New link added:
https://datajournalism.com/read/handbook/verification-3
The “Verification Handbook for Disinformation and Media Manipulation” is intended for journalists working in the era of social media disinformation but offers another take on the essential TOK question, “How do we know?”
History is like a book about things that happened in the past. It explains why, the course, the end or the continuation to the present time. In addition, some historians add some information to make the timeline more reasonable.
“History is written by the victors.”
-Winston Churchill-
The above statement can clearly show that the story taking place in history will have some details that will always be a mystery. The numbers we see when reading or viewing some historical documents are due to what is left over from history. For example, we know how many bombs there are in the war and the number of deaths. But, there will always be a missing number of people and sometimes people will find a few unworkable bombs and the number will increase when we find a new bomb stuck that somewhere deeply in the ground.
It is often said that we study history (war) so that we do not repeat these things in the future. But, it is not 100% sure because if we look back to the years from 100 to about 1000 we can see the wars getting more and more advanced. Let’s say we use swords and from there to guns and bombs. So far, I think the war will still take place because otherwise, why would developed countries like Russia or the United States study nuclear and “advanced weapons”?
Emotions are expressed through thoughts (in each person) and actions (expressed). People have a lot of different emotions and 6 primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise, and disgust. These 6 emotions are usually expressed outward but sometimes they may not be expressed. There are many theories that explain what emotions mean but put them all in the main sense that emotions can affect the actions and thoughts of every person. Sadness often leads to depression and this can be manifested in a dramatic way, such as falling face down. And these emotions can be considered as a knowledge and be divided into 3 parts: Perception, Reason, Language. Two of these three parts (Perception and Reason) are often hidden inside each person’s thoughts and Language is an outward representation. Language will help identify other people’s emotions in sound. If the voice becomes lower and lower, the person is probably sad. On the contrary, if the voice is softer then the person is probably happy.
“Since emotions are an integral part of our mental lives, they are likely to influence the way we see and think about the world.”
People often ask that listening to the heart or reason. It is often said that emotions will make people blind and reason will make people cool. Therefore, to be able to decide the most accurate way, first to balance both and this is not easy. People are often easily influenced by everything around them. So, for people to learn to balance needs a lot of time for them to go through and learn it.
“Our emotions can not only distort our beliefs, but also lead us to make poor decisions. Some emotions are urgent and short sighted and they can easily blind us to the longer-term consequences of our actions.
With intuition problem. Each person has their own intuition and this greatly affects the decisions and thoughts of each person. If your mind helps you make more informed decisions and your heart gives you insight, intuition is at the core of both. But intuition is not always true because you cannot rely on any argument. But intuition can also rely on some knowledge already available to be able to make decisions.
There are universal moral values. These values are expressed by the agreement of the majority of people living and working there. They live together, build an empire and create laws that everyone agrees and obeys. Therefore, if you violate the regulations, it will be considered as wrong and will be punished according to the level of wrong. Correctness or wrongness are given by each person’s own ideas (so mistakes can occur) but rules are set out to indicate wrong and right. In addition, people are easily affected if the people around them agree on one thing, and they will also choose to follow the majority. “Fact” is not really a word applied to morality because morality cannot be seen or heard but “fact” does. “Fact” is a word to indicate a fact or information that is completely accurate and almost unchangeable but morality can be changed.
In fact, ethics cannot be determined by math or science. But math and science can judge and explain a certain part of morality. Murder is right or wrong, it is only in one’s own opinion. The killer might have given the killer a right and he should have done it, but those around him looked at it as wrong. Therefore, to be able to distinguish right from wrong is in each person’s own opinion. As mentioned before, rules are made up of many different ideas but are formed from the majority. Rules are created to prevent people from doing things that others consider wrong. Most of all, the laws were created to protect each individual there. So, if one is killed, it is affecting an individual and it also means breaking the law leading others to think that killing is wrong.
The decisions that we make are always the right and wrong ones and are both the good and bad. In my opinion, we make decisions based on what we feel like in the moment. For a person, one situation or decision will seem different at different times in their life. It could seem like a bad decision when they are younger, but when we are older, it might seem like the right choice. Now what we think and feel is not what we can consider what is “good” or “bad”, or one would think that. An individual, which led to a group of individuals decided what he, and then they foresaw as good and bad and so they convinced others of what they believed, then as a society we adopted those and made changes to what we see fit. It all started with that one persons opinions and about how he felt about a certain thing. What we nowadays consider what is bad and good is all just based upon how each thing makes the people in power feel. If there were a bunch of people who loved murder, maybe they would say that it is fine and that it is just natural survival or primitive nature and that its the survival of the fittest, and if that’s the way that we were shown was good, most people would go along with it and instead of thinking about it, just try and survive. You might think of that and say that that crazy, but to be honest, that’s not as strange as what we have today. Now, men and boys who would choose to not wear a shirt is seen as normal and that if you saw a man without his shirt on you would not think anything is wrong with that, but if you saw a woman without her shirt on, it would seem so weird and would be considered nudity and she could get arrested for exposure. To think that for the same species, what is seen as “right” and what is seen as “wrong” is completely different from gender to gender. Even when we are little kids and you could not tell the two boys and girls apart, it would still seem bad and looked down upon if a 13 year old girl was out in public shirtless and would seem so cute if the 13 year old boy did. You can see that what we decide as right and wrong is not based upon some scientific code or some divine law but all based on feelings and reactions to the situation. If one of the rules is seen to be made by feeling you can really start to see how the others are made. The road speeds are decided upon by what people feel like is safe, but as we know, different people feel and react differently to different situations and people also feel comfortable driving at different speeds. As a society we have decided on what “bad” and “good” decisions are but they are not always what we feel is right. All the decisions are made based off of feelings and moments and we can not classify something as a bad or not good because it changes for each person, at each moment, and each location we are in. For me, whatever decision that I make in that moment is the one that I feel like is the best decision for me and for others and follow what I believe in and what my brain and heart tell me. (I don’t know how to say that last part without sounding extremely cheesy but that what I am going to say)
How do you know that something is good or bad, right or wrong?
Its depends Whether the world will be better or not. Everywhere we go has rules and laws that are created by the government or society. They taught us to obey these rules because they think these behaves are good for society and if we don’t follow, we will be suspended.
For example, there is a law stealing goods from store shelves imposes up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to 500000 yen in Japan. But if your friend she or he got fired and he had to sell his house, and sitting in front of the store you entered. Eventually, A person who disobeys the rule will steal some food and drink and give them to him. Perhaps this action is not right but might be a good thing. Also personally think after you saved him, the world becomes better with a smile. Therefore I ill recognize it as a good thing.
Logic is reasoning. It explains by reasoning from general to specific as we learn in class:
“Deduction”
On the other hand,
“Induction”
is just from general to specific without any reasoning or explanation.
Though referred to in Stephen’s Guide to Logical Fallacies as a logical fallacy, the technique of changing subject is very effective in debate. Or at least, I, personally, find it very effective when used correctly in my past debate experiences within class and is quite fond of practicing it unto my opponents.
Changing the subject subtly during debate can become a trap for the opponent to step into. Once the opponent chases you into it, it would be easy to disrupt his train of thought or even turn around to call your opponent guilty of changing the subject and drifting afar the debate question. This often works in a debate as both sides are actively engaged it thinking about their points, so that sometimes they ignore a subtle dirty move that is changing the subject, quote out of context, or simple misinterpretation.The most important aspect of applying this technique to real use is to do it subtly. If the intention is discovered by the opponent, it would become a flaw in your argument and let the opponent gain the upper hand.
Though when unknowingly used, changing the subject is a typical logical fallacy, it cannot be denied that it is a effective technique in debate when successfully executed.
At the beginning of the class I had no idea what exactly the logic meant. Or more exactly what is the difference between logic and reason. I was thinking about it all the class, but the I got it. Reason is more primitive animal instinct based on millions of years of evolution. Logic is the study of correct and incorrect reasoning.
And logic could be defined as the whole basis for science and rational thought. It is also found everywhere from computer algorithms to statistical analysis.
Part 5 summarizes the entire Plato’s ‘Meno’ reading. The main point of this reading is that Socrates found a way to convince others by asking them different questions but in the end came back to the main topic and the people who were asked were completely convinced.
Socrates
” Then the result of our reasoning, Meno, is found to be that virtue comes to us by a divine dispensation, when it does come. But the certainty of this we shall only know when, before asking in what way virtue comes to mankind, we set about inquiring what virtue is, in and by itself. It is time now for me to go my way, but do you persuade our friend Anytus of that whereof you are now yourself persuaded, so as to put him in a gentler mood; for if you can persuade him, you will do a good turn to the people of Athens also “. [page 47].
Interesting article at arstechnica.com has relevance to TOK:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/why-do-we-cling-to-beliefs-when-theyre-threatened-by-facts/
“After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts—a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,
Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,
As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O’er the grave where our hero was buried.
The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.”
—from Henry David Thoreau, “Civil Disobedience” (1849)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/nightmare-west-memphis-three/?pagination=false
From the New York Review of Books, a real-life situation filled with TOK issues and juicy quotations.
Pierre smiled, Natasha began to laugh, but Nicholas knitted his brows still more and began proving to Pierre that there was no prospect of any great change and that all the danger he spoke of existed only in his imagination. Pierre maintained the contrary, and as his mental faculties were greater and more resourceful, Nicholas felt himself cornered. This made him still angrier, for he was fully convinced, not by reasoning but by something within him stronger than reason, of the justice of his opinion.
—from Leo Tolstoy, “War and Peace”
Benjamin Franklin—printer, entrepreneur, scientist, inventor, community organizer, revolutionary, diplomat, celebrity—wrote one of the earliest autobiographies. In it he tells a story from his youth that neatly illustrates the value of reason in our lives.
I believe I have omitted mentioning that, in my first voyage from Boston, being becalm’d off Block Island, our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion consider’d, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had, or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc’d some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, “If you eat one another, I don’t see why we mayn’t eat you.” So I din’d upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.
After skimming through the posts and comment that have appeared so far, all I can say is . . .
http://www.patfullerton.com/lh/movies/finemess.html
etm