by Cassie, on February 2nd, 2012
How can I comment on if this is a science or not? I do DT as a “science” for the IB and everyone disagrees with that as a science. This could be a science if only people accept it as a science, some people accept crystals as a science so why not a umbrella.
My main argument to this is that people accept all kinds of weird things as a science just because a legit amount of people accept it, there is no set thing that makes a science a science. Most people when they hear about umbrellaology laugh and think it is outrageous but just think back to when when Albert Einstein first discussed the theory of relativity people would have thought he was absolutely bonkers but years later we class him as a genius. So how is this any different, the man may yes have to do more research to prove that it is a true science and if he can get more people accepting it then no one can argue with it.
So all in all I think that umbrellaology could be a science but just needs more time time. If was real anyway 
 1 person likes this post.
by Jun, on January 30th, 2012
Umbrellaology….. When I first heard the umbrellaology, I thought it was a joke. Then, i thought about this umbreallaology for few minutes, and I think umbreallology is a science, just with a weird, and ridiculous name. Wait. Actually i can’t say whether it’s a science or not because I can’t really find the difference between theory and science.
Let’s first thinkg about Science. Science is systematic knowledge that is used for discovering universal truth or law. Science is from an observation. Observation leads to a theory, which leads to a science! Hm…Let’s see..Umbrellaology is a science! The author of this letter had an observation that led him to discover a pattern between umbrella and people. He did many observation and he made reasonable theory. This makes an umbrellaology a theory. and..from here I’m lost.
Physics is a science. Issac Newton found out gravity from a falling apple. Falling apple explains gravity. What if umbrella explains something? (well it already did) something that is as important as gravity. Can umbrellaology become a science? (I am lost lost lost) I mean it’s a science but it’s bit partial, partial science. It is valid, but I feel like it’s not sufficient enough to be a science.
I think when more people make theories and get more evidence about umbrellaology, it can be a science. ( I contradicted myself many times and i can’t really understand my post either…^_^)
1 person likes this post.
by August, on January 29th, 2012
Skimming through the posts that people have put on the blog before, it seems Umbrellaology hasn’t completely been accepted into our little ToK society; this fact, I am quite perplexed to observe. I myself have been struck deeply by this amazing new scientific advancement. Umbrellaology creates so many possibilities, opening up a plethora of new frontiers and topics to research. I find it unnerving that our members could repudiate such a potentially useful science and condemn it as a “pseudo-science.”
Umbrellaology is undoubtedly a fully qualified science. I feel that the points the sender of the letter delineated to us should be more than enough to prove this; however, seeing that many of us are still rather dogmatic about our disbelief in this pioneering project, I, as a determined jingoist of this unprecedented subject, would like to point out some extra proof for Umbrellaology’s capacity as an authentic discipline.
Firstly, science is widely accepted as a systematic procedure of searching for knowledge. Observations lead to theories and ideas about the subject in question, which are then used to make further predictions; the predictions are then tested, with the results used to further improve the theories and ideas created before. When we look at “science” in this way, Umbrellaology is unquestionably a “science;” the author of the letter described to us a profusion of examples of such processes–to quote one example: the “Law of Color Variation Relative to Ownership by Sex”, which has been through, as the writer says in his letter, the arduous process of being “either verified or nullified by my subsequent observations, in accordance with proper scientific procedure”. There can hardly be any dissension that Umbrellaology fits the definition of science to a T.
Secondly, many issues have been raised about the possible applications of Umbrellaology and the general dearth of such uses. From a sublime, transcendental viewpoint, of course such applications would be missing; however, we must remind ourselves that life and knowledge, and therefore science–as the pursuit of such measures–is not limited to such a perspective. Umbrellaology has many purposes: for example, imagine a situation in which you were at a friend’s house, and it suddenly started raining. Not having foreseen such weather to occur, you realized that you did not bring an umbrella, and must borrow one from your friend. Using Umbrellaology, you can predict the amount, size, weight, and even the color of umbrellas that your friend owns; therefore, you can make an educated decision on origin of the umbrella you will borrow to serve you on your way home. Such a situation would probably happen on an average of 2 times a year for any person; if we take the population of the USA of 300 million as an example, then this situation would have occurred roughly 600 million times throughout one year. Divide that by 365, and we get around 1.5 million times a day. From this, we can deduce that Umbrellaology, in the USA region and using this one principle only, would help around 1.5 million people a day.
Umbrellaology, as you can see, is very much a science. I hope that this has cleared up some misunderstandings about Umbrellaology, and allowed for all of us to believe wholeheartedly in this groundbreaking science.
Be the first to like.
by Jordan, on January 29th, 2012
Definition of science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world
Personally, I think that umbrellaology could possibly go under as a subset of anthropology, however, it cannot be classified directly as a science. The writer claimed that the objective of umbrellaology is ‘To seek and discover the truth is object enough for me’, the answer is vague and confusing and others argued that his statement does not reveal anything about why his objective is so important and what he is trying to pursue. He has no evidence to back up his argument, he uses information from his former friend to support his own opinion, and this does not build up a valid or strong argument. Despite the lack of validity in his argument, I still believe umbrellaology can still be categorized as a science, for him at least.
Umbrellaology can be a science in the writer’s opinion; he is studying the behavior of people in relation to umbrellas. I think this fits the definition of science, as it is a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. Nowhere in that definition states that science can only be accepted if other people acknowledge it, hence, I believe that umbrellaology can still be seen as a science. The writer is merely discovering the various aspects of an umbrella and how it relates to humans. It is a misconception that people ONLY purchase new umbrellas to throw away old ones, my parents for example, purchase a variety of umbrellas that are different in color because they think that the color can change their mood in a rainy day. People are often gloomy and depressed during a rainy day; I personally think that a bright colored umbrella can alter your mood during a horrible day in the rain.
The writer claims that his aim in science is the truth, in context to the letter; I think that he is pursuing the truth of everything related to umbrellas. People claim that this is the reason it can’t be considered as a science because it has no particular point. Although it will not be as profound as physics, but I still believe that it can still be part of another science, even if it seems pointless to others but it is still a study into a physical object that exists on our planet and how it relates to us.
In conclusion, I think that none of us is appropriate in making the decisive call on whether umbrellaology can be considered as a science or not. We do not have a degree in science and we do not have enough knowledge to make this claim. A conclusion made from our common knowledge does not simply suffice and so whether umbrellaology can be considered as a science is still a mystery.
Be the first to like.
by Anita, on January 28th, 2012
‘Umbrellaology’. My main impression of umbrellaology is that it is a complete waste of time. I do not see how it would ever help humans. I don’t even see it that interesting as a hobby. However, the question is whether I see it as a science or not. To describe it as a science, we have to know what science is. There are many different explanations of this though. In general, I believe about hypothesizes and tests carried out in science. Which should have rules and laws to follow. In the end, this science should explain something about the world.
The text does not contain many specific details, especially about the statistical formulation. Since there is no evidence that this is mathematically true (as we cannot see it), so I cannot really give an answer. Though, if this math proves to be correct, it may be a step closer to becoming a science. My greater question would be whether it is acceptable that umbrellaology has to keep on recreating it’s numbers or information. If information has to be changed daily to be up to date, then does it count as a science? Also, if something as ‘simple’ as umbrellaology can be called a science, then would there not be many more forms of science? I think umbrellaology is more like a side topic such as social science.
1 person likes this post.
by Averil, on January 28th, 2012
Science is defined as a systematic that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. If umbrellaology were to be considered a science, it should build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. Does umbrellaology do that?
It is true that this experiment sounds as if it is a science one, and it’s backed by details. The author of the letter claims that a systematic collection of data, surveys, hypothesis, and prove. Scientific method was used in these investigations, but is this a science? Scientific methods can be used to investigate non-scientific areas of knowledge. He even states that ‘science scorns not to deal with any object, however humble and lowly, even to the hind leg of a flea. Then why not umbrellas?’ Studying umbrellas have no apparent impact to men, and it can be seen as a complete waste of time, energy and resources. The scientific method was employed to investigate umbrellas and established the laws- Laws of Individual Ownership of Plurality of Umbrellas and the Plurality of owners of Individual Umbrellas.
While umbrellaology may be a completely useless science, it is true that the purpose of science is not to be ‘useful’, but to come up with explanations. Thus the study of umbrellas may very well be a science. While the study of umbrellas seems to be a simple hobby some man with a lot of time and energy pours himself into, while the laws (Laws of Individual Ownership of Plurality of Umbrellas and the Plurality of owners of Individual Umbrellas) sound ludicrous, there may be more than meets the eye. If we look more into it, the study of umbrellas is actually the study of people- how they share umbrellas and what kind of umbrellas they own. This can be further developed into a more specific study of human behaviour, sociology or psychology. By studying people and their umbrellas, a scientific theory about consumer choices or personal preferences can be originated. This would mean that ‘umbrellaology’ could potentially be classified as a social science instead of a natural science.
At the present moment, the experimenter has made use of the scientific method to come up with trends and patterns observed between people and their umbrellas. Right now, it cannot really be considered a science. It does not fill a gap in our knowledge of the world, has no real utility, and can thus be said to simply be a ‘fun fact’. If umbrellaology is developed further and the reasons behind the trends observed is found and analyzed, then a study of human behaviour can be observed, enhancing the scientific quality of the study.
1 person likes this post.
by Jessica, on January 24th, 2012
I think there are few points in the passage that doesn’t convince me. Firstly, I wonder if this umbrellaology is reviewed or supported by other scientists. In class, Mr Connah had said that a proper publishing process of a book includes many checking by expert in whichever field the book discusses. In this case of the umbrellaology, there may be no experts in the field because this man had invented this, but he can ask relating experts to check. It should be more convincing if he had ask many renown psychologists to see if this man’s “law of colour variation relative to owner sex” is reliable. And economists to see if this law has “almost direct ratio to annual income”. I think man is lacking credibility because base on the letter he wrote he has been doing his study on his own (with his “few faithful disciples”). I think someone else should evaluate his work. Secondly, I think his law is just stating the facts that are already known. For instance, his law of “tendency towards acquisition of umbrellas in rainy weather” is pretty much common sense. People tend to use umbrella in rainy weather because they don’t want to get wet, and that is probably why the umbrella is invented. So is there a need for formalizing facts into a theory and then claim that it is his invention? Due to these two points listed, I am sceptical about umbrellaology.
Moreover, I think umbrellaoglogy should be group under social sciences. It is like Charles said, a study that relates to human. I will be curious to find out how study of umbrella correlates with other sciences under social sciences. For example, how can umbrellaogy link with psychology? What is the explanations the for “law of colour variation relative to ownership by sex”? What does the finding suggest about gender differences?
Overall, I would like to find out more about this study in order arrive at a certain conclusion of whether “umbrellaology” should be classified as a formal study.
1 person likes this post.
by Charles Goh, on January 21st, 2012
From the descriptions in the letter show that he does, to an extent, make use of the scientific method in his research, except that he does not have a set hypothesis. A hypothesis must be a prediction; you cannot say that I predict I will find the truth, since it would defeat the purpose of having an hypothesis (because you are looking for the truth in a particular topic).
Its research cannot be a Science by itself, though it can be classified under the Social Sciences. Take quantum mechanics for example. It is vastly different from many elements of conventional Physics, but it is still classified under Physics because it explains the particle/wave like behaviour of matter. Likewise Umbrellaology, as described by the letter, studies the colour of umbrellas and other things related to umbrella and the local population, and so it can be classified under Social Sciences. The difference between Umbrellaology and Quantum Mechanics is that the study of umbrellaology is about umbrellas in relation to people, making it a Social Science, whereas Quantum Mechanics is a study that deals entirely with the natural sciences, irregardless of human interaction.
Therefore, umbrellaology can be classified under a science, but a whole new category of science as a whole cannot be made for it.
Also, I would like to expand on my comments about “Truth”. I am not satisfied with what one source tells me, so I like to check with different sources to confirm the claims of the first. If I find conflicting opinions, then I will analyse all the sources, and make a judgement and decide which argument/claim seems more logical. Along the way, I question and challenge the claims made by each source; I pay no attention to the number of people who have accepted the claim, true or not, as it is a distraction to proper reasoning. To give an example, I am still skeptical of the mass numbers/atomic masses of the elements on the periodic table, since the relative atomic mass is said to be the weighted average of the element on earth relative to 1/12 of a carbon-12 isotope. What happens if we go to a second earthlike planet and find out the weighted average of say oxygen is 15 or 17? (Most would be shocked to hear that I would even bother questioning the periodic table).
I am shocked to hear that some would prefer to listen to people of authority and take their words to be the truth. Although it is not reality, I probably would not accept something that is surreal. But then again, that’s just me – I question and challenge every claim/statement. Though some might think that this is a method of trying to destroy every idea, its not really about that. As much as I ask Why, I also ask Why Not?
“Ignorance is bliss” is a trite dictum, I insist on changing it to “Clarity and understanding is bliss”.
1 person likes this post.
by Albert, on January 21st, 2012
observation -> Hypothesis -> prediction -> Experiment is the general steps of forming a theory and this is called Scientific Method. With such sequences our understanding of nature improves. But why scientific method is defined to be such?
The significance of this method is that the steps to the ultimate product is designed to be as objective as possible, leaving the formed theory to be ‘the truth’ (as we define it). This process is very focused on defining one phenomena and the process can be manipulated to many. Unlike what many people believe, scientific theory is very often corrected and redefined through the same process, because when an exception of a law is found than the theory ALWAYS have to be edited again. Although this whole process is not to be considered perfectly objective, I believe this is the best system to follow on within our limitation. (as objective as possible).
The limitation of this method, I believe, is that most of system is relying on our sense perceptions such as vision. For this reason, we were unaware of some components of our nature, that are beyond our ability to percieve, such as quantum sized particles and black hole until quite a long time passed. These couldn’t be proven by experiments.
But we do know they exist now, and how was it possible? I think this was thanks to mathematics and our technology. Mathematics is rooted from science, trying to explain the phenomena in more detailed and logical way. Applying these mathematical relationships enabled us to reach the truth beyond our perception. Moreover, invention of computers and such technology helped us to calculate with extreme speed and accuracy, which human can’t handle without significant uncertainty.
Scientific Method with these two components applied together, makes it the best method for science to develop.
Be the first to like.
by David, on January 21st, 2012
I think that it would not be a good idea to outright say that Umbrellaology is or is not a science. Umbrellaology contains many characteristics of science, but it seems to betray what seems sensible, and has errors in method.
The writer says that he hypothesizes based on previous findings. Scientists do this too, hypothesizing based on scientific laws that have been discovered that such a relationship will have such an effect if a is proportional to b, increasing a will increase b. So this guy can say that more people will mean more umbrellas, or that more women is more coloured umbrellas, or that a higher incidence of rain in an area will mean there are more umbrellas there. The problem is that it goes against sense. It hardly requires investigation to know that people will buy umbrellas more if they live in Wales than if they live in California (I like how the dictionary told me to capitalize California here but not Wales :’( ). It only requires observation in your own life to see that men are more less concerned with how the umbrella looks than women are, so women will buy more colourful umbrellas than men will.
In this case, the scientist’s knowledge would also be quickly outdated. People buy umbrellas every day and predicting where umbrellas are bought and by whom would be of doubtful reliability. If a scientist were to test what he had done again, it would change and all of his findings would be disproved.
The science does not take into account what will happen in other cultures, where perhaps men are more into colourful umbrellas or where raincoats are relied on more than umbrellas. For instance here in China, I see more ponchos than umbrellas.
I really don’t think we can just classify this. There are many imprecise sciences that we call sciences, for example you can go to a psychiatrist with something wrong and you could end up getting diagnosed with Schizophrenia from one doctor, Bipolar from another, and Colorophobia from another. They’ve tested such an unreliability by sending fake patients to an asylum, which resulted in patients being admitted that were not insane. When asylums were told these tests were going on, they rejected more and turned away some that may have been genuinely insane.
1 person likes this post.
by Albert, on January 20th, 2012
In the letter the writer claims Umbrellaology to be a proper scientific field, providing specific examples of his work. However, it seems like it is lacking the proper process of confirmation and theory-evidences.
Although the concept of Umbrellaology flaws in some scientific aim, it seems like it has some criteria that can overlap with classification of science. The reason why umbrellaology might still considered as a science is :
-Theories are observed, so emprically confirmed by evidence
-It does produce theories that can explain our world : some laws suggested explains how things are expected to behave
- It can be useful (practical use) as the data can be used by umbrella designers, producers and retailers
As it is stated, the concept of Umbrellaology seems to be following some scientific classification, and it has a good purpose. However, I believe that the Umbrellaology has some major problems of being a proper scientific field.
First of all, ‘Umbrellaology’ includes generalizations that are only inductively investigated. This is meaningless. The laws suggested by the writer tells us about the ‘tendency of some events’ however cannot explain the relationship between laws nor the basis to know why such pheonomena has been observed. A scientific laws/ theories are those that can explain the root of a phenomena. Umbrellaology basically does not expalin anything (e.g. ‘law of color variation relative to ownership by sex’ tells us about how males prefer black ones over others: but WHY? Umbrellaology does not expalin the reason why certain colors are preferred by certain sex) In this sense, Umbrellaology is rather ‘ a pattern’ found in the data
Moreover, Umbrellaology lacks new insight. The scientific study has to be focused on making new observations that provided theories cannot explain. Scientific laws are borne out of other theories. The whole process of Umbrellaology seems to not fit in that of scientific classification. (e.g. Einstein’s theories were confirmed because it was predicted that such a phenomena would exist – and by later observation proven.)
The Umbrellaology, due to above reasons, does not fit in with ‘scientific classification’. Furthermore, it does not go through the process of peering, as no one participates in such field and tells us if the theories are valid or not. Umbrellaology also does not tell us any insight that we can newly approach, as it is no more than recognition of pattern from collection of data. If it was to be enough to be a science, anyone that collects huge amount of data and pointing out some patterns found out can claim himself to be inventor of new science.
In fact, the Umbrellaology is the theory which is already included in some of already studied field, it has proper name such as sociology, demographics, consumer behaviour or so. So at best, Umbrellaology would be categorized into those studies of sociological, psychological, geographical or economical studies, which can’t really be science(due to the same reasons above -and generalizations)
Hence, I would not call Umbrellaology a science, but just process of some data. I will return letter ‘I know its gona be a tough time for you, but its not a science! ‘ with above reasons XD
Be the first to like.
by Jennifer, on January 20th, 2012
I believe that the Umbrellalogy is not a science. Even though it claims to be a science superficially, there are too many variables and wrong notions-hence Umbrellalogy can only be considered as a pseudoscience.
Firstly, the writer claims that ‘science scorns not to deal with any object…why not umbrellas?’ and that ‘truth is the most precious thing in life’. It is true that even minute details can be investigated by scientific method, with no exception to man-made products such as umbrella. However, the ways that science focuses on natural and man-made objects are quite different: for things like ‘hind leg of a flea’, general facts such as its length, color, and function can be investigated as well as the cause/effect inquiries such as ‘the relationship between the amount of radiation in the environment and the thickness of a flea’s hind leg’. However, for man-made products such as television, its effect on humanity or environment is more commonly examined. The writer of this letter is trying to establish a ‘general fact’ about umbrella, which has too many exceptions and is subject to lots of variables.
Also, writer’s discovery of ‘law of color variation relative to ownership by sex’ and ‘law of tendency towards acquisition of umbrellas in rainy weather’ is pointless. The ‘law of color~’ can be proven by other objects rather than umbrella such as color of iPhone cover or color of the bag. For the ‘law of tendency~’, since the original purpose of umbrella was to prevent people from getting soaked with rain, there’s no need to prove already known trend. (Of course, not much people will buy umbrellas in Sahara desert, if not using it as substitute for parasol.)
Furthermore, these ‘laws’ supposedly researched by the writer is prone to change according to changes in variables. For an example, the color of the owned umbrellas can vary according to the person who bought it(umbrella can be given as a present), and colors of the umbrellas sold in vicinity of the household (if there are only black umbrellas, majority of people around that area will own a black umbrella). There can be other conditions such as availability of weather forecast, personal preference of getting soaked in rain, and population distribution (younger kids will generally have lighter, smaller umbrella). Therefore, Umbrellalogy cannot be accepted as a science.
Be the first to like.
by Mr. MacKnight, on January 18th, 2012
I came across this site via Steven Pinker, the renowned Harvard psychologist. If you are interested in brain science, genetics, and intelligence, have a look!
https://www.cog-genomics.org/about/
Be the first to like.
by John, on January 17th, 2012
If I were to receive the letter that we were given in class and it was a real life scenario I would have to agree with the author that umbrellaology could be classified as science. I believe this as his investigation appears to follow the scientific method and umbrellaology has all the classic markers of a legitimate scientific discipline (right down to the absurd name). We can analyze how it is a science by seeing whether or not its predictions and theories can be tested and whether or not it can be said to have a reasonable aim.
Of course the document given to us is just a brief overview of umbrellaology so it at times appears vague because we do not yet have the liberty of viewing the creator’s hypotheses, methods of data collection or all of the results that have been collected. However, from what is mentioned it seems that the author has stuck to the scientific method by formulating hypotheses and then either verifying or nullifying them upon collecting the results. With this process in place, the author will be able to continually expand his knowledge of umbrellas with progressively more elaborate theories and investigations. Surely even the greatest of scientific disciplines had humble roots. How could on begin to formulate hypotheses on atoms and quantum physics with out first understanding and classifying substances as either solids, liquids or gases?
The author repeatedly states that his aim is the truth. I take this to mean that he wants to know the truth of all things to do with umbrellas. Many people have criticized this as being pointless whereas I consider it a perfectly understandable scientific aim. Many scientific disciplines exist simply so that we can explain and understand the world around us – a world in which there exists the umbrella. Most of biology deals with discovering the truth of many of earth’s lifeforms. Is it entirely necessary or useful that we know the anatomy of a fly or snail? Probably not, but it adds to our understanding of the world we live in. I would agree that umbrellaology is not as clean cut as something like biology but it should at least earn a place amongst the softer science – some sort of social science.
I think umbrellaology would fit nicely as a sub-category of anthropology – the study of humanity. Umbrellas are a part of our lives and maybe the way we use them or how many we own or what color they are says something about our human nature. While brief, we can see from the article that the author has already made general claims about how we tend to acquire umbrellas while it is raining – among other claims. I would hope that with continued research umbrellaology will continue to reveal fascinating insights into human nature – and who knows what else.
1 person likes this post.
by Angel, on January 16th, 2012
Even after reading this article, I struggled to understand the aim of this supposed science. He wants to know everything about uunbrellas but what about them? Is he trying to udnerstand the mechanics? or the way people use them? or why people use them? or just generally everything there is to knwo about people and umbrellas? If the latter is the case, then it seems to be more of a psychological research/study because, just like the example, in the letter, it can be argued that looking at the colours of the umbrellas males and females buy shoud be an indication of a type of behaviour. Therefore, I think this umbrellaology is just another study done by a scientist that could have been grouped into psychology.
In the letter, when he is asked a question, he seems to answer with redundant vague answers, that could really have been applied to everyone and every subject. He is asked, what the objective of umbrellaolgy and he replies “To seek and discover the truth is object enough for me.” He doesn’t state truth about what? THe truth about how umbrellas work or the truth about why people buy umbrellas. No where in this letter does it state, why it was that this subject is so important and exactly what he is studying (the research question) or how he is studying it. He says that he has 9 volumes published. But they can’t possibly be all on the colours of umbrealla and its correalation with gender. It is not possible to write so much on the topic so he isn’t clear on exactly what he is researching. Also, he constantly tells the reader of what his former friend said and then tries very hard to disclaim it and defend himself with arguments that are weak because they lack detail and specific examples. His arguments have no evidence and so can easily be discredited.
When he is questioned what benefit this “science” brings to mankind, he replies that it brings truth and that is what is important to mankind. I realise that this doesn’t tell people why I think this isn’t a science but I am just trying to show that as a scientists he should be very clear and knowledgeable about his field especially if it is his own science that he invented yet he cannot give one specific example of why this science is important so how can it be a science if there seems to be no aim and anything produced doesn’t seem to be replicable.
People often buy new umbrellas and throw old ones out or jsut lose them. In my case, I probably buy a new one every two weeks, not because I have a passion for umbrellas but due to my own terrrible memory so I often lose them. If this scientist were to come to my house and ask me questions about how many umbrealls I own and what color they are. It wouldn’t be an accurate representation of my “taste” in umbrellas (I guess you could put it that way) because usually I just buy an umbrella for convenience sake and not really care about its color or style etc… And the fact that I have a new one every 2 weeks means that the results for any experiments or studies done would not have reliable results. The experiment cannot be replicated and have the results show that it is the same.
So, in conclusion, I don’t think that umbrellaology is a science. However, if it is applied in terms of psychology and the research question was somewhere along the lines of does gender affect the colors of umbrealls people buy or etc… then I would possibly consider it as a scientic study. But after saying all that, I’m not a scientist so I can’t really judge whether it is a science or not.
1 person likes this post.
by Mrs. Connah, on January 16th, 2012
Just a quick post to get you started……
What do you think are the essential elements for a “study” to be classified as “scientific”?
Evaluate the claims made in the letter against your definition of Science.
Mrs C
1 person likes this post.
by Jessica, on January 15th, 2012
“The Placebo effect in medical research occurs when participants show some kind of change although they have not received an active treatment” It happens because participants expect effects after they received treatments. This can effect can suggest why alternative medicine works. An alternative medical treatment that I’ve found is “Auricular therapy”. It is similar to acupuncture, as it messages the pressure points around our ears that is to connect to different parts of our body. The aim for this particular treatment is to prevent people from over-eating. And you can loose weight as this treatment can enhance out metabolic rate. Even though there is no scientific evidence to prove the reliability to it, some believes in it and it worked! It can be understand as that our belief can have an effect on our physiology? For instance, if I have a strong believe that the auricular therapy can help me loose wait by slow down my craving for food, I would probably end up feeling less of my desire to eat. Human mind really is strong in a sense.
Bibliography:
Definition of placebo effect from: Pearson IB Psychology (text book)
Information on auricular therapy: http://www.ehow.com/way_5246770_auricular-therapy-weight-loss.html
Be the first to like.
by Averil, on January 15th, 2012
I’m a person who always believed in placebo effect taking place in people. It is kind of a ‘self fulfilling prophecy.
Pseudoscience refers to things like- fengshui, crystology ect, and really, there is no hard concrete science theories or findings to prove that these things actually work. However, many people still believe in them. It’s kind of like having your fortune told. In the book- Antigone and what happened before that for example, we realise that people have their fortune told, they believe what they are told, they come up with protective measures or what not, and it’s usually through the course of these actions and measures that they start the chain of events occurring to reach the final destination- whatever the the prophecy was. Similarly, placebo effect refers to the beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient’s expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself. In the case of curing allergies or fengshui bringing good luck or crystology or random superstitions for that matter, if one believes in what they are told about these things, they will mentally will what the wish to happen into reality. I find that somehow, when one doesn’t know about these things, it’s effects don’t affect one. It’s only when one knows about these superstitions that they start looking out for hidden signs of misfortune or bad luck.
If one doesn’t believe that signing one’s name in red ink would bring one misfortune, I really don’t think misfortune will befall on that person. However, I also believe in playing it safe. Since I know about these superstitions, it’s always safer to just do the ‘right thing’ as somewhere in my subconsciousness I might be willing misfortune onto myself. Anyway, prevention is better than cure in most instances.
1 person likes this post.
by Albert, on January 15th, 2012
We discussed about Science and Pseudoscience in last class. The discussion was further extended to the points about religions and such. What is difference between Pseudoscience and Science?>
Pseudoscience is essentially a fake science, a good example we discussed being “Placebo effect”. The most notable thing about pseudoscience is that it does not follow the ‘Scientific Method’ or that it does not really have a possible hypothesis to explain. Placebo effect will be the latter case, the observation confirms that the concept of ‘Placebo Effect’ makes sense to certain situations, however the problem is that it has some exceptions. We assume that it is to do with psychological motivation. But ‘assume’ is going to mean that it is going to be debatable. This can be biggest difference between Psuedoscience and Science.A scientific theory, backed up by experiments and validity is often almost not possible to argue against .
In this perspective, I think Pseudoscience has potential to become the part of Science some time until valid hypothesis is suggested and when it fits into ‘scientific method’.
2 people like this post.
by Jun, on January 15th, 2012
Power of optimism. This is why I laugh everyday, at least try to laugh everyday. Placebo effect is when patient’s condition is getting better when you give them fake medicine ( of course we lied to them! that it is the best medicine in the world for them !!) Placebo means ‘making you like it’ in Latin. Hm….. Making you like it, which means you think and feel more optimistically. I don’t know…… I get what is placebo effect is, but i don’t know how it works. I guess i just have to say it’s POWER OF OPTIMISM.
Pseudoscience. I like it. I like pseudoscience, but I don’t trust them. I mean, these generally makes you feel better. I will give you guys an example. My blood type is B, my horoscope is Gemini. I searched on Naver (Korean Google…?) about blood type B and Gemini. It says I have variety of talents, if i have a goal, i will master it whatever the goal is. OK, these made me feel really good ^_^ I mean… these makes me feel so good that makes want to believe this.BUT, there is a wrong part. ” Really Good at speaking” …….. YEAH! I am good at speaking! I..am….good at speaking..?? AM I? NO….. i know that i am not good at speaking and my friends know that too. If you are really( i mean REALLY) good at speaking, you would be able to sell refrigerator to even Eskimos. But i can’t even sell a heater to Eskimos. So, this is wrong.
Science, you can’t have anything wrong on science. If one example is not following the theory, that theory should be modified. However, in pseudoscience, if one thing is wrong? then, they say ” you are the only exception” Pseudoscience is really vague, science is really clear and precise.
My English is bad, and I AM NOT GOOD AT SPEAKING. So, if you have a question, please do.
2 people like this post.
by David, on January 15th, 2012
There is the placebo effect, the idea that you will get better because you’ve been tricked, and there is Autosuggestion, the idea that you will get better because you say so.
Scientists have found that people will get better even if they’re told that they’re taking a placebo. In 19th century, France, developed by Émile Coué. He found that saying you’d get better made you get better, by making it sink into your subconscious by repeating it and making it rhyme or whatever makes you meditate on it often. In his book he writes:
“On the day we had arranged we presented ourselves at the dentist’s and, standing opposite my patient, I looked fixedly at her, saying: “You feel nothing, you feel nothing, etc., etc.” and then while still continuing the suggestion I made a sign to the dentist. In an instant the tooth was out without Mlle. D________ turning a hair.”
He then goes onto talking about how they use it to quickly create a clot where the bleeding was.
Conversely Émile uses an example to say that autosuggestion is also involuntary. Autosuggestion can be in action when someone reads about St Vitus’s dance and worry so much that they start showing symptoms of it, or asking a seaman if he feels well, causing him to develop seasickness.
This shows that pseudoscience is more than “counting hits” as it is for luck. Recently, they found that luckier people can support their belief because they are more fortunate since their belief causes them to take more chances. In this case, Emile claims that in the case above that the autosuggestion actually tells the body to close the artery.
1 person likes this post.
by Charles Goh, on January 14th, 2012
We briefly discussed the placebo effect in drugs; when doctors give patients placebo drugs, even if the drugs did not help them with their recovery, the psychological assurance given to the patients allowed them to recover from their illnesses. This is an example of the placebo effect.
According to “The Secret” by Rhonda Byrne, there are two energies in the world. The negative and the positive energy. Each energy, when summoned, will attract more of the same kind of energy. This is quite a good explanation for people who recovered from cancer just by thinking they will recover. This applies to the placebo effect because if people think that the drug will cure them, even if it does not help them at all, the psychological optimism sparks the attraction of more positive energy, leading to the patient’s recovery.
Similarly, if you walk into a test thinking that you are going to fail, chances are you will. Although this whole concept of the positive and negative energies may be classified as pseudo science, there are a couple of examples to describe it.
4 people like this post.
by Angel, on January 13th, 2012
Today we discussed the reasons why people assume that there must be a scientific explanation for it to be true even though there are others “ways of knowing” I think that this is because people respond to authority and want to look towards something to confirm. We see all the fancy and long scientific terms and generally (or maybe its just me  ) think that if it sounds so complicated it must be right. Or it is made to sound logical because there are numbers and testing to prove it. The word pseudo means false or something thats pretending to be something it isn’t. So to call something like crystology, feng shui, or homeopathhy a “fake” science sounds not a little insulting to believers. Just because it isn’t backed up by conventional science doesn’t mean it isn’t true or it isn’t ‘real.’
The placebo effect is when patients are given a substance and told that it will cure their ailment but in fact, it is an inert substance and any effect it supposedly produces are psychological rather than physical. A common example is a sugar pill being used instead of a pill made of chemicals that are supposed to cure an illness. I think that the impact of the placebo pills are that if they work, does it mean that the headache or whatever symptom it is, is more psychological than physical? If it can be cured just by the fact that we think there is something helping us. Then it sounds like the sickness is imaginary and we can conjure and cure it as easily as ABC.
When we discussed the topic of astrology today, I felt that it is just the same as any other pseudo science and it faces many criticisms due to its unstable nature. It works for some and then they decide that they believe it everytime and may conviniently forget the times it doesn’t work. For the skeptics, they don’t believe in it at all and may feel it isn’t backed up by science and so it isn’t false. I personally think that there maybe some basis of truth for where they got the concept but there are way too many variables that affect each person to be able to determine their whole destiny based on a few stars and position of planets.
Be the first to like.
by Jennifer, on January 13th, 2012
Placebo effect is a situation in which patient’s condition improves after receiving the false medicine such as sugar pill, known to them as medicine. This effect is not scientifically proven, but it does work on about 35% of patients and cure their diseases. These days, before a medicine is publicly sold, it should go through an experiment in which the real medicines and faux medicines are randomly given and their effects are tested. (Only the person who controls the experiment knows what placebos are and what are not.) This is in order to find out the real effectiveness of the medicine: if the 70% of experiments were successful but effectiveness of placebo experiments was 30%, then the real effectiveness of the medicine is only 70-30=40%.
Even though placebo effect is widely used, since it has so many variables such as type of medicine, degree of disease, attitude of the patients and a lot more, the reason as to how the placebo effect works is still scientifically unproven. Some people say that people with the positive attitude generates a type of hormone inside the body which can possibly prove the function of the placebo effect. However, according to the experiment the patients showed no significant hormonal change after they took the placebo medicine. Also, placebo medicines can instead cause nocebo effects, which are unpleasant symptoms that follow the consumption of the placebo. These symptoms are caused by other reasons, but if they happen after taking the faux medicine the patient will believe that they are due to the placebo and possibly can aggravate their conditions. Therefore, pseudosciences like the Placebo effect, even though it may work for majority of the time, it should be still handled with caution.
Be the first to like.
by Jun, on January 12th, 2012
On this post, I would like to talk about math. Science and math are related really really really really closely. All these development in calculus has contributed to the development of dynamics. BUT, can we use scientific method on math? My answer is no. Math is starting from the answer and giving deductive, and logical reasoning for the answer, when science is giving scientific or mathematical example to explain inductive phenomenon.
They have like completely opposite way to prove the truth, but in a real life situation, you can prove numerous phenomenon by math. Such a weird world…. This is what i was thinking about in the tok class
Be the first to like.
by Jennifer, on January 12th, 2012
I initially mixed up the concept of scientific method, hypothesis, theory…so it took me a while to fully understand them. So the scientific method can be summarized into:
- Observation
- Hypothesis
- Prediction
- Testing (experiment): repeat.
- Theory formed
And, the scientific method can be applied to almost every field.
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What’s left is magic. And it doesn’t work. -James Randi
I disagree with part of this quote-‘magic’. Of course science is an important field and scientific method can be applied to a lot of fields. However, referring to all the areas other than science as ‘magic’ seems to be too much of an overgeneralization. But James Randi’s definition acknowledged me of the nature of science which is ‘always subject to correction and improvement’. I’ve previously thought that science was quite steadfast field in which previously accepted theories or notions are less likely to undergo changes; but thinking about it again, not only science but every field is subject to changes if there is better evidence.
Also, I believe that scientific method can be adapted to almost every field, but does have certain limits. For example, the ‘date’ example that we’ve seen in class, scientific method can be applied to it and theory can be formed. However, theory is something that is reproducible and repeatable. If someone else saw this ‘theory’ and forms a hypothesis that the same guy will accept her date, it will not necessarily be repeatable. So even though parts of the scientific method are applicable to different areas, it is mainly for the formation of theories based on logical evidences in science.
Be the first to like.
by Jessica, on January 11th, 2012
Mr MacKnight had pointed out that, Science seems to become the new religion. If a person tells you that he or she does not believe in science, we might all be surprised. Moreover, as my English teacher Mr Fox said during class, the process seems to have taken over human. For instance, a bullet train in Japan probably won’t wait for you when you are late. Even if you very desperate to get on because of some emergence reason. These two points to me, has a cause-and-affect relationship.
In science, the development of a theory undergoes a solid process- like the scientific method. In addition, the study of science as a whole seems to aim for objectivity and rationality. Since the industrial revolution between 18th and 19th century, technology has become wide spread around the world. As the spread occurs, can it be that these virtues of science have made their way into our everyday life?
Be the first to like.
by Averil, on January 10th, 2012
The scientific method is one where we analyse, hypothesise, experiment, and depending if the experiment proves the hypothesis or not, go back to analysing, hypothesisng… This is a continuous cycle that we all carry out in our daily lives when we try to figure things out, whether we are aware of it or not.
We were discussing if ‘science doesn’t explain everything’ or ‘science cannot explain everything’. I think that science cannot explain everything. By saying that science doesn’t explain everything, we give the impression that science does not explain everything right now, but there is a chance that science will explain everything in the future. I do not think that this is possible.
In a society and world where everything is being examined and thought of as a science experiment, where everything is being explained in scientific terms, it is difficult to believe that science cannot explain everything. Rigidly logical people find it difficult to explain illogical occurences. It is true that science experiments can be repeated by different people in various different parts of the world with varying states of mind while conducting the same experiment, obtaining exactly the same results. However, there are phenomenons classified as ‘miracles’ that really cannot be explained. How some people are down with stage three cancer in one instant and completely fine the next. There is no logical way to explain these things.
While I do not devalue science, and being a logical person myself, I tend to believe that there is an explanation to most things that happen, I do not devalue the existance of what some people call ‘divine intervention’.
Be the first to like.
by Charles Goh, on January 10th, 2012
Some people think The Scientific Method and the experimental sciences are synonymous with each other. This is not true. The scientific method is a process which in which someone has to go through in order to come out with an observation based conclusion. Experimental sciences are fields of study that make use of it all the time. In fact, any study or search for answer can use the scientific method.
There is a new field of study that focuses on the explanations for supernatural phenomena like the soul. One scientist even went as far as recording the changes in masses of people as they died. Experiments like these led to the formation of the Soul Theory.
Therefore, the scientific method can explain everything. The accuracy of the results may be questioned, disputed and proved through further reproduction of the experiment. However, when we come to determining whether the conclusions are right or not, it rethe individual’s beliefs and values.
Be the first to like.
by Angel, on January 9th, 2012
Today we discussed the subtle differences between the two statements, “Science doesn’t explain everything” and “Science cannot explain everything.” I believe that science cannot explain everything, because some things like miracles and some religious aspects can’t really be explained by sicence. I think the difference is that when the word doesn’t is applied it sounds more like its for definite and science cannot explain everything still sounds quite certain but not the same. I don’t really know to explain it though, unfortunately. Today in class, David said that interpretatio may cloud a skeptic’s conclusion to a experiment but in my opinion if the results of an experiment are subject to interpretation and there are mulitple ways an a conclusion can be made then I wouldn’t say that it was accurate. The results should be so flawless that even a skeptic couldn’t interpret it another way for a theory to be proved, I think.
I thought that the colloquial, “just a theory” was interesting because the connotations in everyday language, is that it, like Mrs Connah said, lacks credibility and is just a guess but in scientific terms it is more credible and even though not 100% it is still more accurate that the just believed meaning in everyday language. But they have the same roots because they are not 100% accurate.
Today, the question was how can a pyschologist determine how much motivation there is and how it can be measured because it isn’t something that can be put in numbers. In my opinion, this can be solved by putting it in comparison with other people. If there is a large enough sample population then people can compare motivation levels in relativity. It still isn’t exact but is a method that is possible. But saying this, numbers are also subjective becuase if someone were to judge sumthing out of 10 then a 50 in someone’s opinion maybe average whereas in another 50 may be terrible.
Be the first to like.
by Jessica, on January 8th, 2012
I would like to reflect on the card game that was played in class. Firstly, we had to observe the cards that were accepted by Mrs Connah. Secondly, from our knowledge based on our observations, we had to formulate a rule (or in other cases, hypothesis). Thirdly, we tested the rule. When the rule was wrong we needed to start from scratch along with our previous understanding. The whole process demanded us to think inductively and is called the scientific method. When my group was going through the process, it took a long while for errors to emerge in our rule. Mrs. Connah said similar thing in relation to what had happened to our rule; it could take a while for errors to occur for a rule/method.
So why does it take a while for a rule to be proven wrong? Can it be because “our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts”? We can relate this to an example that Mr Macknight had provided. In medieval time, people believed in the Four Humor. Even if it didn’t really work, but in work in people’s mind because they believe in it. People’s emotion can misguide our conscious thoughts. This smoothly relates with the article provided in class that day.
The article also pointed out that when people are challenge with their beliefs, it could only strengthen their belief. I think during our many conversations in TOK, this had happened before, whether with others or with myself. The main thing I learnt are (a) that wrong belief can come from ones self and (b) that we should learnt to be open about changes and challenges.
Be the first to like.
by Angel, on January 7th, 2012
The card game we played in class yesterday at first seemed slightly pointless but then I realized that Mrs. Connah was trying to show us that sometimes even though our actions seem completely random without planning, it actually isn’t. We were choosing cards according to the ones that we thought would give us a result we wanted and wouldn’t fail. Because each time a card was accepted, it narrowed down the possiblities until the right answer.
The most interesting thing, in my opinion, about the article that we were given was when it said, “We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers. Our ‘reasoning’ is a means to a predetermined end-winning our case- and is shot through with biases.” I thought it was interesting because when I think of lawyers and scientists, I think that at work they would be emotionless and non-biased and completely level headed. So to hear that their “reasoning” is filled with bias was surprising. I previously thought that reason meant that it was logical and without bias. Also, if their reasoning is filled with bias then what about the results? So, does this mean that there is nothing truely objectve and everything is subjective?
In psychology, we learnt that some people associate certain symbols to their success. For example, wearing a certain article of clothing to a test to ensure that you do well because it worked the first time and most people reason that when it doesn’t work out it is because of some other factor and not the article of clothing’s problem or they completely forget the times it didn’t work out. I think this is similar to the example of the Seekers in the article. To me it sounds like self-denial or purposiveful forgetfullness but maybe it is because they truly believe in that symbol, or religion etc…
Be the first to like.
by Averil, on January 7th, 2012
The game we played during TOK lesson yesterday was exciting and mind boggling at the same time. While we tried to see which cards would be accepted, and guess the pattern in which the they were being accepted, I realised something very interesting. Most of the time, the rule was really simple, like- numbers in accending order or prime numbers. But we tried to over complicate the pattern and add in unnecesary elements into our proposed hypothesis.
I realised that when analysing things and patterns, as well as when we are coming up with theories and hypothesis, some people generally try to ‘over think’ things, as they assume that things cannot be so simple. However, sometimes over thinking and adding too many elements into the mix may lead us further and further away from what we were looking for. For example during the game, we already got the answer that the numbers were in assending order, but we kept thinking that the suites had soemthing to do with the accepted order as well, that we kept getting it wrong.
Through this exercise, I learnt that simplifying things is very important. For its when we think simply that we get what we were looking for.
Be the first to like.
by Jennifer, on January 7th, 2012
Reading through this handout, this sentence has grabbed my attention: that “people respond to scientific or technological evidence in ways that justify their preexisting beliefs”. This might be due to several reasons: firstly, diversity of background. There are diverse religions, countries and various other political, social, and even scientific divisions in the world. Therefore, considering matter such as the occurrence of global warming, some people including scientists might say that the rising average temperature and higher frequency of natural disasters…Etc supports the exacerbation of global warming. However, some others claim that Global warming is not happening and even that the globe is cooling down. Secondly, once supporting a certain claim, even if it’s generally rejected, one might still feel stronger urge to defend his or her assertion. Recently, a doubt was cast on a renowned Korean singer Tablo, regarding his academic record. He graduated Stanford with excellent grade, but a group of people started to doubt the authenticity of his record and ultimately ended up forming a group called “Ta Jin Yo”.(translated into “We require Tablo’s truth”)Tablo struggled to prove his record by his mentioning as an alumni at Stanford Newspaper, his friend’s testimony and the actual school record; even by involving the police. In the end he was proved to have been graduated from Stanford. However, “Ta Jin Yo” group justified themselves, still questioned the sources of Tablo’s proof and recently started attacking other celebrities, doubting whether a celebrity or his/her family member really attended Ivy League schools. This is clearly an absurd act, seeing that Tablo’s innocence is already proved. However due to its urge, refusal to yield, and continuous media attention towards it, Ta Jin Yo group started to expand, accept more members and started to attack other celebrities. This example clearly demonstrates how firm belief results in unexpected reaction of the group when their claim is disproved.
However, for unproven, debatable issues such as the Fermi Paradox, different opinions based on one’s belief allows people to investigate various possibilities at wider perspective. Fermi Paradox is contradiction between the high possibility of extraterrestrial life beyond the Earth and the lack of evidence for communication that’s made between those lives and human. Stephen Webb, a renowned theologian and philosopher, wrote a book about Fermi Paradox: “If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens… Where Is Everybody?”. He puts possible answers to this question in three categories: “They are here”, extraterrestrials do exist but are hidden, “They exist but have not yet communicated”, they exist but haven’t reached us yet, and “They do not exist”, that they did exist but became extinct or haven’t existed in the first place. This issue of Fermi Paradox is still being debated in scientific community, since certain amount of proof exists for all the categories but there’s currently no way to prove the truth.
I agree that it’ll be a ridiculous act to try to disprove on claim when it is already proven true. For example, even though it is impossible for a person to go against the gravitational pull and float without any device, a politician suggested that he could not only go against the gravity but also can cure everyone who looks at his eyes. However, for the debatable topics such as start of the universe and Fermi Paradox, it is good to have different opinions which reflect the preexisting beliefs of individuals, since this allows people to compare various possibilities and prevents them to be biased towards one possibility.
Be the first to like.
by Charles Goh, on January 7th, 2012
According to the article “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science”, conservative people are less likely (than their liberal counterparts) to change their views on topics like Climate Change and Vaccine – Autism links. It states that this is due to the fact that people (especially conservative people) tend to agree with the arguments that appeal to their value.
I think despite all the advancements in Science and the scientific method, there is still bias in the response different people give. For example, someone who values solid evidence and statistics complementing a particular argument is more likely to accept a new scientific discovery. This new scientific discovery may perhaps reject the validity of a belief. In this case, a strong believer is likely to reject the scientific discovery, since it is opposing the person’s value system. This is occurs all the time in the field of politics. Therefore, a scientific discovery that serves to support a values would be more appealing to a person with those values.
In fact, we often hear “experts say that…” This is a vague statement because it is not clear who the experts are. Experts are people that are very experienced and knowledgeable in fields of studies, but who have similar values to the individual. Therefore, the people party A thinks are experts may not be experts to party B, assuming both parties have conflicting values.
Furthermore, sometimes we find that as we find that people’s views become more polarised when a new set of data or a new observation rejects their views and values. This happened with the group that believed in scientology. Its ironic because a new observation that rejects the validity of a view should have changed an individual’s views, but instead it reinforced the intensity to which the individual believed in the opposing view.
Therefore, even if the truth were to side with one group’s view, it may not be easily excepted by everyone, since everyone has different values.
1 person likes this post.
by Mr. MacKnight, on January 3rd, 2012
I received this comment by email. —etm
I have been reading about the thoughts on intuition on your site and find most of them do not actually reflect what intuition is in my experience.
Many speak about intuition coming from deep in the subconscious or from life experience, but when I teach about intuition, it is not about that. When a person can select which stone out of five stones is being held in a closed fist consistently without error, that is not about the subconscious, that is from intuition. When someone can hold a plant that is unknown to them and correctly state whether it is used internally or externally and for what reason, that is from intuition, not the subconscious. When a person can place a hand on a stranger and tell that person about the physical condition of the body, that is from intuition. When they improve that condition, that is another kind of intuition that allows one to connect with healing energy.
It is difficult to understand this, although it is the way of things for the indigenous tribes who have been able to hold onto their traditional way of being. When someone of western thinking tries to describe it, he comes from a totally different paradigm and thus misses everything.
Intuition does not come from any kind of process of the brain, but rather from being in the spiritual heart, which in turn, as explained in quantum physics. is itself connected to all things and thus has access to all knowledge.
There is a lot that interferes with this kind of knowing, but once it is understood and controlled, life is a much richer thing to experience.
dance in the light of spirit
susan gale
Be the first to like.
by Charles Goh, on December 20th, 2011
While I tested the Ted Talks app on my new iPad 2, I came across this really interesting video on what the presenter (Paul Zak) calls the Moral Molecule! It is important to note that while we dismiss scientific discoveries, our thoughts are actually greatly influenced by what is produced in our bodies. 
This video will explain how Paul tests for the effects of Oxytocin on our judgement, and what factors affect the production of that molecule within our bodies.
This is the link for the video on youku: http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzE4NjgxNTQ0.html
So what do you all think about the Moral Molecule? Do you agree with what he is saying?
I think it’s really cool though he should have gave a definition for morals. I think the definition for morals is highly controversial, because what someone thinks is moral may not be moral to someone else. It all depends on indvidual biases and perhaps other factors.
Still, I would define morality as the distinction between right and wrong, taking into account the individual’s experience and biases.
Be the first to like.
by Charles Goh, on December 11th, 2011
“Intuition is perception via the unconcious” – Carl Gustav Jung
I came across this quote while researching “intuition” online. Perhaps what Jung said may have some truth in it. When we speak of the brain and its processing, we refer to the unconcious/subconcious and concious brain. Since I despise talking about supernatural intuition and random “aha” moments (even though I have them everyday), I shall present my thesis on this matter: Decisions made by intuition have reasons not yet understood by the concious brain.
For example, anyone whose intuition told him/her to purchase Apple shares 3 years ago must be drowning in cash now (lmao). But then in 2008, no one knew where Apple was headed. Response from the consumer market of the time ranged from skeptical to optimistic. If you went back in time and asked those who decided to invest in the company’s shares, they may not even have a reason. Today, with their company doing so well, the answer to that would come straight out of reasoning from the concious brain. Those reasons might have already been present in their unconcious brains from the start (from looking at company statistics), but they might not have processed it into the form of language which can be communicated.
Though I may be wrong about this, I think it one of the few logical explanations to why some people make decisions through “instinct” only to be able to explain it later.
3 people like this post.
by Angel, on December 9th, 2011
Today in TOK, we discussed intuition and whether or not it can be used as part of our knowledge and whether or not we can use it as a way to find more knowledge. I believe that it is part of our knowledge and will sometimes help us find more knowledge. I believe that it’s part of our knowledge just in the same way that senses can contribute to our knowledge. Some people say that intuition is like our sixth sense that our body unconciously processes it and then some people just try to reason it out later. I think that it is part of our knowledge because we can sense things unconsciously that we somtimes cannot understand or determine. We can then either act on it or not but in my opinion people usually act on it and some explain it throguh logical reasoning later. I also believe that intuition probably doesn’t really come out of nowhere and some clues in the environment or maybe memories of the past could possibly have allowed people to trigger these flashes of intuition.
Intuition could also help contribute to our gaining of knowledge by giving us a sort of a push in the right direction. In some ways, it’s like a hint or a clue a teacher might give a student when they don’t know how to answer a question. An analogy I can think of would be a driveway covered snow. An intuition would be the snow-covered driveway being very messily shovelled so that there is a sort of path but its not straight or looks very good. THe intuition can lead to logical reasoning and then it would be a straight, neat, properly shovelled path.
Be the first to like.
by Jennifer, on December 9th, 2011
Emotion is the knowledge in form of reaction by chemical and electrical activity. Emotion can be good to people because this gives us another means of communication and chance to express ourselves in multiple ways. For example, the 6 universal emotions seen through facial expression are happy, sad, angry, fear, disgust, and surprise and this can be recognized by almost anyone, no matter which culture and countries they are from. Also, people can pick up more information from facial expression and body language even though they don’t understand the language; just like what we’ve done in TOK on Monday. Emotions are quite universal, so this allows people to sympathize with each other and to establish relationships as well.
However, emotion can be bad when people are overwhelmed with it. Some people cannot control their temporary depression which leads them to make rushed decisions such as committing suicide. Also, some people manipulate emotion for fraud like begging and acting as disabled ones to get money, and making excuses related to health issues of family members. This is not always bad, but it can deter people from making rational judgments. For example, no matter how much hardship a murderer suffered before, the fact that he/she killed a person doesn’t change and their crime cannot be absolved by those abysmal experiences that evoke sympathy.
Therefore, it’s beneficial for human to have variety of emotion for communication, expression and sympathy but at the same time emotion should be controlled so as to prevent losing control of emotion and being decepted by frauds which evoke emotion.
Be the first to like.
by August, on December 8th, 2011
Emotion can be quite an interesting topic to discuss; Why do we have emotion? How does emotion help us? Is emotion a good or bad concept? Would we be more successful without emotion? All of these questions are quite evocative, and would encourage much thought within people; however, whether a definite answer is reached or not may not be as certain.
Emotion can be viewed as the core of our individuality. We are different from the person besides us because we have different dispositions for specific emotions. For example, you might be more likely to jump in joy than one of your friends who has a more serious tendency. These oscillations in our capacity for emotion are what define our personality and embody the differences between each of our characters. While other factors may also play a part in our individuality – for example, our ability to think rationally – none of them have as large or as widespread of an effect.
Through this we can deduce that one of the benefits of having emotion relates to the survival of the human race; it is because of our extensive individuality that we have been able to continue living, as individuality is the basis from which creativity and inventiveness arise from. If everybody is more or less the same, then we, as the human race, would have never thought to use stone to create axes, or to create sparks using flint and steel; we would only follow what we have been taught by our parental figures, as we wouldn’t be any different from them. It is because of individuality that different views on topics are produced; as many of you have heard, two minds are better than one. Different views will often collaborate together to produce an even better, combined perspective, resulting in more development of the human race. Emotion indirectly creates this effect, which has allowed homo sapiens to dominate the world.
Yet another benefit that emotion has provided us is that it has given us a universal language that we all understand. As was found in the study that we looked at in class, facial expressions are the same across all cultures for the same emotions; such a finding means that even if did not know any languages, we could communicate by expressing our emotions and using the context of the world around us. One could perhaps even go as far as to say all languages are derived from the original, universal language of emotion; they are diffused extensions made to simplify and help communicate what we cannot describe using the language of emotion alone and require context to explain, when there is no context. Emotion may be the foundation of our individuality, but it also provides a common language for us all to communicate in.
Having said all that about the benefits of emotion, however, emotion is by no means completely benign. As many of you will know, emotion is also the root of many conflicts, including many horrific wars. As stated before, emotion provides us with individuality, which in turn provides us with the ability to create differing views; with diverse views, however, also comes disagreement, as people disagree with others’ opinions. Emotion can also be derogatory to human existence.
To conclude, emotion can be both helpful and detrimental to humans, in many different ways; however, as you can see, emotion is much more contributory to human life than it is restricting it. Emotion is definitely an important part of being a human being.
Be the first to like.
by Charles Goh, on December 8th, 2011
I take it that most of us would think that lying is bad, yes? Perhaps you are right in certain cases, but most of the time, maybe not. As I said in class, white lies are important because it does not cause the 2nd party to become agitated if you speak of the truth. Now why do I say lying is good? Well, probably because humans are very emotional creatures, and the slightest hint of truth that will negatively affect any one of them will receive a negative emotional response (anger or sadness).
Now for some everyday statements that you would make to someone if you were not lying:
- Tom, I see rapid horizontal growth in your body, you really need to go on a healthy diet
- Your score for the exams were unacceptable; you should have done better
- Stop smoking and taking drugs! They are bad for you!
- You seem very disorganized
- Steve Jobs is worth more than the 1 million people under poverty
and I take it everyone has heard one of the following responses?
- “Don’t say that! that’s not nice”
- “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it at all!”
I was examining the comments featured on the Steve jobs vs statistics post that I did a while ago, and I found that a few people were becoming emotional without being aware of it. When emotional, comments tend to become more and more biased, and more powerful/intense words. Such examples include “heartless person”, implying that the commenter was emotional, and therefore bias was immediately and effectively formed. I say this because economically, Steve Job’s net worth is 5.5 billion USD, and the value of all the millions of people living under poverty, if added together, won’t even make up 0.01% of Steve Jobs net value. Well, after all, we are comparing slum dwellers with the technology revolutionary and superstar of the 21st century.
Consequently, I prefer Spock’s approach to many situations, because without emotions, there is no need to worry about a person becoming biased and forming opinions without the use of proper logic.
1 person likes this post.
by Charles Goh, on December 5th, 2011
Though one can say otherwise, in my opinion, Spock’s reaction in the scene in the video was the right one, because from my perspective, one should not be emotional during work, as it will, almost most of the time be detrimental for our work and may sometimes cause bad things to happen. In the Star Trek scene, the woman should never have attempted to flirt with Spock in a work environment; she should be concentrating on getting her work completed. In this case, a highly rational person would seem more fit for working in that environment. Of course, one could argue that the emotions on the employees’ faces are an indication of the level of job satisfaction, but hey There are always exceptions.
On the other hand, if we were talking about a social situation, perhaps emotions would play a much bigger and more important role than it would have in the work environment. As agreed by many in the class, emotions are important when it comes to the interactions between individuals.
Whether emotions are useful or not on the whole, I leave that to you. As I cannot think of any reason for bias, I shall retain my neutrality in this matter.
2 people like this post.
by John, on December 5th, 2011
Today when we were discussing emotion in class I felt that the definition posted on the board was too reductionist. Sure there are chemical processes that occur across the synapses in our brain that work together to create emotions among other things. And we also can’t forget the role hormones play in our feelings – but this is not to say that they alone control us.
In psychology we looked at an experiment by researchers Schacter and Singer who conducted a study on adrenaline and emotion. I won’t go into the study in depth now but what they concluded was that, through a process they call cognitive labeling, a subjective experience of emotion is created. Subjects injected with adrenaline felt it’s physiological effects but looked to their surroundings to explain their feelings. Participants that were placed in a room with an angry actor felt more angry. Those placed with an excited, and fun-loving actor felt happy. So while the hormonal activity in both sets of participants was almost identical – they both managed to feel different emotions.
I feel that this links in with what Mr. MacKnight suggested about emotion – that, instead of making us individuals as August said, makes us act more as a group. What Shacter and Singer’s study showed is that we look to the environment to label how we should be acting or feeling. In real life our environment is full of fellow people. We look to members of our society to establish how we ourselves should act leading to – in extreme cases, group violence and in more mild cases, trends or fashions in our society.
Be the first to like.
by Angel, on December 5th, 2011
Today in TOK, we discussed whether emotions are a good thing or a bad. Personally, I usually think they are a good thing. It’s what bonds us to other people and allow us to make judgements and whether or not something is good or bad. Whenever I don’t think emotions are a good thing, it’s probably because I’m experiencing the emotions that most people which they don’t have to experience (sadness, anger etc…) Today, the presentation defined emotions as “It provides us with personal experience or knowledge in the form of a reaction enhanced by chemical & chemical activity.” I felt slightly disappointed after reading that because some of the emotions such as happiness and the concept of true love is being reduced to chemicals? That’s just sad. So basically, a person could possibly have a a different true love everyday if they just changed the chemicals in their body around? Then people could use these chemicals as the explanation to everything!!!?!?!!?! A person could say they cheated on their spouse and it wasn’t their fault it was just the chemicals in their body telling them what to do. I could even use that as an excuse for my next exam grade!! “Sorry mom, the chemicals in my body weren’t telling me to study and it told me to get bad grades. I can’t help it.”
I really like the poem we read today, I thought that it told the cold hard truth in a poetic way that people understood. But it was slightly depressing. I think that it just means that as we grow up, we see the world in a different way and we have experienced more things so we are generally more protective of ourselves and we aren’t as open to everyone as we were in our childhood. Experiences have taught us to be more protective and careful around others. That’s possibly why we appear as cold and indifferent and politeness our way of trying to be civil and sort of semi luke-warm.
1 person likes this post.
|
|
"The arts, ideas, natural beauty, and good conversation provide lasting pleasure."
"The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it."
—Werner Vogels
|
Recent Comments