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.