Presentation Commentaries

COMMENTARY

STEM CELL RESEARCH

Stem cell research seems all self-serving, in the sense that people go through substantial lengths to prolong an inescapably fleeting life. It seems unnecessary, not on the basis of religion, but its overall extravagant disposition. Therefore I would not think twice of promoting human tempering of a natural imperative.

In the contrary, for those who can’t get enough of life or for the sake of efficiency, stem-cell research can be stimulating. The fact that it is possible proves there are no legitimately objective reasons for prohibiting expansion.

I’m obliged to remaining neutral for it seems very excessive, however, that does not mean I oppose this coming-of-age experiment.

CHILD LABOR

As a person, with at least a smidgen of sympathy, I strongly despise child labor. I would definitely pay for $20 strawberries, or just not eat strawberries, if that would make the children not have to agonize over a destructive upbringing, however the case is never that simple. If comfort means having to enslave children, the state of the comfort is quite morbid.

IMMIGRATION

Immigration is definitely less brain-cramping of a topic, however, choosing a side is equally hard. On a personal level, these illegal immigrants can be a close friend or relative. However in an unbiased view, these people are burning our tax funds. I don’t have any immigrant friends or relatives, so I’m efficiency “for the win”.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animals have no sense of reasoning, therefore incapable of sustaining rights. However humans have unquestionable dominance over animals, and for power is always vexed by responsibility, humans are accountable for determining proper regulations over the lower species. Just as eating animals is okay and also a necessity, animal research should be acceptable. Nonetheless, chaining animals everyday until production d-day is considered over-extortion riling up PETA and other animal lovers. Animal research must have boundaries too such as providing a healthy environment for the animals.

PI

1) The ending of the movie Pi glorifies the search for truth in that the intent is laudable but the outcome will always be futile. Like the golden ratio, the search for truth is never-ending, although an individual can near the truth, he will always be very far from the answer. Max's surrender seemed like a waste of time, but the process was effective because Max gave his utmost shot, but he finally realized his best (or any other individual's best) would never be enough to find the secret of life. I actually believe that Max's efforts were purposeful and successful. Not many people can ever achieve close to what Max had achieved with his calculations, and I don't think he is a coward because he shrewdly knew not to continue fighting for something he could never beat in his lifetime.

2) The film maker shows that subjective truth can never collide with objective truth. Although objective truth may exist somewhere in the quandaries of the Earth, a human mind is shown to be incapable in tapping in to the realm of the absolute, similar to the absurdist beliefs that the pursuit for truth is forlorn. It seems defeatist, but rather it can be rationally seen as a barren ideal.

3) The movie delves in to the seemingly unworkable concept that math can be beautiful. However the film maker achieves his intent successfully by revealing the mathematical patterns visible in the natural world which vies to be amazing to the extent of aesthetic appeal. The consistency of a line of ants or the perfectly calculated patterns of a black and white pieces on a Go board was shown to be beautiful. When the Go board exhibited the golden ratio, the majority of my classmates gasped because it was attractive.

TOK 4/26/10

1. Possibly Pythagoras defined reality as math because it is the closest idea to absolute truth. The consistency and the objectivity that fashions math contradicts with subjective truth and its emotion-contorted views.

Maybe he just simply perceived reality to revolve around math and numbers. Such as the patterns in everyday life and nature, like planet rotations and birthdays.

2. I am slightly reluctant to accept the mathmatician's claims, because I still need to know more about math in reality to firmly believe underneath it all, math is reality. However, math does seem to be resolute in nature, considering that there are routine patterns in our everyday lives. Such as the use of math in scientific ideas like seasonal patterns, and temperaments predicted by date of birth.

One thing scientists say is that women with waist-size 60-80% of their hips are by calculation the most beautiful in proportion. Among millions of subjective people, one is bound to find the 60-80 proportion unsightly. Math can be reality to a certain extent, but math can never reign over the realm of opinions or emotions.

3. Math is discovered because if no emotions are involved creativity is not involved. There is an underlying notion of math in nature and in the world that leads mathmaticians to discover a theorum. However it takes an alert mind and receptive logic to actually formulate a complex theorum such as quadratic formula (baffling for me).

4. Well if a student is to enter a prestigious academy of math they should know geometry. I agree completely with Plato.

5. Plato may have taught reality to his math students. The logical students branched off by discovering formulas for themselves.

6. Immanuel Kant stated that humans are limited in knowledge, and only have access to the realm of math and science. He probably believed this because people can not have access to metaphysics, which is like getting access to the absolute truth. He stated that people are constrained by what can be experienced, and metaphysical experiences, beyond the natural world, is practically impossible.

7. Frege deals with the language ways of knowing because his major was semantics.

A) “Subtract B from both sides” – You can’t subtract random numbers from each other.

B) The hole comes from strange configurations.

C) Miss Miranda can take the apple.

No D

E) It can be done by ordering them by 29.

F) It is simple if the connections go around the whole picture.

G) It has to be 6 because 4 X 4 is 16.

H) 7 Regions?

20-April-10 HMW: Mathematical Knowledge

1. How might the misleading information slant a reader's perspective (if the reader is not careful)? http://googleearthdesign.blogspot.com/2008/10/misleading-graph-bbc-on-house-prices.html//////// The misleading information is a very subtle tactic or mistake concocted by BBC. The simple, yet devious change of size would have definitely been crafted to make the searing information slightly less dreadful. However the significance is minimal (from what I assumed), because the downfall is very sharp anyways. If the news station deliberately intended to mislead readers, they may have had harmless intentions to regain the hopes of the nation.
2. Why might someone want to slant information on purpose? As the smartest living creatures on Earth with a fathomless emotional capacity, humans have an expansive inherent drive, mainly the desire for success, love, truth, and pleasure. With these compelling emotions, humans have many reasons why they would deceive others to gain what they want; drives such as purely capitalist motives or even purely self-empowering intentions.
3. What can you do to protect yourself from purposeful (agenda-driven) misinformation?The most one can do is be fully aware of the different techniques that people can utilize to promote indirect propagandas. Through online exercises, one can learn to view graphs in a more adept and alert manner. Other techniques that one can follow, is rationally questioning the motives of politicians; instead of being gullible and pervious to all persuasions. These skills of identifying propagandas are typically inborn or learned through maturation, however after thoroughly reading hints on defending oneself from agenda-driven information, one can learn to be less oblivious.

16-4-10 HmW: Freakonomics

What might the authors' research into statistics and names suggest about social standing and advancement? Howtrue are their findings (ie: if I have a rare name, does that mean I will become a criminal?)?

The authors of the articles propose an interesting inquiry; is life determined by one's name? With many references to the siblings, Winner and Loser, people dispute that names may determine lifestyle of the nameholder. Ironically, Loser procured a lucrative carreer as a detective, and Winner was incarcerated numerous times and was liable to a police track record.

The evidence alone can not determine the conclusion of the question, but there are many other interesting observations proposed by others. Another freakonomics reader mentioned the racial differences when determining names. The prospects of African girls receiving unique "non-white" names were increasingly common, with more than 50% chance of having a quintessential African monikers, such as Laquisha. African children that received these names were typically given by their single teen mothers of a destitute community. This observation may direct the question in to a more coherent direction, considering that because people who receive un-white names tend to be Africans born in to impoverished circumstances that does raise higher chance of becoming criminals. The idea can be succinctly summed up with the author's final quotes, "DeShawn's name is an indicator—but not a cause—of his life path."

Although Loser and Winner's profile is very limited; it is apparent that Loser may have tried harder in life than Winner. Loser had to earn enough respect through his actions to cover the damage of his name. Winner already seemed to be a success; to anyone who saw his name only. Although names may direct the person in to a certain direction, each person does have an underlying identity that can control whether or not if they will choose to follow the path led by their name.

But the prospects of a person with an interesting name to become a criminal was high, mainly because many of these people were born in to a disadvantaged lifestyle, which does raise the likelihood of becoming a criminal.

14-April-10 HMW: Mathematical Knowledge

2a. Should deductive reasoning be used to determine how smart someone is? Why or why not?

Honed deductive reasoning skills are highly practical because they offer certainty in life. However a test that measures knowledge through a deductive reasoning test seems alot like inductive reasoning. The test begins with a subject too specific, omitting the muti-facetted amplitude of an individual's brain. Knowledge breeds too broad a scope to be analyzed through a narrow peephole.

A deductive reasoning test should stick to testing the deductive aptitude of a person, not the sum up of the person's mental capacity. Many times a person's IQ is determined through a deduction test, and it is mainly because people believe that because deduction is so efficient, the test would be very reliable itself.

Another aspect of deductive reasoning tests that limits the accuracy of the techniques is how there usually is a time constriction. Each person grasps ideas and solves problems differently, but time should not determine whether the person is more intellectually capable. For example, Thomas Edison vied for creating the first light bulb, and he did, after countless years of scrapping and re-scrapping his work. After he created the light bulb, the world thanked him for the ground-breaking innovation; unconditional of the years it took him. It was not the fastest, smartest student in Edison's class that created the lightbulb, but it was Edison; the child that was kicked out of class because teachers thought he was "annoying and incapable".

Deductive reasoning can easily be referred to as the highest frame of knowledge, but it is something that can not determine the complete make-up of a person's knowledge. Without imagination and inspiration, deductive reasoning is nothing more than a cold and endless game of calculations.

2b. Can math be beautiful? What is the most beautiful thing about math?

One of the few rare times I heard that math was beautiful was in a TV show when a character on the show disclosed a pedantic speech on education stating, "Math is beautiful beacuse it can be understood by all languages." The beauty of math is solely depicted by perception. Math can be highly attractive to a girl with OCD because of the precision and organization that math supplements. Math can be beautiful to a precocious child who relates theorums with the missing pieces in his life.

To me, math is beautiful because of the remarkable outcomes people fulfill through their advanced rendering of math. I'm always curious to understand how buildings can be so perfectly symetrical without flaws, or how images can be transported throughout the world with the correct use of powerlines, or even today, through a wireless "portal". Amazingly, these innovations began as a simple idea, which evolved in to innumerable calculations and logistics, succeeded by the ideas advancing into the physical world. Overall the most beautiful feature about math is how people can apply it in to reality, like synthetic a priori.

3a. Is math discovered or invented? Explain your answer.

The axiom that math is rational wholly supports the proposition that math is discovered. The comforting stabilty that math exudes, is derived from the belief that math is not created. Inventions are molded by the perspective of an individual; therefore revealing the disparity between human invention and natural existence. Of the two categories, math has more traits that gravitates towards natural existence.

There are many times people juxtapose math to nature, because math is abstractly fabricated in to reality, similar to the functions of nature. Riemannian's geometry accurately portrays how math is found.

If math was a simple game... theorums would be the puzzle pieces scattered across a table; or less discretely, puzzles that were dispersed throughout the world in the beginning of the universe. Every piece exists but it takes a lot more than existence to correctly position each apparatus in to the big picture of truth. People of all occupations would collaborate to solve different areas of the puzzle. Luckily for the players, each puzzle exists; but sometimes a piece seems to be in the right place but actually inserted incorrectly, like Euclid's postulates.

Generally speaking, math is unearthable, and not spontaneously created by the human mind. However, a symbiotic relationship between human's emotional creativity and natural relativity produces phenomenal physical results, such as architecture and technology.

3b. Does perception play any role in mathematics? How?

Different perceptions allow different mathmaticians to work together to compose more accurate theories. More than a millennium ago, Euclid proposed his 5-main postulates. However in the 19th century, Riemannian utilized Euclid's laws to determine that each concept of Euclid could be disproved using the globe.

Ideas that are compressed by a limited scope can set the foundations for further discovery. Riemannian's geometry may have not been compelled to find a solution for Euclid's law, if it did not exist in the first place. When it comes to math, or other subjects, an infusion of distinctive approaches can cultivate in to a more accurate view of reality, or any other goal.

3c. How is mathematics like a language?

Mathematics can be a language. Theorums can be abstractly related to our lives. It is like a girl calling her best friend her complementary, or even supplementary.

Literally speaking, math can also be a language through coding.

In a (Christian) spiritual sense, it can be seen as a communication from God; at the least Dan Brown thinks so. For the Aztecs, the numbers on calendars and dates are messages from their higher power revealing, revelations upon the Earth.

Thank u for Smoking

In Thank You for Smoking, Nick Naylor takes the role of a powerful spokesperson in the smoking industry. Although his endeavors are far from moral, his charisma allows him to be admired by many, even his own son. Naylor is portrayed as the lovable pragmatic opportunist. He eloquently delivers rhetoricals that cajole the crowd, yet his statements are merely logical fallacies. The public's reaction to his untruth definitely spotlights inconsistency of subjective truth and the human gullibility. Nick Naylor once says, "That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong." This quote disputes the status of truth, and his flexible approach gives him the confidence to spout lies. This question is true when dealing with subjective truth, but not absolute truth.

His ability to "spin" to control his surroundings or atleast not be hated by everyone. He does not use his skill for the greater good, and it's only making him greedier.

To my discretion, Naylor is far from ethical because his intentions are principally mercenary. He can't even convince himself that he speaks the truth. However, I don't think that his job should be illegal, because the government shouldn't take the right to freedom of speech; and besides people should be smart enough to be unperturbed by his words.

1. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words would never hurt me” Whoever stated this quote was probably a robot because it completely disregarded the sensitivity of human emotion. I first heard this quote when I was very young and I tried to live by it because I did not want to be troubled by petty words. However, I was still hurt and I felt childish because I could not get over the hurtful words. I later learned that it was not just me but every other person who were affected, even traumatized by words. Words have a lasting affect whether it affects our conscious and unconscious mind and strike our insecurities whenever we are depressed. Sharp criticisms seem to reappear everytime one looks in the mirror, has nightmares, or experiences failure. The reason being is that words have the ability to create an illusion or even reveal harsh reality.

2. Political correctness has its good qualities yet people fear that government is now going too far with restriction laws. The anti-PC movement advocates see political correctness as a government’s radical plight with censorship. Several writers complain that PC movement is very biased and also a product of bitterness; they believe that political correctness is sympathetic towards the minority but apathetic towards the majority. They also believe that PC movement should not be supported because the oppressed minorities are rancorously supporting the PC movement to take revenge against the majority for past injustices. There are also satires that were created that showed that stories would be completely altered if the political correctness movement went slightly farther.

Despite the opposition, there are still people who believe that this movement is not flawed and believe it is necessary for social and moral improvement. The supporters of the PC movement believe that the majority must pay their toll for their past unjustness. Some also support it to repress racism and terms that anger the minority.