a.barghuthi Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 I am doing topic 8 for the 2007-2008 topics which is Are some ways of knowing more likely thank others to lead to truth?this question is divided into 2 parts are ways of knowing i.e emotion reason perception and language lead to truth?2. do they lead to truth equally?My intoduction would start something like this Humans are curious species attempting to seek the truth, but the truth is rather different form one to another. ( i would be explaining the question and referring to which ways of knowing i would be using/discussing).in the first paragraph as Lc said i would explain the meaning of truth to me which would be that truth is "what we want to believe"for example one would aske me why do you hate me and i woulf reply i dont hate you i really like you. the truth for this person is that i hate her for she feels a vibe full of hatred reads my body language in a different way from what i intend, she sees me giving her osme uinfriendly looks , but he truth to me is that i like her and i dont hold a grudge towards her ( meaning i dont hate her!)ALso the qoute of "never judge a book by its cover" is rather close to what i ghave referring to before.and Zorae42's quote "Well, I use the example of standing on a boat and looking at an iceberg. All you see is the tip of the iceberg, this does not change the fact that there is a huge portion of the iceberg underwater. But, because you cannot perceive the rest of the iceberg, the only inferences you can make are about the tip. This means that there will probably be inconsistencies in your conclusions and until you can (if you ever can) look under the water and see the whole iceberg, you will never know the whole truth " i found it really to the piont exactlyAnother point is the story of Santa Clause..all the kids believe in it why well because their parents told them that santa exists and we are so emotionally dependant on our parents that emotions take over reason "my dad said it then it is right!"Howver when you frown up and think about the logic behind santa's flying with the slay and deers and jumping on the chimney..then the TRUTH is it doesnt exist. here reasons overlapsLc am I on the right track or am i on another side of the universecan you help me! all ib survival members help!!!and HMS if you could hel then please do Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruan Chun Xian Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 in the first paragraph as Lc said i would explain the meaning of truth to me which would be that truth is "what we want to believe" I think your definition of truth is going to get you into a huge muddle. What is belief then? Are belief "true"? Is there a difference between something being true and a truth? then the TRUTH is it doesnt exist But according to your definition of truth (what we want to believe) then...that truth does exist...(in our mind), because its what we want to believe, so in truth it does......(exist)...but in reality it doesn't... Then again we don't always see reality as truth. See what I mean about getting you into a muddle? You have to have a concise definition that you can use to write your whole essay around that definition. Right now I see your definition of truth being "what we want to believe" a bit thin... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.barghuthi Posted October 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) WoW it is a huge muddle and my T.O.K teacher suggested that definition well What about the same thing i mentioned above but the truth definition would be 'conformity to reality'.So what do you think HMSP.S thanks alot for your help!! Edited October 21, 2007 by a.barghuthi Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 I think your definition of truth is going to get you into a huge muddle. What is belief then? Are belief "true"? Is there a difference between something being true and a truth? But according to your definition of truth (what we want to believe) then...that truth does exist...(in our mind), because its what we want to believe, so in truth it does......(exist)...but in reality it doesn't... ditto, don't get urself answering questions to create more of them, think of a definition of truth that would not lead to another argument, you don't want to go offtopic now do you? As fdor your argument, it does sound quite interesting but not very TOKishly worded. When you write about the exampole of the hate thing you mentioned be sure you mentions that that is a POK in the WOK which is emotion. You haven't really chosed 2 AOKs where you want to discuss truth in. I mean your argument is quite philosophical, but not as TOKish. You might want to consider 2 AOKs and analyse how these WOKs you chose to discuss lead the truth more in these AOKs and what limitations they've created. So look into Aras of knolwedge rather than conventionals lies (meaning the santa example). Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.barghuthi Posted October 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 I am off track and i feel completely lost...what shoul i write as a definition then that wont get me into a muddle? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted October 23, 2007 Report Share Posted October 23, 2007 depends on what you want to argue. You can define truth as "concept which has been proven" (if you want to argue somethign related to the natural sciences in your essay). Really depends on your arguement. it seems as though you don't have one at the moment so think about what you want to argue. Which WOK do you think is more likely to lead to a "truth" then think of what your definition of truth could be. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.barghuthi Posted November 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 I think that i have found it thank you so much Lc but i need your help in the process..Alright i have decided that i wont put a definition for truth but I will that in my essay i will attempt to prove that using combination of ways of knowing one can reach to the truth; however, one might never know the whole truth.I will show how ways of knowing such as perception and reason lead to truth in science and historyAfterward i will mention the limitations of WOK. with examples.In addition in the next paragraph I will write that.. a combination of ways of knowing are required if only to reach a partial truth.However, i need help in how ways of knowing such as perception and reason lead to truth in science and history pls Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIO-AQUA Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Well, as for perception; in sciences it's an integral part into distinguishing facts and proving/disproving truths. For example, science tells us that the leaf of a plant is responsible for its own feeding through photosynthesis. To do this, it has organelles known as chloroplasts that photosynthesize. They absorb all light wavelengths except for the green ones, thus we see the leaves as green since these waves are reflected (basically here Biology and Physics are combined together). We can prove the last part through perception, we see they are green, and through microscopes we can see the chloroplasts and their action. This is one example you can use. Also, as for logic in science, plants always transpire (lose water, similar to our sweat). It is logical to have their stomata (pores in which they lose water and have gases come in and out) on the lower side of the leaf. Why? Because if they were on the upper side, they would be exposed to the sun rays, thus water droplets would easily evaporate and more water would be lost and so on. So this is logic! Also, why does a cactus have spiny leaves while a pine tree has very long and wide leaves? It all depends on the habitat of each plant, so the less the surface area of the leaf, the less it transpires thus the more it can save water. Logic says that and science proves it. In history, one can use perception as in physical evidence such as the archaeologists who rely on this evidence to relate to prehistroic times or previous eras. We hear (perception) about the past, and we are able to think (reason) of it. Not everything historians say is true, and this is why we are bound to use logic. For example, why did WWI take place? It is a FACT that the archduke of Austria (heir to the throne) was shot by a Siberian. However, people PERCEIVE it in different ways. One can argue that one country was responsible for the war while another might agree/disagree. This depends on the way YOU PERCEIVE it. Thus, perception and logic are linked together in this case. Got the message? Hope this has helped. Have a nice day. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.barghuthi Posted December 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 My teacher gave me the green light to start and that is what i am going to do teeheee! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afterglow Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) In history, one can use perception as in physical evidence such as the archaeologists who rely on this evidence to relate to prehistroic times or previous eras. We hear (perception) about the past, and we are able to think (reason) of it. Not everything historians say is true, and this is why we are bound to use logic. For example, why did WWI take place? It is a FACT that the archduke of Austria (heir to the throne) was shot by a Siberian. However, people PERCEIVE it in different ways. One can argue that one country was responsible for the war while another might agree/disagree. This depends on the way YOU PERCEIVE it. Thus, perception and logic are linked together in this case. Got the message? Hope this has helped. Have a nice day. Not to mention all the bias/prejudice that can be found in history as well as the non-scientific method of history (repeat? measure? and etc. Those are used as some sort of universal way of claiming a fact). And for perception, there is a great deal of psychological studies that show when perception decieves. For example, one study in which two different cultural groups percieved a picture differently (one being a tree and basket, another being a window and a pillar) I'm still not sure if I should do this topic. There is so much you can discuss. I have it hard to set apart truth, fact, belief and justified true belief. Oh and of course - problem of induction!! Edited December 3, 2007 by Afterglow Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.barghuthi Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 thanks after glow..i am have mentioned the fact the people percieve things differently but i have not been able to find an example. So thanks ...i have written it the TOK and now i am improving the draft wohoo Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurabs Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 heeeeeelpim doing this question to, and i read all ur posts but i am still confused about perception and talking about it in the sciences, arts ect. i get we all percieve things differently..but how could this lead to thet truth. i am very confused. help Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afterglow Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 heeeeeelpim doing this question to, and i read all ur posts but i am still confused about perception and talking about it in the sciences, arts ect. i get we all percieve things differently..but how could this lead to thet truth. i am very confused. helpThe ultimate question is really - how do we know?We see, we hear, we feel, we smell, we taste. This is where it might come across with it in science. For example, what makes science a science? Well, you have the scientific method that defines a fact and and a major part of the scientific method is observation and measurement. In the arts - well, you see art, the colours and etc. This is VERY brief but the main point is that one of the ways that we know (i.e in the different AOK) is through perception BUT - how can we be sure that all these things that we percieve can be true? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurabs Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 The ultimate question is really - how do we know?We see, we hear, we feel, we smell, we taste. This is where it might come across with it in science. For example, what makes science a science? Well, you have the scientific method that defines a fact and and a major part of the scientific method is observation and measurement. In the arts - well, you see art, the colours and etc. This is VERY brief but the main point is that one of the ways that we know (i.e in the different AOK) is through perception BUT - how can we be sure that all these things that we percieve can be true?yes, i know all of this. but what i am asking is that very question. how do we know that what we percieve is true and that we percieve things differently than others..if we dont know what they percieve to be true?! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.barghuthi Posted January 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 perhaps trial and error in science ...lsn dont confuse urself..just metion how tdo we reach the truth throguh perception and wat is the limitation of perception and so on for the other WOKS! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooga Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) This question is the question that I crossed out immediately upon reading it.It's really vague to the point that you can't even fit the discussion in 3 months' worth of classes. Edited January 13, 2008 by Dooga Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanki_c Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 i'm doing the same topic.. really popular huh? this won't help the marking, i think they tend to be stricter at times on the ones that loads of people are doing. My essay needs serious work, i think i'm stuck on a C. i really just need a B, so i can get two points. But i've been told that i'm trying to do too much in the essay and so i end up touching on a lot of things superficially without going into depth. So basically, i have to attempt to cut some out. I think i've ended up with two arguments which is why it's confused. This post is a bit pointsless, sorry. But basically, i'm structuring mine by way rather than by area, which was the advice given above. My tok teacher says thats okay, unfortunately, his commenting on an essay usually means three words written across the entire essay and that's it. =/ 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.