dessskris Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I guess I am one of the few people who are doing this title.My AOKs are obviously Ethics and Mathematics. From my understanding of the prescribed title, I guess it means that there are a few different methods that can justify one thing (a statement, a theory, a concept) in ethics&math, and the conclusion that we can reach in ethics is as well supported as a conclusion in math.I think conclusions in math are very well supported as it is not biased nor vague and mathematical proofs are very valid especially if there are more than one proofs. However in ethics even if we have so many proofs, that conclusion can still be refuted or rejected or be invalid.My question is what do they mean by 'different methods of justification'? Does it mean the different ways of knowing (reason, emotion, sense perception, language) or can it be one WOK but different ways (e.g. reason, but there are different reasons)?And in math, what is the WOK? Are mathematical proofs reasons? Or language?Thank you. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nametaken Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Wow....you've started your TOK essay already? We haven't.......I thinnk the way of knowing in Maths is reason. A proof may be a reason why something in maths works, and how it came to be. Your question is very interesting, you have to bear in mind that Maths is only perfect when applied to its own field. It is not a technique that can be used to study the human being, his psyche or his emotions. This is because humans are such volatile beings, so susceptible to change and transformation that one cannot possibly hope to establish any sort of general rule regarding human behaviour. Maths is linked to art, perception as well. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted February 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 But it's not so related to the title is it? Yes we've started the TOK course since quarter one and we started writing the essay outline last december but now I am changing title so I need to go back to square one Wait, the 'different methods of justification' confuses me again. What do they mean by 'different'? Do they mean in ethics there are various methods of justification and in math there are also various methods of justification? Or do they mean the method of justification in ethics is different with the method of justification in math, and there may be only one method of justification in each AOK?Also what do they mean by 'well supported'? Does it simply mean it has many evidences? Can a conclusion be well supported yet is not true? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nametaken Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 But it's not so related to the title is it? Yes we've started the TOK course since quarter one and we started writing the essay outline last december but now I am changing title so I need to go back to square one Wait, the 'different methods of justification' confuses me again. What do they mean by 'different'? Do they mean in ethics there are various methods of justification and in math there are also various methods of justification? Or do they mean the method of justification in ethics is different with the method of justification in math, and there may be only one method of justification in each AOK?Also what do they mean by 'well supported'? Does it simply mean it has many evidences? Can a conclusion be well supported yet is not true?I think by using the word, 'as' the question is saying that there are different methods of justification in both ethics and maths, and that's definitely true. In maths there are different ways of proving a solution, while in ethics the methods of justification can vary as well. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Posted February 25, 2011 Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 A few basic ideas which I think you ought to cover in the essay and the structure to get started...1) what makes the conclusions of mathematics well supported?In other words, "how do we know" things in Maths -- and what properties of the way in which we've acquired Mathematical knowledge make us feel like it's well-supported? Where does our Mathematical knowledge come from? Can it be acquired through ways of knowing other than reason? What properties of the reasoning process give us so much confidence that we say things are 'well-supported'? etc.2) how do the properties of Maths that make us feel it is 'well-supported' knowledge apply to the ways we gain knowledge in ethics?Also a chance to examine the ways in which we reach conclusions in ethics via different methods of justification - for instance, Utilitarian ethics or Kantian ethics might be decent systems to look at.3) evaluative: to what extent do they overlap, can we reach conclusions in ethics at all (?) and are they as well supported as those in maths? 3 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nur Nadhirah Posted February 26, 2011 Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 I was thinking about doing this question too Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpgovind Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 I guess I am one of the few people who are doing this title.My AOKs are obviously Ethics and Mathematics. From my understanding of the prescribed title, I guess it means that there are a few different methods that can justify one thing (a statement, a theory, a concept) in ethics&math, and the conclusion that we can reach in ethics is as well supported as a conclusion in math.I think conclusions in math are very well supported as it is not biased nor vague and mathematical proofs are very valid especially if there are more than one proofs. However in ethics even if we have so many proofs, that conclusion can still be refuted or rejected or be invalid.My question is what do they mean by 'different methods of justification'? Does it mean the different ways of knowing (reason, emotion, sense perception, language) or can it be one WOK but different ways (e.g. reason, but there are different reasons)?And in math, what is the WOK? Are mathematical proofs reasons? Or language?Thank you.Hey,The four methods of justification (as identified by Michael Woolman) are: justifying through logic, justifying using empiricism, justifying using memory and justifying with a reference of authority. If you are confused with these, I highly recommend reading Michael Woolman's 'Ways of Knowing' TOK book. It's our textbook and has served us well.You might also want to mention that different areas of knowledge use different proportions of each way of knowing to justify knowledge claims =D Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tum_tum_tree Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) Hi there! I'm doing this title as well. I think one of the major things we need to define in order to decide to what extent we agree with the statement is how we understand the phrase "well-supported". Does this mean that conclusions are universal/supported by empirical evidence/applicable to real-life situations/logical? I think it is how we personally define this which will shape our argument. Personally, I'm only agreeing with the statement to some extent- I think it is the universality and logic of conclusions provided in mathematics which makes them better supported than conclusions in ethics. Best of luck! Would love to hear from anyone who comes to a different conclusion. Edited June 6, 2011 by tum_tum_tree 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
superNova Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 A few basic ideas which I think you ought to cover in the essay and the structure to get started...1) what makes the conclusions of mathematics well supported?In other words, "how do we know" things in Maths -- and what properties of the way in which we've acquired Mathematical knowledge make us feel like it's well-supported? Where does our Mathematical knowledge come from? Can it be acquired through ways of knowing other than reason? What properties of the reasoning process give us so much confidence that we say things are 'well-supported'? etc.2) how do the properties of Maths that make us feel it is 'well-supported' knowledge apply to the ways we gain knowledge in ethics?Also a chance to examine the ways in which we reach conclusions in ethics via different methods of justification - for instance, Utilitarian ethics or Kantian ethics might be decent systems to look at.3) evaluative: to what extent do they overlap, can we reach conclusions in ethics at all (?) and are they as well supported as those in maths?In my essay so far, I discussed inductive and deductive reasoning, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics and how they relate to mathematics, and the problems with them. I'm only at 700 words! What should I write about next? Or should I get rid of or change some of that^?Any suggestions at all? I'm seriously considering changing my title question...Much appreciated! 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nur Nadhirah Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 In my way of answering this question, I look at the similarities of how ethics and math reached conclusion. Also, by looking how these two are justified. One of the ways of justification in math is by inductive logic If A=B; B=C. Therefore C=A In ethics If hurting people is wrong punching people is hurt. then, punching is wrong. The differences are, Math reaching its conclusion in which does not include emotion. Thus, conclusion achieved in math are solid logic. Ethics mainly include emotion (especially humanity). Ethics approaches are including good over evil. To what extend they are similar? Opinions are much appreciated Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keel Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 In my way of answering this question, I look at the similarities of how ethics and math reached conclusion. Also, by looking how these two are justified. One of the ways of justification in math is by inductive logic If A=B; B=C. Therefore C=A In ethics If hurting people is wrong punching people is hurt. then, punching is wrong. The differences are, Math reaching its conclusion in which does not include emotion. Thus, conclusion achieved in math are solid logic. Ethics mainly include emotion (especially humanity). Ethics approaches are including good over evil. To what extend they are similar? Opinions are much appreciated Hello Nur Nadhirah, I just want to say thank you for sharing a bit of information with everyone before you gave your question. Most people simply dump their question up here and expect someone to give them an answer. You put in the extra effort and I, and I'm sure others will too, really appreciate that. Firstly, the type of reasoning/logic you mentioned is in fact deductive reasoning. Not inductive. Here is a really good website to clarify the differences: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php I really like your emotion approach to differentiate ethics from maths. What you might want to consider as well is the way in which the premises are derived. In your ethics example, "hurting people is wrong" and "punching people will hurt them" are derived through inductive reasoning i.e. they take several observations before a trend can be established. Thus in ethics the premises are derived by inductive reasoning which we then use in deductive reasoning to reach an overall judgment: "punching people is wrong". So how are premises derived in maths? Are they similar? 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranini Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) Hello,what are different methods of justification?are they the WOK's or do they refer to Kantian, Relativism, Utilitarianism, inductive/deductive reasoning?also, my teacher keeps asking about 'knowledge issues'? can anyone give me an example to set me on my way? Edited July 25, 2011 by Keel Merged double post Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR.AHM Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 Hello, I'm thinking of doing the same thingWhat I know is that in mathematics the statements are solidly proved if there starting axioms are correct..I am sure that everyone in their TOK class learned about Euclidean geometry. His statements are solid because the axioms he started with are solid and true and you can't contradict with...I was first thinking about how to determine if something ethical and how can we show it is. First our justification will be related to our culture, religion, emotions etc... and mainly believe...Also bear in mind that in ethics it is justification, in maths it is called proof...anything pops into my mind, I'll share it Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nur Nadhirah Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 Sorry for idling for so long. I've been very busy lately(who doesn't?). Anyhoo, Thank you for correcting me. so basically,Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Whereas Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories(Socialsearchmethods.net). These are my opinions when I read some of the posts,replies Premises that are derived in math in technically achieved. What I mean by technically achieved, is where mathematics are mechanically(also calculatingly) and logically approached. By the word 'technically', we know that mathematics are emotionless. But emotion is one of WOK, so how do we know math when emotion is excluded? is it well supported as ethical issue? What make conclusions obtained in math well-support because of the axioms. Like MR AHM's post. When the starting Axioms are correct, then math is solidly be proved. Also, I believe that the word conclusion used in the question is similar to Knowledge. Axioms are fundamental laws in mathematics that mathematicians claim are self-evident. In addition, Axioms are man made. Same as approaches in ethical issues which are man made. Premises achieved in ethics is similar to math in terms of ways of justifying. Whereby, the issues must be treated equally, and must not show favoritism.like When a man trespass a restricted zone. His act is wrong at the start of his trespassing, and his act remains wrong.Regardless of time, age, and his rank in a community. in math, Peano postulates that there are such things as 'numbers'.one of His axioms are 0 is a number. 0 is still a number even after hundreds of years. Because its axioms are true at then start. Then, this "0 is a number" will remain true as time goes by. I know I may be wishing washy in here. Do help me .I like the statement "n ethics it is justification, in maths it is called proof". Do elaborate more on that. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nshblit Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 This is the question, ‘Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well- supported as those provided in mathematics.’ To what extent would you agree?Would anyone like to brainstorm with me on what i would be able to talk about for this TOK question? I understand it is a difficult question that has no "answer" but would be interesting to listen to the opinion of others. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdshjsjasj Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 I'm doing this one too! but i have no idea what to do, i dont really get tok.. i dont even know why i'm commenting.. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaAnemoneEnemy Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yay for #10!Mines seems to be headed in a pretty different direction than most people here though. But that's okay since that will be true of many TOK essays anyways, due to how differently they can be interpreted. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
megailves Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 When a man trespass a restricted zone. His act is wrong at the start of his trespassing, and his act remains wrong.Regardless of time, age, and his rank in a community.But you can also think that if the man trespasses a restricted zone in order to save someone's life, then his good intentions might justify his actions? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abhilasha Bhola Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) I think this is a good resource to get a general idea of what scholars on the topic talk about when it comes to ways of knowing and mathhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Contemporary_schools_of_thought Edited November 10, 2011 by Abhilasha Bhola Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lors_18 Posted November 24, 2011 Report Share Posted November 24, 2011 Hey,The four methods of justification (as identified by Michael Woolman) are: justifying through logic, justifying using empiricism, justifying using memory and justifying with a reference of authority. If you are confused with these, I highly recommend reading Michael Woolman's 'Ways of Knowing' TOK book. It's our textbook and has served us well.You might also want to mention that different areas of knowledge use different proportions of each way of knowing to justify knowledge claims =DI am so glad I came upon your post! I couldn't find online what the methods of justification were, but I can't seem to find what it means to justify with a reference to authority? My first draft is due in a few days so I don't have time to get the book. Could anyone explain that to me please?? Thank you! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.