1. What Do You Believe is True? Even If You Can't Prove it.

Before we get to the above question, you must read the article below and see the picture at the end. It is just crazy.... This is a true story from Palm Beach, Florida (the proof is at the end, but read the story first).

Crocodile Eats Golfer
October 16, 2006
The first foursome of the day played together to the 5th hole where one impatient golfer went ahead of the group. The remaining three finished their round and headed for the nineteenth hole to meet their less-patient friend. However, he wasn't there...and was no where to be found. Since his car was still in the parking lot, the threesome waited two hours.

Thinking the impatient golfer might still be somewhere out on the course, they notified the clubhouse and the search was on. Of course, the impatient golfer was not located, but his clubs were found on the hole. Three days later, Ole Mose was spotted on the seventh hole and was an immediate suspect.

Ole Mose was an American crocodile that was an infrequent course visitor for over 20 years. Not too much concern was ever given Ole Mose, as he had always made a hasty retreat whenever he saw anyone coming. To make a long story even longer, after the course officials, SPCA, lawyers, citizens groups, the mayor, Palm Beach PD, and the American Crocodile Association of Southern Florida agreed, it was decided that, in order to put everyone's mind at ease, Ole Mose should be unzipped.

Take notice to what the man standing over Ole Moses is holding.

The foundation Edge has a website, the purpose of which is... "to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society." Each year for the past 10 years, Edge has posed "The Edge Annual Question" and published online the responses of acclaimed thinkers and scientists. They are classic TOK questions, in 2005 they had a doozy

"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE EVEN THOUGH YOU CANNOT PROVE IT?"

Great minds can sometimes guess the truth before they have either the evidence or arguments for it (Diderot called it having the "esprit de divination" roughly translated to the sprit or practice of foreseeing future events).

Response to the 2005 question

Questions & issues to consider:

A) Keeping in mind our readings and discussions from the first part of the school year, what do you make of this question? Analyze it in terms of the concepts of knowledge, justification, truth, and belief. Is the Edge question a valid question?

B) As you think about it and analyze it, what thoughts and ideas does it spark about the relationships between those concepts (i.e. knowledge, justification, truth, and belief), as well as the concept of proof?

C) What does it mean to "prove" something? What is "proof," as it seems to be used here? What constitutes proof (and not just in a strictly mathematical sense)? How is the concept of proof related to the concepts of knowledge, justification, truth, and belief?

D) What does the question seem to imply about the nature of belief? the nature of truth? Why isn't the word "knowledge" used in the question?

[Please note that you are NOT being asked to answer Edge's question. Appropriate comments should focus on analyzing and commenting on the nature of the question and on the concepts that comprise it.]

2. Music = Doping

Have you ever wondered why people tell you that it’s better to listen to some energizing music when you work out? Or, if you have personally experienced doing exercise while listening to music, have you wondered why music ‘motivates’ you to run more? Well, it’s not only the amateurs who listen to music during or prior to exercising, professional athletes employ this method as well.

As we all know, Beijing Olympics took place only a few weeks ago. For those who keep up with Olympics, it wasn’t uncommon to see swimmers or runners listening to their iPods right before their games. Why you may ask? Well, many claim that music aids them and leads them to better performance, and one solid proof that we all known about is Michael Phelps.

I was just reading a Chinese article of Oriental Sports Daily on Michael Phelps and it specifically focused on his habit of listening to his ‘customized’ music play list before his competitions. He personally claims that his music plays a major role in his victories; his play list is so precious that Phelps hasn’t revealed to the public what songs are on his special play list yet.

Now, some specialists on the web have raised the controversial and iconoclastic argument that music is indeed like any other forbidden stimulant, and therefore, should be banned from any official sports games like the Olympics. They argue that because listening to music can create the same effect of stimulants, which are to excite the athletes and to aid them to perform better during game, music should be treated same as stimulants.

Dr. Alexei Koudinov, who is the editor of Israel-based Doping Journal Web site, sees a cheater when he sees Michael Phelps race. He believes that music gives Phelps an unfair advantage and has said that all of Phelps’ world records should be cancelled and the gold medals should be given to silver medalists. In this article, Dr. Alexei Koudinov gives an essay on why Michael Phelps has indeed, violated the stimulant conduct and doped his way to his records. He also gives a scientific research’s results from Dr. Stefan Koelsch from Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain sciences to buttress his own arguments.

“Music can have influences on the breathing rate (e.g. via emotional effects such an increased arousal) which will alter oxygen levels in the blood, or relaxing effects (so that fewer muscles consume oxygen, which also increases oxygen levels) and that music causes better saturation of hemoglobin with oxygen (a so-called SPO(2) parameter, compared with control subjects receiving no music, indicating an “enhancement of oxygen transfer”)”
Through the definition of ‘doping’, anything can be classified as stimulants if they increase human blood’s ability to carry oxygen. Therefore, music should be classified as a stimulant and hence, should be banned from sports. But why haven’t the athletic associations decided to do it yet?

From this issue arises a TOK concept which we had learnt last class: human science. We learnt that experiments in human science are not as accurate and reliable as those conducted for natural sciences. Perhaps in this case, it is the unreliablity and the lack of specific details (such as which specific type of music would increase blood’s oxygen carrying capacity) which still permit music to be used by athletes. In this case, the suspected stimulant is not in any form of chemicals, and thus, the effect of the so-called stimulant can only be tracked monitored broadly. Another factor is that as the experiment involves humans, the scientists cannot make sure that the testing subject each time is exactly the same; afterall, no two humans are exactly the same.Therefore, the results would always vary slightly depending on each testing individual and thus, lowers the accuracy of the data.

But think about this, would it still be possible for the experiments to show a general trend of music’s effects on people and their physical abilities? Although it might not be 100% accurate, there might still be a possibility that the results hold some kind of truth in it. If this is the case, do you think music should then be classified under ’stimulants’?

3. The Milgram Experiment

Obedience

4. Good and Evil

5. TOK at the Movies

The TOK oral presentation requires students to address a real-world issue relevant to TOK. Though your actual presentation probably will not focus on a blockbuster movie, many popular films do, in fact, deal with TOK issues. So in this assignment, you will practice for your presentation by working with a group to find and analyze the TOK issues in one of the movies listed below. Many of these movies have intense thematic elements; some have strong language and violence; and a few have mild sexual elements. Because of this, you will have to get your parent’s permission before choosing a movie. Links on this blogsite will help you choose a movie and help your parents decide if the movie is appropriate. Talk to your group and list three movies, in order of preference that you’d like to present, and have a parent sign. All group members must submit the same choices; if you want your first choice, return your forms first! Presentations will be made between..... Most of the movies should be readily available at your local video store. After watching your movie, your group will make a 10-15 minute presentation in which you:
• Give a brief summary of the movie’s story line;
• Show a 3-minute clip that illustrates the movie’s TOK issue(s);
• Explain the TOK issue(s) suggested by the movie;
• Evaluate the TOK issue(s) suggested by the movie.
• Use pick at least to linking questions from the following hyper link to use in you presentation
Webpage


Title Rating Genre
American Beauty R Drama
Animal Farm TV Drama
A Beautiful Mind PG-13 Drama
Contact PG Sci-Fi
The CruciblePG Drama
Dark City R Sci-Fi
Fight Club R Drama
The Fog of War PG-13 Documentary
Good Night, and Good Luck PG Drama
Horton Hears a Who G Family
King of California PG-13 Drama

The Matrix R Sci-Fi
Memento R Sci-Fi
Minority Report R Sci-Fi
Proof PG-13 Drama
Star Trek: The Next Generation,
“Ship in a Bottle” (season 6, episode 12)TV Sci-Fi
Twilight Zone, “The Eye of the Beholder”
(Season 2, episode 6)TVSci-Fi
Truman Show PG Comedy
Wag the Dog R Comedy
Wit TV Drama

6. ToK Prescribed Title (2009) Question 1

"Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks: but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house" (Henri Poincaré). Discuss in relation to science and at least one other area of knowledge.

The essence of the Q examine the relationship of the parts to the whole. What MORE does a house need than just bricks (cement, wood, metal and so on)? There is more to a house than just the sum of its raw materials. Similarly, there is more to the science of, let's say, molecular biology, than the sum of all the observed facts of how cells work. What is this EXTRA? How can we KNOW it? What, in short, is the nature of the METHOD of science and other areas of knowledge like history or the human sciences in establishing knowledge?

Knowledge issues: does the scientific method (or methods in other areas) give a solid foundation to our knowledge (to continue the building analogy)? Is the knowledge established by science 100% certain or reliable? To what extent is reason the EXTRA science depends on? Why? How does perception and emotion play a role in constructing scientific knowledge?

Approaches: look at history and how we reconstruct our knowledge of the past. Is this knowledge more or less certain than scientific knowledge? Can science help historians to shape their knowledge of the past? Look at psychology and how we acquire knowledge about our deepest inner states. How do we construct our theories about dreams, for example. Look at ethics and how we decide on which course of action to take. We may have all the facts about a situation, such as sending more soldiers to Afghanistan, but should we do it? What is the problem of deriving a judgment of value from given facts? You can go on and look at other areas depending on the word count.

Don't forget to read and research so that you can use REAL LIFE examples to support your argument. Make sure you state your argument clearly and in brief in your introduction.