” and how the voting on the definition of planet could have also created new planets, rather than demoted existing ones).

Of course, this “definition debate” clearly illustrates an example of “invented knowledge” within the natural sciences. Pluto hasn’t actually changed – the labels we have use to describe celestial objects and their definition is what has changed. Clearly, we invent such names – as we invent words generally.

See how is it is to find real (rather than hypothetical) examples for your essays? All you need to do is keep your eyes and ears open and follow the current news!

New Element to Be Included on Periodic Table: A good example of new knowledge in the sciences. It might work for the question on “provisional conclusions in the sciences”, but also the “discovered/invented” question. The article states:

Scientists at the Helmholtz Center have discovered six chemical elements, numbered 107-112, since 1981.The remaining five elements have already been recognized and named.

In 1925, scientists discovered the last naturally occurring element on the periodic table. Since then researchers have sought to create new, heavier elements.

This is rather interesting – because the suggestion here is that the elements that have been added since 1925 are essentially created (they don’t naturally exist, but have to be made), but also discovered (even if they are made they have to found). If using this example, I’d probably do a bit of research on the elements and exact distinction between natural and not natural.

China’s Version of the Tianmen Square Massacre: We have, on occasion, discussed how history is in many ways rather subjective, and that different sides exist for every historical event. We heard about the Rape of Nanking, which is – to the anger of the Chinese – not officially recognised in Japan. Here is an example of a piece of history the Chinese are ‘rewriting’ in their favour, or rather, pretending it essentially did not happen.

Some more articles you might enjoy (or find interesting, depending on the topic):

Scientific Research into Humour. Somewhat related is this article, which considers the scientific nature of blushing.

Remember that ludicrous Facebook Quiz “Are you a potato?”? Seems like Proctor & Gamble should have taken that quiz: Pringles Are Potato Chips.

Not so light-hearted, on the other hand, this report on illegal abortions and their consequences: The Deathly Toll of Abortions

Although I realise that you might be ignoring my postings at this point (though you do still get a grade for commenting), I will continue to share. I don’t believe that knowledge and learning stop once a particular deadline has been met or a report card has been issued. Plus, some of these articles are likely to contain excellent examples for your ToK essays!

So, peruse at your own leisure:
Mathematically Calculating Love: Yes, you have read correctly.
Gay Divorce Still Legal: Legal Messes….
Moving to Raze an Ancient City: Uighur Kashgar: I’m not sure what example there is in this – but it is an interesting, though saddening read. If nothing else, this article is to share with you some of our amazing human cultural heritage that, if you have the chance, you should go visit before it is destroyed.
Retouching Beauty: The Socio-cultural impact of photoshopping celebrities.
Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak: Absolutely fascinating research into areas we know so little about…

More to come soon!
 

This is an intriguing article – a bit morbid, but worth reading (particularly for those of you interested in medicine):

Autopsies of War Dead

Language and Gender Stereotypes: Two Slate writers discuss Obama’s use of a “gendered code word” in his search for a Supreme Court nominee (Note: he just nominated Sonia Sotomayor). Such words, they argue, “will only hurt women in the long run”.

Another update from today: California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban
This ruling raises a number of interesting issues – given that same-sex marriage is now definitely banned in California but that the couples who married during the time period when it was allowed last year will legally stay married. This double-ruling obviously creates some sort of ‘no man’s land’ for 18,000 gay people – they have certain rights that other gay people do not. I have no doubt that this situation will eventually change, but for the moment it is (intriguingly?) paradoxical. That said, some of the arguments posited by NYT reader commenters are debatable and sometimes fallacious. One reader (No. 4) states that “[i]t’s incomprehensible to me how a simple majority of voters can change the constitution. This should require a two-thirds majority of the votes, together with minimum-turnout requirement.” If we take this line of reasoning, I would imagine many civil-right victories would take many years more to happen. Indeed, aren’t such victories often decided by a handful of votes/voices of lonesome pioneers and only over time establishing themselves as the majority position? Isn’t this exactly what democracy is about (and not about it giving you always what you want?)? I am not saying the democratic process is perfect, but this is how it is supposed to work.
Do peruse the article and comments, and comment yourself!

An interesting tidbit: Obama (first African-American US president) was elected on the day that Proposition 8 was confirmed (banning gay marriage). Obama announced his Supreme Court Nominee (only the third woman on the US Supreme Court and the first Hispanic) today, same day as Proposition 8 was reconfirmed (upholding the ban). It’s a contrast of more diversity versus less diversity. What does this mean? I have no idea – perhaps that humans are a complicated species? Again, do ponder.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Data

Is My Marriage Gay? (a rather amusing piece about ridiculous laws)
Patenting Genes (a rather disturbing piece about gene monopolies)

The NY Times has a blog called “The Choice”, which aims to demystify “college admission and aid” in the United States. This week they are running a Question & Answer Session with a college counsellor.

I thought you might be interested in reading this, since many of you are probably starting to think about which schools to apply to.

Seeking Questions: Post any questions you may have about the admissions process
Guidance Office Advice, Part 1
Guidance Office Advice, Part 2

April 29, 2009

Notes on InterToK – Follow Up Session

Andy Fletcher’s book recommendations → to be found on his webpage, specifically here: Bibliography

String Theory
- No evidence: not wrong, not right. Cannot be falsified.
- Quarks are made of strings

Name derived from James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, taken from the phrase “Three quarks for Muster Mark” (see: Finnegan’s Wake, scroll all the way down the page to “Cultural Impact”)

Loop Quantum Gravity

Absolute motion: There is only motion that is relative to something else. Is there any point in space that you can consider an absolute coordinate, which can be used to for all the other coordinates? (No…)

Some further information on Loop Quantum Gravity:
on Wiki
LQG

Is math safe?
You can trust math in a relative sort of way. No absolute frame of reference exists anywhere in space as it is impossible to define even a point (see above.)

Particles don’t look like particles… look like you want them to look. Don’t have a definition until we give them – doesn’t mean they don’t have one, but that we can’t understand it.

“It’s real…it’s just not real the way you thought it was.”

Mathematical evidence: is not absolute, is not a finality… but you start with mathematical evidence. Mathematical evidence is theory, for which there is no (scientific) evidence.

If we have support it does not mean something is true. If we have a little bit of evidence, it is a little bit true.

Multiverses: different options. Infinity of universe. Separate universe, separate laws, etc. Where are they? Somewhere else?

Explanations for multiverses:
→ String theory: one origin of multiverse.
→ Another explanation: Hugh Everett: observation – you cannot get rid of observation. When you make an observation, there are multiple options, e.g. there is both a cat that is alive and dead. Every time you make an observation you get ALL the possible options, resulting in a very large or infinite number of coexisting multiverses. Is there evidence for them? No.

Stephen Hawkins: there are multiple, possible universes, but all go away when you actually make an observation (only the universe that you live in remains).

There is no evidence for other universes except this one, which doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

Big Bang: there is both mathematical and scientific evidence. This universe has lots of evidence that it came from something (physical evidence):
Super-rapid expansion: evidence that should be there and has been found: cosmic microwave background radiation – should be there and measurable. Heat from Big Bang: at 3 Kelvin (was found to be at 2.768 Kelvin

A resource on Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation: CMB

Do we know it is true? No, but:
When all evidence points in a certain direction: allowed to think that your theory is very good.
Do we know that it is true? No.
Is it reasonable to think that it is true? Yes.
→ crucial difference!

Scientists and The BIG BANG

Scientists didn’t like Big Bang – didn’t look for evidence, found it though they didn’t want it to be true. But… kept finding evidence that it is true.
Many times: particularly in classic science – we look and find what we want to find, but in this case – with the Big Bang and Quantum Mechanics – we found evidence for what we didn’t like and didn’t want to find (but nonetheless encountered).

- Anthropic Principle
- Complexity Theory

“Particles can be in two places at a time….”

Observer of the universe: 13 billion light years in time out into space (furthest reaches)…

Particles that are conscious:
“If light is conscious” vs.
“If light is conscious as it appears to be, the most you can say about light, particles, electrons, etc. it is that they appear to react to your attempt to interact with them.”

“it appears to be conscious” – crucial, we can’t say anything more about it.
This is an example of the precision of language: You can use language in a sloppy or precise way, but this kind of precision is of the utmost importance in the sciences! [And you thought, it was just us literature and language teachers that were overly finicky about language! I feel vindicated! Quote from a conversation after the follow-up session: “So the sciences are all semantics”]

How do you “prove” that?
Proof vs. evidence – profound difference.

Just because you believe it’s true says nothing whether or not it is true. Doesn’t say it is true, it doesn’t say it is false. Says nothing to the rest of us – it might be true and you might be the only person to know it.

If two people believe something: it is a little bit true… this depends on their reputation with you. Are they an authority? Are they lunatics? (Factors that might influence this.)
Three believe something… or all of us believe something: Does that mean there is a greater chance that it is true? Not really.

Does that mean that there is no truth? It depends – we have to ask whether there is evidence, whether there is less or more or no or lots of evidence.
But, again: If you can’t establish that something is true, that doesn’t make any statement about whether it is possible.

Should term “absolute truth” exist?
Can variables be known? Not by you… but can only be known by an omniscient observer? Can you know that there is an omniscient observer?
Even belief in God is based on evidence.

Evidence for a “Creator” or higher being of some sort: half the scientists say “yes”, the other half says “no”, despite the fact that they are looking at the same evidence. Indeed, the same group of people can look at same evidence, but make their own decision, depending on their background, leanings, biases – but that has nothing to do with truth or lack thereof.

Important: Science does not disprove nor prove existence of god. It simply provides evidence. [Remember our article on The Science of Believing?]

Do you, do I exist?
Existence – mathematical definition: occupying a place in a certain time and space
We are space and time at the same time. Einstein: we are all part of space-time (seamlessly), we are a “focused bit of space time”.
Space travel: an astronaut is affected by space time. He will live, say, 100 years but his 100 years could be stretched over 1000 years

Example: Franklin Chang Diaz: has been to space 7 times, 300 microseconds less x 7 x 10 times = 2100 microseconds less old (2 seconds) – after 70 days

[I find this is rather inriguing: it is a tiny difference... but it is already measurable!]

Everything changes in aspaceship: space-time affects everything – you, your watch, etc.

Gravity is infinite in a black hole…. space and time cease to exist in a black hole.
Black holes go away over immense amount of time.

No time and space, but gravity: measure gravity not over time and space, but over space-time. Space-time is bent by gravity, but everything warps space-time but is extreme in a black hole.

Reference to The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Ultimate Answer (= 42)
on Wiki
on BBC

Black Hole:
Event horizon – point of no return
Black Hole warps space – dust particles, planets, etc. get rolled into region of influence

Do black holes move: yes, rotate, move, etc. but black holes don’t suck anything in….
Close enough that space time is warped, so larger object warps space time sufficiently. (Marble – bowling ball on trampoline example)

“Spaghettification”

Spaghetti——–
——–fication

P.S. Just in case you are wondering about the flying spaghetti monster…..
P.P.S. Andy Fletcher’s Website

1) Get into groups of 2-3 people. Each group should include students from different math courses (Math Studies, Math Standard and Math High).
2) Go to this website: Distok Math
3) Click through the slideshow – but do so slowly, discussing points that your interesting, responding to questions asked, accessing links giving (e.g. The Monty Hall problem). Explain terms and concepts to each other as needed (I am counting on those of you who are stronger in math to help those who are weaker.)
4) Respond to the final question of the slideshow. Discuss it verbally first, but then prepare a well-considered written response and post it below this blog. (In addition, you may also post on the link provided in the slideshow. Do check that link and peruse the comments there for inspiration.)

P.S. I am aware this might take longer than a 50-minute period. If you don’t finish in time, we’ll complete the activity on Tuesday.

Here are a couple of articles I have come across in the past few days, that I thought you might find interesting:

Yes, Looks Do Matter: A social-scientific take on Susan Boyle. (If you missed all the brouhaha about Susan Boyle, check out this video.)

Twilight: The Hidden Market

I have been sort of avoiding Twilight, but this article raised a number of questions that touched nerve. Now, first of all a disclaimer: I have not read any of the Twilight books, nor do I intend to. I’m sure they would be  ’entertaining’ (i.e. keep me reading from first page to last), but the plot summaries I have read seem just a little bit too ridiculous for me (if I’m offending anyone here, I apologise). I did see the film, which had some gaps in the plot (so I thought) and though it was cutesy-romantic, I was primarily left with the feeling of “what a creep”. (Watching someone sleep without their knowledge? That’s stalking… and glorified in this story, and hence disturbing to me.)
Now, why is this article interesting? This “hidden market” is taken in by a story that has a very traditional relationship at its core. Yes, it is ‘romantic’, but it undeniably reinforces the most archaic gender stereotypes that there are: male power and female dependence – to the point of “I can’t live without you”. What I am wondering is how is it that we have – literally – millions of people (women!) endorsing this in the age of post-feminism? Were the feminists ‘wrong’? Or why this backlash, which seems like a contradiction in many ways? I mean, we are constantly denouncing the oppression of women, e.g. by the Taliban, clamouring for their freedom and independence, but escape into a story like this, which has the same kind of power structure at its core that we have been trying to deconstruct. Of course, Bella isn’t being deprived of her rights in the same way as Afghan women are, but does anyone else find the shared male-female symbolism embedded in this human/vampire relationship unsettling?

The Baby-Shaking Application on the iPhone

Here is another controversial topic – and I have to say I’m undecided about it. On the one hand, this baby shaking app is utterly appalling (for your information: shaking a baby is an extremely dangerous, often lethal thing to do), but on the other hand the “freedom of choice” argument strikes a chord with me. I would never purchase (or download for free) an application of this sort, yet Apple’s removal of the game could be construed as a form of censorship. I suppose this is a question of “Where do we draw the line?” and my personal line is right in front of the game, but my public line is right behind the game….

Beauty Pageants and Gay Marriage: The Miss California Controversy

I’ll keep posting on gay marriage, although sometimes I feel like I’m doing this too much (knowing that I am in a conservative country). However, I am strongly convinced that this one of the defining issues of our time, and that we should therefore pay attention to and talk about it. The above article discusses (yet another) “Miss” controversy, in this case the response of one of the contestants for the Miss USA title to a question on whether she was in favour of gay marriage. Again, I’m torn here. I support freedom of speech (which Miss California is exercising here) and, on a certain level, can find her honesty laudable, but I also strongly disagree with her opinion. That is not yet particularly problematic as we can easily ‘agree to disagree’, but what really has me pondering is the following observation by one of the ‘debators’:

No contestant would stand on that stage and argue for a ban on interracial marriage or come to the defense of a country clubs that banned Jewish members or condemn single mothers. All those positions were once considered thoroughly respectable, and people could argue for them on TV — pundits, candidates, beauty pageant contestants — without fear or repercussion. Not true today. It’s not that there are racial thought police, or anti-Semitic thought police, or single-mom thought police. It’s just that times and attitudes change.

Indeed – saying “I believe that a marriage should be between a white man and a white woman only” (or, for illustration’s sake, we could take something even more antiquated such as “I believe adult men should be able to marry a woman of their choice of any age, including children and infants” – since this was once a normal, respectable view also in the West) would likely be public suicide. I don’t think we are quite at this point yet with gay marriage, though we are clearly moving into that direction (as this controversy has revealed). So the question that arises for me is the following: When and how does something go from “freedom of opinion” to “unspeakable taboo”, that is, the point that social norms no longer permit any “freedom of opinion”? I have honestly never contemplated this issue before, but I do think it is true. We do reach, as a society, particular ethical agreements that become essentially undebatable. I would argue that this is positive and beneficial – and thus right – on a practical level (since many of these ethical positions generally provide more civil and human rights to people) but on an intellectual level I find this more open to question. Again, this doubt relates to the issue of ‘censorship’ and ‘deprivation of freedom of thought’ and the crux is this: by providing more freedom on one level, we reduce freedom on another. How do we know which freedom is ‘more righteous’? The contradiction is inevitable and cannot be resolved, but it is worth pondering. Your thoughts?

MSN posted an article on the 20 most important inventions of the next ten years today. Although I didn’t quite understand all of them (in part, because I had a hard time imagining them), it did make me think that these are excellent examples of how science involves creativity. I mean, how do you think of a pill that “can be unloaded with mecidine and programmed to travel to a specific part of the body to unload it”, treating different diseases as is needed? The “3D printing” also seemed intriguing (though I don’t quite grasp it), particularly its application to “reconstruct human tissue”.

Though not mentioned here, I have also heard that the technology for an “invisibility cloak” is nearly complete at this point. I find all that fascinating, though I also have moments where I think we are lacking behind with tech development. Just like Slate’s tech writer, I wonder why downloading any movie at any time isn’t a possibly (hence the flourishing of many illegal downloading sites) and Manjoo’s following observation makes me shake my head (I mean, why make the same mistake twice?):

Just like in the music business, eventually the entire home-video market is sure to move online, and many consumers will abandon pirate sites in favor of easy-to-use legal services. The music industry lost a lot of money when it dithered over this transition, and now the movie business seems to be making the same mistake.

Similarly, I frequently wonder why wireless internet isn’t yet available everywhere for free – at least in developed nations? It’s certainly possible, but we are being ridiculously slow here. And why aren’t all mobile phones multi-application devices like the iPhone? I mean, we know that that is where it is all going to go. (Remember when cameras on phones where a novelty? Long time ago, wasn’t it?)

Yet, at the same time all the technology advancement is speeding away from us. I tweeted for the first time today (Manjoo has a recent article for the uniniated of you.). I’m semi-familiar with stumble it or stumble upon, but there are also other internet applications like “DIGG”, “LINKEDIN” and “MIX” which I know only by name. Familiar with any of these? Just hop over to the New York Times, click on any article there and note a box on the side that says “share”, providing you with all these options (and more). And surely, there are other applications I’m not even aware of….

So, how are you all feeling about our light-speed advancements in sciences and technology? (-:

From Slate: The Cultural Weight of an Unveiled Face

…as well as an article on Columbine, just because it’s worth reflecting about.

On the annual “Day of Silence” (of the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), NYT columnist Judith Warner provides an article, Dude, You’ve Got Problems, on bullying and name-calling involving words such as “gay”, “fag” or “queer”. It’s an interesting read, as is the profusion of comments that follow – Warner clearly touched on a contentious issue here.
One central point of discussion among the readers is the columnist’s contention that “Being called a ‘fag,’ you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay,” – also an interesting issue for us as it invokes questions of language: Can we remove the etymology and/or the connotations of a word from its current usage? To what extent is Warner’s statement arguable, and to what, is it incorrect? How does the fact that words like “fag” and “gay” are employed as insults reflect particular cultural beliefs (specifically regarding femininity, masculinity and homosexuality)? Do you agree with her, or with those who challenge that particular assertion?
Some more personal questions: Is such name-calling (involving these particular words, or their Spanish equivalents) used in your school community? Have you ever questioned this kind of language choice or do you consider it generally harmless and a normal part of the adolescent experience? How is it seen in your group of friends (or class generation) to be called “gay”? How is it seen to be gay?
Another noteworthy issue debated (both by Warner and the commentators): Has the “definition of acceptable girlhood” expanded, while the “bounds of boyhood have remained [...] tightly constrained”? In other words, has the feminist movement and push for equality provided women with more freedom (allowing both feminine and masculine identity elements), whereas men’s realm for identity is – more or less – still the same as 30, 40, 50 years ago? Or is this a distorted perspective as the “sexualisation of women” is as prevalent as ever, and, arguably, commences at younger and younger ages?

1. How long should your introduction and your conclusion each be?
2. What is the single most important element of the introduction? Where should this element be placed in the introduction? What form (question or statement) should it take? Why?
3. What should the first sentence of each paragraph be? What form (question or statement) should it be in? What kind of content is inacceptable for the first sentence of each paragraph?
4. How can you make sure that your topic sentence connect to your thesis?
5. How should each paragraph be organised? That is, what are the essential elements of each paragraph?
6. How do you ensure that the argument develop in a paragraph makes logical sense?
7. What kind of examples must you use? What kind of examples must you avoid? What kind of examples should you avoid?

We already discussed how language reflects the patriarchal structure of society; here is an article on how patriarchal society has influenced the way buildings (and their amenities) are designed…

“New Ballpark Statistic: Stadium’s Toilet Ratio”

Language as It Is Changing: An example of how language evolves over time, reflecting changes within society and culture. It is also quite striking that in this case a “date” (a year, which is approximate, but still) can be identified for the change in some dictionaries.
One related aspect you might think about is that some linguistic changes are ‘quick’, whereas others are relatively ’slow’. Usually, for grammatically changes to occur a lengthy period of time (a century, more) is needed, but vocabulary-based changes can even be instantaneous (additions particularly, omissions less so, and ‘extending the meaning’ perhaps falling somewhere in between). Changes in spelling often require official regulation from higher authorities (i.e. the official ‘guardians’ of the language – such as the Real Academia de la Lengua Española – will decide to adjust a language’s orthography but even then are often met with resistance and require younger generations to validate those changes).

An article from the BBC, that sort of pre-introduces the AoK of Math (which we will tackle in approximately a fortnight, hence the “pre-introduce”).

As we were reading “Female Rulers and Their Consorts” I mentioned to you that one example of women leaders becoming social males was that of Margaret Thatcher and her lowered voice. You can find more information about her and about the importance of voice pitch in politics here:

Margaret Thatcher’s Vocal Changes
Male and Female Voices in Politics

Bibliography
Blok, Anton. “Female Rulers and Their Consorts”. Honour and Violence. Polity Press, 2001. 210-231.