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.

TOK poem

Individual's Vocation

Pursuit of Reality

Seek Infallibility

discard our Emotional Propensity

for Logical Sequacity

is Ignorance Simplicity

or Moronic Complacency

Logical Fallacies Ad

Some people would watch this Audi commercial and they would think," Whoa Audis are uniquely cool;" some people rebuke the commercial's attempt to make the product look better than Lexus, but every viewer is somewhat aware of the logical fallacies that are consisted in this commercial.
The first fallacies that I noticed were poisoning the well and hasty generalization. The cinnercial hasty generalizes by showing that literally everybody has a Lexus, and it uses poisoning the well by implying that Lexus is for cookie cutters. The advertisers also use fallacies on behalf of them by making the Audi look special. They use spotlight by making a jet black Audi drive by amidst grey/silver Lexuses.They also use appeal to emotion by making only the boy with the Audi happy, unlike the sad kids with Lexuses.

What was I thinking?

In our materialistic world, there are many people secretly battling compulsive shopping. Most people can agree that their sense of reasoning is overshadowed by their fervor for shopping, and once the desire sets in for something they have to get it, despite the cost or utility. After they come back from their shopping spree, reality returns, and they end up returning half of what they splurged on, or atleast wonder what they were thinking. There are countless other situations where reality is dominated by emotions, because unreasonableness is the tragic part of human nature.

In the article, the researcher stated that people are inclined towards FREE, which is very true for almost everybody. Yet there is the timely phrase," Nothing is ever free," which should always be kept in mind. Majority of the times when something is supposedly given for free there is a catch, such as Amazon's Super Shopping Discount which has a requirement of a $25 purchase. This was a ruse devised by sly businessmen, because now careless people are spending several more bucks than the original price with shipping. The exhilaration of receiving something we do not deserve ends up being the trick that leads many people to bankruptcy.

Sometimes it is inconvenience that hinders us from making the right choices. There was a part in the article where they said that less Americans signed up for donor donations, rather than the Swedes who had to sign up to not give donors. Everything becomes a better deal when it is directly given to us; the slightest effort can convince us not to do something.

We try to defend our faulty actions by rationalization, not reason. Our rationalization can make any fallacy sound true. Human's are never consistent, even our logic. Many times our emotions make exceptions for different situations. Even people with tact and control can not always restrain from such unpremeditated desires.

FREE is one of the many words that excites our emotions. Many stores use this strategy by using,"Buy 2 for $40 and get one free," instead of " 3 for $40." This article identifies the "following your heart/gut" problem of human nature. This article shows that people make the wrong choices through impulsive and unreasonable decisions. Spontaneity may be fun, but people should always be fully aware of the consequences.

Logical Fallacies

1. Dicto Simpliciter is an argument based on unqualified generalization: Icecream is tasty, therefore everybody loves icecream.

2. Hasty Generalization is stereotyping: My caucasion friends have nice parents, so all caucasion parents are nice.

3. Post Hoc is generalization due to certain events: Everytime I wear this charm bracelet I get an A on my tests, so as long as I wear this bracelet I will always get As.

4. Contradictory Premises is when two premises contradict each other, therefore no conclusion can be drawn: You said you'll do anything for me, so you have to jump off this bridge for me.

5. Ad Misericordiam is argument that targets emotions: Why should I not go to jail? Because I have a broken leg, my cat just died, and my life already sucks.

6. False Analogy is comparing two events that have no relation with each other: My hamster does not need much attention, so dogs shouldn't be so hard to take care of.

7. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact is to create a false hypothesis, then draw conclusions from it: I am a good friend who made my friends good people. The reason for her transgression is because I am not her friend anymore.

8. Poisoning the Well is attacking a premise to make everybody emotionally veer from it: Don't trust him; I heard he cheated on his girlfriend before.

9. Fallacy of accidents is a generalization that disregards exceptions: America promises freedom, so I can freely beat up that kid.

10. Affirming the consequent is to draw conclusion from premises that do not support the conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q: People are getting sick from swine flu. John is sick. He has swine flu.

11. Denying the antecedent is to draw conclusion from premises that do not support the conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis of P equals Q: Music calms a person down. Sarah is going nuts; she hasn't been listening to music lately.

12. Fallacy of many questions is to group more that one question to form one question: Have you stopped stealing and selling drugs?

13. Appeal to Authority is to believe anything a president says or does: Obama smoked marijuana, so it is okay for everyone to smoke mj.

No to the Truman World

After Truman realizes that he is living in a conspiratory world he does whatever it takes to escape. When he is given the final ultimatum (if he would remain in the Truman Show) he leaves the world without any hesitation. The reason behind his decision was not surprising because Truman's desire for the truth was evident. It was important that Truman left the world because every second he lived in that world he was wasting his life. Truman lived in a world where everything was controlled but him. He was a victim of a social experiment created by his own kind.

While living in the world, the only thing remotely productive that he had done was entertain people with no lives in the real world. Everything was a dead-end for Truman. He worked at a job where his work was useless, and he "loved" a woman who had no intention of ever reciprocating his love. The only positive aspect of living in a false world was that Truman was immune to bankruptcy. The false world did not offer the many perks of the real world: spontaneity, individuality, privacy, authenticity, freedom to explore, and many other factors. A world without any truth has no meaning. Lies are substanceless and meaningless. It is one thing to believe a lie, but it is worse to live a lie. For thirty years, Truman was barred from anything pristine. Without any exception, I think that it was essential for Truman to live in the real world.

Without any doubts I can say that I'd rather live in the world I live in as opposed to Truman's world. Even though it was called the Caroline Show I wouldn't want to live in it. I already hate the feeling that my every move is being judged and watched when I am in public, but the idea that literally every move I make is being scrutinized is very frightening. I hate deception, but living in the show would mean that I would never experience any natural reaction from people. I already fear being mislead by people; I don't want it to be a lifestyle. Truman also does not get what he truly wants while living in that world. He does not get the girl, nor does he get to travel as he wishes, and his dad was also cruelly taken away from him. If I ever choose the artificial world over the real world, the artificial world would atleast have to satisfy my every desire and fantasy. I do not ever want to be confined to anything. The real world isn't that big (in my opinion) but being limited to that small world is so not ambitious.

After defending the real world, my values of truth rose to the surface. If I reflect, honesty has always been valuable to me. I hate deception because it makes it harder to become vulnerable and put trust in things. If we put our trust it things we can rely, and depend upon it, which is a good feeling. Truth also has structure, and people need balance in their lives, because instablity is not good. It is hard to compeltely simplify and rationalize why I value truth, because my value for truth happens so naturally. Other things I value of the real world, that make me not want to live in the Truman world are spontaneity, privacy, and the other things I listed before.

These two worlds are as different as the two sayings," Tell me what I want to here," and, " What do you think, honestly?" From what I have observed most people see what they want to see, and a few people chase the truth. It is hard to explain why truth is so important, but it's the only thing we can depend upon. It is like a spine for the world and it needs to exist, because I don't think people can ever flourish in a world completely comprised with lies.

The Truman Show

As far as I know the real world is the world I am living in right now. Everything I see and believe is real to me, even though they may not be real. I just believe in this world, because if I can't trust my own existence, then there would be nothing to trust. I have to believe in this world or I would not feel secure or have the will to pursue anything. The world I live in right now seems very natural; nothing has happened to me to make me believe that my surroundings are artificial.

Christof said that everything is fine because Truman is content with his life, but it was obvious that Truman was not content at all. He could not get what he wanted, such as his true love; he had no privacy, and he hated being deceived by everyone. His world was insincere; and his true He let his guard down and saw the world as it was presented. The flaw with Christof's speech is that real happiness can never be legitimate without any truth.

Christof also said that Truman would seek the outside world if he really wanted to. Truman accepted the world as it is until he saw his father was alive. At that moment he realized that the things he really wanted was being purposely taken away from him, and he had hope that if he tried hard enough he could find them. As a human, he sought out the truth and to be liberated from all the restrictions. People can be content with an artificial world until they realize that they are being deceived. Truman had no idea he was being deceived until he saw his father (who he thought was dead) being dragged away from him.

Living in a world that has no substance or truth is pointless. Even if Truman's world offered everything to Truman, he probably would have chosen the real world over the false world. I don't think his world was better in any way. He didn't even get what he wanted. People and the TV directors controlled him like a puppet. They used propaganda and people he trusted to convince him to do things the TV crew wanted him to do. They even raised hydrophobia in him and "killed" his father in the process. He had no sense of freedom literally and figuratively. He was being controlled by the people, and he could not even leave the town.

I think that the show was trying to create a parallel with our world and the Truman Show World. The government would be our TV crew. The world we live in may be real, but we might be fighting for something with no substance, such as money. We might just be wasting our time and restricting ourselves from accomplishing anything that we should.

Absolute Truth

I believe that there is a fixed truth in this world. This truth is absolute, and unaffected by bias. It conflicts with opinions and perspective, so these concepts must be seperate. Opinions, bias, perspective, and anything that pertains to this category should not be considered the truth, because they are not consistent. They are just products of our senses, memories, emotions, which is never 100 percent reliable, unlike the truth. Our senses, and relating aspects, are not impervious to deception. Keen perception and discretion may see some parts of the absolute truth, but never everything, nobody is omniscient. If we state that subjective or relative truth is correct than we are saying that everything can be the truth. Lies can be considered the truth, or mind games can be considered the truth. I don't think that anything can be the truth and right. But I am not 100% confident about the absolute truth. The concept that diverts me from the absolute truth is morals. I can not confidently state that the world was created with a certain set of morals. Humans are never sure what is right or wrong, so they rely on their religion to guide them. Our transgressions might be a part of life and is just a natural process that can't be avoided. Morals may be absolute, but if it is, is it Christianity, Buddhist, Muslim, or can it be subjective? I can not fully support absolute truth with a subjective perspective. But I am sure that there is an absolute truth in the world that pertains to "what happened" and "how it happened".

Subjective truth is a belief that whatever an individual believes or thinks is right. It is saying that every ounce of imagination processing in the trillions of people living on this planet is true, and that any lie can be considered the truth. I don't believe that anything can be the truth. At a party, a girl may unknowingly spill a drink on her shirt, but thinks that the boy next to her spilled it. Everybody at the party saw that she spilled the drink, but the girl might refuse to accept what really happened and say that the boy did it. And an example of how it happened, could be gravity. Some people would believe in the theory of relativity, or people could traditionally believe in just Newton's theory, and some may believe something they came up with their own mind. We can't say everything is right. Maybe gravity works partly from the idea of theory of relativity and partly about Newton's theory; maybe it is none of these; the truth of gravity may be a knowledge in the universe that humans have not acquired or established.

Relative truth is the truth that relies on the generation. The concept is similar to subjective, but it relies on a broader perspective. I can not fully believe in the relative truth because of periods of slavery and feminist restraints. Before the 1900s women were not allowed to vote, because men was still seen as our superiors. I can not agree that as a truth it was a justifiable thing to do.

It is difficult for people to decide what is the real truth, because we have been taught countless fallacies and multifolds of opinions. I believe there is an absolute truth in a certain area. I still can not fathom how it can work in every angle, but I am trying to understand what is the truth.

Second-Hand Knowledge

Knowledge is aquired, significantly through communication. The five primary sources are cultural tradition, school, the internet, expert opinion, and the news media. These knowledge sources are achieved through a portal called language, and are second-hand sources. All five of these sources allow us to view the world in a broader perspective, and restrains us from stifling ourselves with only our bias. Although people must be cautious not to fall in to authority worship. We must use our own keen perceptions, and practical judgement to tackle what we choose to accept as true. The things we hear should be backed up with authentic proof.

Cultural tradition is what people are first exposed to when they are infants. Our family, home, and setting influence how we grow up, in our most vulnerable time of our life. When we are babies we are pursuing to create a gateway of communication. Culture is our first foundation, and as we get older we are exposed to it more. It is the key difference between a baby born in Africa, and a baby born in America. Next there is a greater difference between an African baby born in Africa, and a Chinese baby born in America. Then the religion of the family. It is necessary for people to have some culture, and understanding their own roots.

The bad thing about culture is that there are many cultures and each one is built up with biased beliefs and different perspectives. It is easy for people to blindly follow their familie's opinions and habits. People must use their discretion and not allow discrimination from influencing the culture that we live by.

School is also a major source of our knowledge. Everybody is expected to get an education in the majority of the countries. The schools in each area are required to follow a single curricula, making student's education universal. It is good in a way that everybody has the same foundation, and that is fair by giving everyone a chance to be well-informed, and given the opportunity to succeed.

Unfortunately, school is very biased. The textbook is taught by a teacher; both of which are biased. The government also gets involved and has the power to control what is taught in the school; essentially public school. A controversial topic is Darwinism. Evolution is taught as true, but Christianity, and other religions are just taught as ideologies. To avoid getting bad grades, we are forced to comply with something that does not have enough evidence to convice. We are taught supporting evidences of Darwinism, but not taught about the countless evidences that disprove it.

The internet is something that has been influencing our lives very recently. It wasn't decades after 1950 when individuals were introduced to one of the most significant factors of globalization. School may be limited to teaching a specific area, but the internet has the power to teach everybody from around the world. It is a great invention because communication became much simpler, and nearly every answer to our burning questions are at our fingertips.

People with a PhD seem to have more credibility than a person who barely finished high school. People rely on people who had more education because they are tagged to have a broader knowledge of the world. They may have gotten more formal education but these people are biased and make mistakes too. An example was when the Senator Joseph R. McCarthy convinced people that a certain person was a communist spy. He didn't even have authentic evidence, but people believed him and completely ruined the man who was (later found) wrongly accused. We must not quickly believe people with educational degrees or a self-claimed professional because even these people are people. They have selfish desires, wrong intentions, and gain wrong information.

News Media is usually accepted as true. Reporters and news journalists broadcasts things that seem to be controversial or scandalous, to gain viewers. They have the power to hype a certain topic, that may be false or not even important. They could also lessen the importance of something that could hurt their reputation or a person or group the news station supports. A news station may also support a certain political idea, such as liberalism and conseratism. They also limit us because they typically broadcast news in the area. It does have its positive points, such that people are informed on what is going on (even though it may be limited).

Another form of cultural tradion is societal conventions: things we are taught to be true. Because people are social creatures, we are easily influenced by what is constantly taught to us. These societal traditions may not be reasonable, hence it is our duty to utilize our civil rights to change bad traditions. Many people do their best to conform to social-norms and the government. There are many historical evidences of faulty ideologies that people were convinced to believe, such as rascism towards colored people, and women being the subordinates of men. Many people complained about it but still conformed to it, but there were the many advocates, and few innovators that actually took a stand and made the world a more just place.

"Is Google Really Making Us Stupid?"

It is true that Google, and other search engines have made the 21st Centurians lazier. It is another question to ask if it made people stupider. The question that Carr made me think was if convenience correlates with stupidity.

From my experience, I think that the web has made me stupider, in the sense that I can't concentrate anymore. I'm sure that this problem relates to almost all of my peers. We still have our childhood to rely on our concentration, but it is likely that the next generation would be exposed to internet much earlier.

People are highly influenced by what they see or read. Many people believe in what they read, whether it is a book, or a web article. But it much easier for deceivers to put a lie on the internet. The internet gives up-to-date knowledge to the individuals, but there are also many fallacies circulating on the internet. Information on sites like WIkipedia can be completely wrong, but people are vulnerable to believe them. People are gullible, and the web is lurking with predators who want trick them.

The two obvious problems derived from internet, is lack of concentration and being prone to misleading information. I am still very hesitant in believing that Google has made me stupider, because it has introduced me to many things I would have never known or read, if it wasn't for the internet. Because of the internet, I am partially aware of what is going on, because of Yahoo News headlines. And all the correct information given on the internet has really helped me. When I am concerned of my health I read several articles on how to stay healthy and lose weight. If I have a burning question that is bugging me, I can later look it up on the internet. It is hard to say that this information station has made me stupider. It just made me lazier. I do read full-length articles online, and reading online makes me love reading books more. Although I can hardly get to reading, because I'm on the internet, the internet has made me learn to aprecciate books. I go back to a book, feeling that it is more hands-on then the internet. Sites like dictionary.com has taught me a substantial amount of vocabulary words, and I know I that it has not misleaded me.

Overall, I can't agree with Carr's statement, but I do agree with him on the idea that Google has made the world so much lazier.

Things We Think We Know Reflection

Stereotypying is in our blood. It is nearly impossible to go a day without judging something or someone. It is almost essential, because everybody really enjoys sterotyping and people tend to bond through criticism. This article talks about illogical conclusions derived from being prejudice, it also specifies the rascism of people in the country. Many countries stereotype Americans to be fat, classless simpletons, but that is slightly true. America may win an award for breeding the most obese people, but these people make up less than 1/3 of the country. It is evident that almost every other caucasion country views America very lowly, stereotyping but technically true.

Many Europeans who haven't been to America see Americans as either cowboys or fat people. These people hear from outside sources about America and they believe everything they hear. They haven't been to America for themselves, so they base their thoughts on the media, school, and communication. The idea that Americans are all cowboys, or fat, is a well-known myth. It is a myth that became the truth to the majority of the Europeans. I've gained the bias that Europeans and Australians don't like Americans, because of different factors. One of the determining factors was the article: "Think We Think We Know" and another was my interaction with an Australian. I've had an Australian penpal named Toby since I was in middle school. He complained to me about Americans like I wasn't an American. It was very interesting that he got those biases when I was the first American person he talked to and the fact that he had never left his country.

The last sentence of the article says that the man did not know anything about Germany, after he came back from touring the country. It is hard to imagine a world where all answers were like that. That answer killed the mood where the conversation was headed towards. Without discrimination, there would be a lot more awkward silences. But I think exchanging discrimation for peace and unity is a good deal (it is just an ideal).

As I was reading the article, I started to remember my many encounters with discrimination. In public school there were a group of students (of Mexican descent) who sat around me. I never talked to them but they would always joke about how I was Asian. Before they heard me talk they assumed that I would be nerdy, shy, and lame. I was annoyed by them but it was hypocritical of me because I quickly assumed that they were crude and ghetto. People are typically shallow and have the problem of easily accepting popular belief. People can also gain a bias through experiences and emotions. The kids who sat around me may have been prejudiced against me because they may have had a bad experience with a certain Asian person. Those bad emotions can carry onto further encounters with other Asian people.

Truth v Truth

I believe that to a certain extent there is truth. The two truths that I am aware of is The Truth and my truth. The Truth is everything that can be logically justified. The Truth is not anything emotional, and is not made up of any biasses. However my truth is different; it can be partial and it is different for each individual. The Truth may be pristine but my truth is consisted of countless fallacies. My truth is in the complete possession of the individual and it is built up with what the person knows and believes. My truth is very ambiguous and also has many errors. People easily believe what they hear, and it becomes part of their my truth. The fallacies that they hold true can not be the Truth. The problem with truth is that it has a domino effect. If somebody lies and it becomes a rumor that everyone believes, everyone will hold a faulty my truth. Parts of my truth can also be considered the Truth. Many truths can be lost in time, if they aren't recorded. Some of my truth can be the Truth but the majority is biased so it can't be considered the Truth. The reason why biasses can not be considered the truth is because it can not be factual.

The catch of Truth is that nobody really knows what is the Truth. Nobody is 100% sure of anything they haven't experienced. The people who claim to wholeheartedly hold onto a belief can easily feel doubts, if adequately convinced by another. Because people are not omniscient, we must rely on our faith and outside sources to decide what is considered their my truth.

The Truth is truly complex and the knowledge that people have acquired of all truths is very infinitesimal. There are many truths that haven't been discovered, or not accepted to be true. People can only know the truth that is taught to us, or that we have seen. But the things we have seen is an insignificant amount.

These two types of truths are easily confused. It is important to differentiate the Truth and a faulty my truth. Many times we have no access to the real truth but we are given the ability to deliberate and rationalize. There are complications between people; everybody has their own set of my truths. If everybody knew the Truth, disagreement would surely be ceased.

Tree Philosophy/Origin of Knowledge

A certain philosopher inquired," If a tree falls in a forest, nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" Academically speaking, the answer could be either yes and no, it is just a matter of interpretation. According to dictionary.com, there is a multifold of definitions for sound; there are two definitions that directly satiates the query, of which are," 1. The sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium; 5.any auditory effect; any audible vibrational disturbance." The first one would support the answer, yes, because if a tree falls in a forest, a vibration is exerted. However the fifth one can consolidate for the answer, no, because it states that sound is something that is heard. Emotionally, when I hear this question, I automatically say YES. I was thinking of the idea of definition 1 but I did not know how to express in words because I didn't understand the scientific reasoning of it and the determined meaning of sound. The questions we ask ourselves are shaped by language, which was just created over time by a human being. The knowledge that we stir up by ourselves is not considered reliable, people only believe us if there is an actual definition or theory. Because humans are social creatures, our way of expression is reshaped by society and education.

There is an unquestionable, perpetual breadth of knowledge that is derived from within which justifies originality and pristine creativity. If people did not own innate, predisposed knowledge there would never be new inventions. People utilize their education to assist their primary knowledge. Knowledge is synthetically formed from both the inside and the outside. However every form of education was created by an instinctive knowledge.