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.”
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 The numbers we see when reading or viewing some historical documents are due to what is left over from history.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”?
Peter Navarro, an advisor to President Trump, made the news today by shouting at Dr. Anthony Fauci, the leading American expert on infectious diseases, about a drug that Trump thinks (without any scientific evidence) should be used to treat COVID-19.
Navarro is described on his Wikipedia page as a retired “professor of economics and public policy. . . . Navarro’s views on trade are significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought, and are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists.”
Very few social scientists, of course, would join Navarro in claiming they should advise Dr. Fauci on the best way to treat COVID-19.
Economics is the science that studies resources, wealth creation, and the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, in order to meet human needs. It is a human science because their laws are empirical, this means that in order to proove each graph or data given in economic articles, it requires to have someone analyze it and also the fact that economic laws are empirical menas that they are based on experience and observarion just as any other science. Furthermore, it oversees analyzing, describing and interpreting the behavior of human beings in the economic environment.
Economics as a social and human science, is based on the study of human behavior before the relationship that exists between ends and scarce means. The main goal of studying economics is to study the correct distribution of scarce resources to satisfy the needs of the human being. In other words, it analyzes the relationship between the available resources, which are limited in nature, and the needs, which are unlimited, although hierarchical.
Some of the problems that studying economics can face are that the crises that suffer the strongest complications in the world affect all others, and all others are affected by society in all its forms: taxes, interest rates, salary developments, credits, etc. The less fiscal crisis in the stronger strategies, the more stability not only economic, but also social. So if there is a mistake in economic data or graphs it doesn’t only affect the economy of one country, but it can affect the economy of other countries that have borders or economic trades with the country that is giving wrong data or information. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, people need to be truthful and check for mistakes in the data and information that they are putting in articles.In my opinion economics is indeed a human science and it is scientific because all sciences are based on prove and theory and economics is also based on graphs and given data.
In economics, there are tons of information and everyday data to consider. The final figures are not allowed to have any false information in order to keep the economic cycle in balance. There will not be any data that can be 100% certain to determine where the economy is located. But, we can make estimates based on numbers every day. Economics cannot be determined because it can go up or down at any time. Economists tend to analyze why the economy is up or down and can rely on what they see to be able to predict what will happen. In order to ensure the information was completely accurate so that economists could guess, strict laws were put in place. People are greedy and they will want more of what they possess. Therefore, corruption or bribery happen in the economy a lot. But if we rely on the economic system, we can find out that it does not fit.
Is economics science? There will be those who agree and disagree that economics is science. There is nothing wrong with that because it is the opinion of every person. But for me, I think economics is science because it relies on the facts and information of the economy to calculate as logically as possible in order to develop the economy of a country in general and the whole world. in particular.
This article is rather technical, but a quotation near the bottom sums it up nicely:
Journal editors have expended much time and effort in teasing out how to handle authors’ and reviewers’ competing interests. They need now to concentrate on their own and those of their employers, lest we reach the dismal scenario described by Marcia Angell: “it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” .
Read the entire article here:
Explain why the commonly-used expression
is misleading and illogical.
. . . Ask a question and then investigate what the answer is. That’s the core of the scientific method—formulate a question, come up with a hypothesis, make a prediction based on that hypothesis, then test to see if that prediction holds. Not only is that a good way to do research, it is also a great way to present your research to others. Start off with your question! That does a lot of things. It clarifies in the reader’s mind what the purpose of the study is. It helps the reader to relate the study you’ve done to the things that interest them. And it helps you and the reader have a way to see if the study you’ve done has accomplished something. And remember—a study that disproves your hypothesis may be just as interesting and useful as one that confirms it.
Good advice for any essay writer, writing about any subject—including TOK students writing TOK essays!
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has crossed over from physics to become a sort of ‘common knowledge’ like Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ or Freud’s ideas about neurosis or the ‘Oedipal complex’. This article from ars technica, however—“Demolishing Heisenberg with clever math and experiments”—makes the Uncertainty Principle seem much less than certain.
Beau Lotto’s 2009 TED Talk is here: http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_optical_illusions_show_how_we_see.html. No subtitles, but click on “Show Transcript” and you can have a written version in Chinese and Korean and lots of other languages.
This 2012 TED blog post may also interest you: http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/26/science-is-play-beau-lotto-and-amy-otoole-at-tedglobal-2012/
“Researchers have been able to take over an animal’s brain, instruct it to turn in any direction they choose, and even to implant false sensory information, fooling the animal into thinking food was nearby.”
For those who truly believe that truth is subjective or relative (along with everything else), ask yourself the question – is ultimate guilt or innocence of a crime a matter of opinion? Is it relative? Is it subjective? A jury might decide you’re guilty of a crime that you haven’t committed. You’re innocent. (It’s possible. The legal system is rife with miscarriages of justice.) Nevertheless, we believe there is a fact of the matter. You either did it or you didn’t. Period.
If you were strapped into an electric chair, there would be nothing relative about it. Suppose you are innocent. Would you be satisfied with the claim there is no definitive answer to the question of whether you’re guilty or innocent? That there is no such thing as absolute truth or falsity? Or would you be screaming, “I didn’t do it. Look at the evidence. I didn’t do it.” Nor would you take much comfort in the claim, “It all depends on your point of view, doesn’t it?” Or “what paradigm are you in?” When I was investigating the murder of Robert Wood, a Dallas police officer, and the capital murder conviction of Randall Dale Adams for that murder, would it make sense to describe my viewpoint as one paradigm, and the viewpoint of the Dallas police as another? Surely, we had different ways of looking at the evidence, different interpretations of the evidence, different ways of looking at the crime. Suppose someone said, there’s no way of comparing these two paradigms. They’re incommensurable. You can’t say one is true and the other false. There is no absolute truth. Perhaps they could gussy up the claim by citing police procedures and practices. Different traditions of looking at crime scene evidence. . . .
The difficulty of ascertaining the truth in history is often confused with the relativity of truth. Two very different concepts. (We may have difficulty fixing the exact date and location of the Battle of Hastings, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen at a specific time and place.) “The past,” as L.P. Hartley has written, “is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”  But when Homer speaks of the “sun,” is he speaking about a different object than T.S. Eliot? If Newton were to give Einstein a copy of the “Principia” and Einstein were to give Newton a copy of “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” would they be unable to understand each other or their respective theories? There would be a discussion, perhaps even disagreements about ideas and principles. Clarifications would be needed. But would they look past each other in numb stupefaction? The past may be a foreign country, but I do not believe that people there speak a language that we can not understand.
My favourite is by Carl Zimmer: “A Hot Young Earth: Unquestionably Beautiful and Stunningly Wrong“.
Before that, Einstein and the scientific method, among others, make appearances. Well worth reading!
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!
In his TED talk, ‘Queerer than we can suppose’, Richard Dawkins suggests that we may be more like waves than physical objects. He describes a crescent-shaped sand dune in Africa that moves about 17 metres each year. The grains of sand that make up the dune are constantly changing—being added to or removed from the dune by the wind. But the dune, as it moves, keeps its shape. He also points out that not a single atom in our bodies was there when we were children. We are, by analogy, like the sand dune: just as the dune consists of grains of sand that are continually changing, so we consist of atoms that are continually changing. Both we and the dune, it seems, are more like waves than objects.
Another analogy: We can take a box full of Lego blocks, choose a few of them, and build a model house. We can then replace individual blocks, one at a time, with similar blocks still left in the box. Eventually all the original blocks would be replaced, but the house would retain its original shape and appearance. Or perhaps the house’s appearance would change slightly: red blocks where before there were blue ones, for example. Is this a better analogy to describe us and our bodies? Are we an arrangement of atoms, and is it that particular arrangement that is “us”?
One more analogy: A song—or musical composition of any sort—may be passed along through time and space, perhaps for hundreds of years, and all around the world. It may be performed by any number of singers or musicians. And yet it remains the same song. Is this a useful analogy for how we remain the same person even though our bodies change constantly as we move through time and space?