Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
2015 IB TOK Review Web 2
Transcript of 2015 IB TOK Review Web 2
Ways of Knowing
Start with a picture of you!
Continually modify a "knower profile" demonstrating your position regarding each topic for the week. Include your preferences for knowing and areas of knowing, what you think is important, your view on the topics, etc.
Areas of Knowing
You will be assigned a Way of Knowing each week. Write 1 sentence (your name in the title) describing the concept and providing 1 example with a picture next to it.
Areas of Knowing:
Each week, a new AoK will be presented. From your Chapter Notes, develop a summary sentence (your name in the title) regarding the Area of Knowledge discussed. Include 1 picture with your statement.
Luis El Srouji
I'd like to think that everything I've experienced is real, and that the sense data I perceive is coming from actual objects. I'd like to think that I can know things outside of my experiences. But like a dream, how can I know that what I'm experiencing really is real. I've had many dreams where after something absolutely shocking and impossible occurs, I still say out loud in the dream "This isn't a dream…" Always relieved to wake up and see that I was wrong, I struggle to determine if what I think to be true right now isn't some other misconception of mine.
A question for the philosophy of language: In a conversation of two, is it possible for there to ever be a complete understanding of what the other person is saying? In my opinion, there needs to be an unspoken agreement to bluntly say what they are thinking. This is highly unlikely, though, for fear of hurting the other person. Unfortunately, this still has the chance of being misunderstood, because people have no way of understanding the underlying meaning of what is being said other than through body language. Although body language can be quite useful in deciphering what one is trying to say, this, again, can have a completely opposite meaning to what one actually means.
I take a utilitarian approach to ethics, an area of philosophy I'm very interested in. Because I wish to be in the controversial field of Stem Cell Research, I expect to come across questions regarding human experimentation and the value of human life. For the most part I feel the ends justify the means in terms of medical advancement and will apply this philosophy whenever and wherever possible.
Answer this: To what extent does one actually know something? Based off of Plato's justified true belief, we can get a basic comprehension of a topic. But explain why we go to school and relearn a topic over and over again, but more in depth. Explain why you can stop at a bachelors degree and not continue to a doctors, but state you know the topic. In my eyes, you don't fully understand or know something. Not one living person knows everything on a single matter. Even in history, nobody knows exactly the thoughts or actions one had on why they attacked the enemy, or why they even became the enemy.
The question remains; why is there no answer?
I see philosophy as a puzzle with missing pieces, but as pieces come together, a new image is formed. This new image however adds more missing pieces, leaving philosophers to fill in the missing ones, and the cycle continues.
One day, the knower will break the circle, allowing every aspect to knowing to be seen, leading to a new knower that has just begun to know.
Philosophy often intimidates average thinkers as they attain anxiety to question the very existence of much they knew to be real. While dealing with philosophy head on, the question is posed; what are the common limits placed on philosophy, and with those limits, why do we restrain ourselves from the possibility of attaining such knowledge of uncertainty? Philosophy to me is an educational view of anything and everything in existence. Why not question? Through questioning we achieve a higher understanding of a particular topic and various insights furthering our prior knowledge.
Philosophy is the study of methods taken to understand a situation. The thought process of a person varies from their previous knowledge and experience. The situations are usually basic and simple to answer, but the approaches from different perspectives allows for different answers. The branch of philosophy that interests me the most is the philosophy of language and learning about how cultures and up bringing can influence a person’s interpretation of a situation. i strongly think think that philosophy is matter of opinion; there are various views to a situation and the views are subjected to the perspective of the knower.
A question for philosophy of religion is there any possibility that two people would have different views of the same thing in the same religion, when both people have the same information. I think yes, they can have different opinions but it ends up with the same answer for both people, they just looked at it in different views. What i see done is that people argue about the same point, just to get to the same answer from their point of view and not the other.
Philosophy is defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence. With the idea of philosophy we are allowed to question life, and with those questions, new questions are born, and no question is ever fully answered. Throughout my life time, which isn’t very long I constantly question the idea that no one knows the answer to and that is, why am I alive? For the most part I’m a happy person, always see the best in things but after reading this book and understanding that maybe there is no meaning to us living, no destination, no last chapter we can reflect on because what if the book of our lives isn’t even being written?
In philosophy everything is somehow connected to who you are as a person and what you believe in. You’re morals, or ethics, comes down to what you know and your belief in religion. Without it, who you are becomes less and less. This is why a question that I really want to study more is “If you compromise the aspects that make you, you, are you still you?” In the book it uses a joke that references this topic in a way. However, it only discussed the superficial characteristics of a person. What happens if you decide to modify your morals to act like someone else? Are you still you? Or are you only the person you want to be?
Are there really questions all the way down?
Personally, I struggle to grasp this question. In my eyes, philosophy should be practical. I am interested in the Philosophy of Language because language is the basis of our society. Ranging from body language to misconstrued words, language occurs in our daily lives. While I am interested in other areas of philosophy, and how they meld together with other topics, language strikes me as the most interesting. I look forward to plunging into philosophy and bettering myself as a knower.
For years I have actually been a part of a center/organization that specializes in this kind of teaching. Not so much it's knowledge based aspects, but its focus on the mind and what power it holds to be able to connect with others and our environments. In other words, I see this philosophy in a more religious way. Relative to quantum physics, I believe that what you choose to notice, is what you end up concentrating on as a whole. You don't get what you pray for. You get what you pray from, and that holds way more weight than you may realize. Our choices and thought processes are based on previous experiences and what we are currently focusing on. If we know not of something, we think naught of it...... It makes me wonder: Why does society hold a dogma of what you should and should not do to keep from "awkwardness?" What if we chose to be more accepting of others?
I'm very interested in expanding what I currently know and then applying to my alternative teaching in philosophy. Especially on the topic of religion.
Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge. More so based around what we can know, and as to what extent. As our knowledge evolves we begin to prove previous knowledge wrong. So basically our knowledge now are just theories that still have yet to be proven wrong.
Ad Miscericordium is the use of an irrelevant or highly exaggerated statement. This can be seen a lot in debates when one side has nothing to say.
Jared Cheng: Fallacy of four terms
A fallacy where a syllogism is used with four terms rather than three, sometimes a same term can act as two.
ex: IB is a insane asylum
Students are in IB
Therefore, all students are all schizophrenic.
(the terms are: IB, insane asylum, students, schizophrenia.)
Informal fallacies are errors made in arguments.
Ex: The Straw man Argument.
A: Sun is good.
B: If every day was sunny, there would be no rain, which would lead to droughts and famines.
Deontological Ethics is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. An example is when people have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do without thinking about it, its just a duty to them.
In epistemology, I always wonder why the questions being asked are answered with new questions. Would those questions that resulted from the question that was first asked eventually lead to an exact answer? would it lead to other questions and the patterns that go on and on to the extent that the original questions being asked have been forgotten? We seem to be answering questions everyday even without us being aware using the ways of knowing: reason, emotions, sense perception, and language .
This logical fallacy is when a
person attacks a person directly
instead of that person's argument.
This is the case. An example of this
would be not liking Obama because he
Rational vs. Empirical Thinking
Rational reasoning is a fancier way of saying, "logical thinking," taking step by meticulous step to finding a conclusion to an issue. Validation is achieved through reasoning. Ex: It is raining, there must be black clouds in the sky.
Empirical thinking is the former example's contradiction. Instead of being the validation of reason, it is instead of perception. Instead of taking step by step motions to achieve validation, an empiricist may find out a solution with personal experience or with a visual proof of the answer. Ex: If there are black clouds in the sky it will likely rain.
An informal logical fallacy is when a statement's evidence fails to support its conclusion. An example of an informal logical fallacy is a "red herring", which is used to divert one's attention from the actual situation or problem at hand.
The Laws Of Logic
1. Law of identity
- everything is what it is. "A" is "A"
2. Law Of Contradiction
- "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time
3. law of excluded middle
- "A" is either "A" or not "A"
Deontological Ethics are ethics that are based on the morality of the action, not on the consequences of the action.
In theory a Deontologist would not lie to save another because lying is immoral. As long as the actions are moral, the person is doing the correct action, despite the consequences.
Informal Fallacy, Non Sequitor, in which statements dont follow the principles of logic and reason.
Luis El Srouji
Logic can be sound or valid, or both. To be sound is to have logic function under the laws of logic, whereas to be valid means that the premises are valid.
Reasoning can be inductive, in which repeated observations lead to the creation of theories. Or it can be deductive, in which theories are applied to observations to explain a phenomenon
Language and Ethics:
Language is the base of ethics, we use our choice of language itself to present ideas of ethical stand point to change the acceptability. In science, is it okay to trash a baby embryo because you had to decide one the best of three possible embryos? Vs Is it okay to not use, or to kill a baby embryos not being used. The choice of words can change the entire idea behind ethical standpoint. As well as religiously, God spoken. Ethics based off of religion and what is acceptable and not acceptable through the bible and God himself who gave us the language to comprehend the ethics.
An informal fallacy is an argument that does not succeed in supporting the main ground such as a red herring; a distraction from an arguement.
How one obtained his or her morals can not be defined by a single theory.
History is less of the past and more of how historians see and interpret the past and put it into perspective.
History and ToK:
What is emphasized in history lies in familiar paths
and repeating trends. What is started in one society may be because of certain ways of thinking that are a part of the norm of the time. Although some regions may continue their traditions for a while, they are still capable of being subject to change. History and the annals that are recorded for it are all easy to change for that matter. For history to be trusted, an open mind is needed.
history is basically events that has been exaggerated over the years by so many people, that you don't even know what exactly happened. History has been told in so many ways that we are not sure what exactly happened. Its based on opinions and how people want things to happen or should of happened. It also depends on how people justify different events based on what they know and what they don't.
History refers to the study of the past, not to the past itself. Since our interaction with the past is different from one thought to another, history is constantly being updated. Revisions of historical events are to clarify the events. History varies because it is how the historians interpret the sources.
History is the study of past events
from an analytical perspective and
trying to eliminate bias or understand
that there is some bias in what is being presented.
History and Ethics
We see in history that an event is not permanently "moral" or "justified". As cultural norms and views are altered, the idea of what is "justified" war is also altered. This can make the ethicality of an action a large debate for future societies even if the action is considered necessary today.
Luis El Srouji
History is the study of the past. History can be influenced by the writer. There are so many perspectives in the world that history can never be recorded perfectly. Bias lies within the agenda of the writer. History is also affected by the information available. There will be more information on a past topic, yet there may be less primary sources as well.
THE HISTORICAL METHOD
1. Human Sources: ie Relics
2. any source may be corrupted
3. proximity in time adds accuracy to an account
4. primary > secondary in terms of value of sources
5. independent sources increase credibility
6. Sources are created with bias. Supplement it with "opposite" motivations
7. Less direct interest of witness or source increases credibility
History: Gryzik, Makayla
History is.. history. It is the past in present form text for educational purposes only. We often learn more from the same event throughout school due to the restrictions on younger students. In other words, we are lied to throughout our school years and who is to say which really is the truth? Is the elementary school restricted history book published incorrectly? or the high school and possibly college text incorrect? who is to say any of it is correct at all due to bias points of views from people who may not of even been there. Since it is in the past we have absolutely no way of checking if the event is valid or invalid in the slightest way.
One thing that has really been
very interesting to me is ethics base d
off culture. I wonder why a lot of the rules and what is right from wrong is are from the West. Ethics involves the reasoning of the right/ wrong conduct.
Language and Ethics
language is the basis of most ways of knowing, ethics included. without language, how is one to determine what their ethical viewpoint is, and to develop a further understanding of their beliefs. thats not to say, however, that one cannot have a belief without language. this is possible, however, to grasp a firm ethical viewpoint you must take into consideration others viewpoints as well, through language.
History; Makinsy Gryzik
History is defined as the study of the past. now, looking at history from a TOK standpoint, a few questions begin to emerge. Questions such as, how reliable is history? This is probably one of the most controversial topics throughout history. How much do you really question history?
Natural science can be regarded as a method and an area of knowledge-it focuses on predictions made of the universe based on observation. the branches of natural sciences include astronomy, earth science, life science, chemistry, and physics; they follow the scientific method to attempt to describe the physical world.
Luis El Srouji
The natural sciences use a reductionist way of thinking to describe and attempt to explain the complex systems we observe in the natural world.
Perscribed Title: "Discuss the ways in which value judgments should and should not be used in different Areas of
In the natural sciences there is a dependence on observation and proof, and so it is considered "bad science" when subjective observation is used.
Luis El Srouji
Stanley Milgram Experiment:
In an experiment designed to investigate obedience adult males were recruited and told that they were to flip a switch and administer a shock each time another male were to make a mistake matching words he was to learn. The test taker was really an actor pretending to take the shocks which ranged from 15V (painful but harmless) to 450V (lethal). If they were hesitant to administer the shock they were told 4 phrases going from "please continue" to "you have no other choice but to continue." All the participants complied up to 300V and 65% went all the way to 450V.
Natural sciences concerned understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. The natural sciences allow us to explore the foundations or our world and health. To delve into the natural sciences, communication, ethics, and the scientific method are necessary.
"Natural sciences are what we study in school
such as chemistry, physics, biology, and so many
more. There are so many natural sciences that can be applied to a variety of interests and they try to help us understand the way the world works
“There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?"
The Milgram Shock experiment
is basically when an authority figure
told the participants to shock an
innocent person seeing how far the
participants would actually listen
to this authoirty figure. The purpose
was to see how far a person would
listen to an authority figure. It has
ethical problems because the
participants sufferemed extreme
Human science is a framework of knowing, categorizing, and analyzing of human behavior to predict and possible correction. There are different methods in approaching studying human behaviors- quantitative and qualitative data, naturalism and interpretive.
Holism: All parts contribute to
the whole. Also known as
reductionist model . It basically
states that all parts work together
to define the whole and that the
whole defines all parts.
1. Act with skill and care , keep skills up to date
2. Prevent corrupt practice
3. respect and acknowledge the work of of other scientist
4. ensure that research is justified and lawful
5. minimize impacts on living things
6. discuss issues science raises for society
7. do not mislead; present evidence honestly
Natural sciences deal with the ideas of many other sciences, mostly with physics, chemistry and biology. Natural sciences also deal with the transformations of energy and matter as well as the interrelations.
Human sciences focus on the study of humanities and social sciences but also goes in depth with psychology and mathematics such as demography, criminology and more. Human sciences relies more on empirical observations and in comparison to natural sciences is less strict about observations.
Natural Science :
Natural science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding the nature of how things work on their own. For example when a plant grows, it is natural science because it happens on its own, it just needs ater in order for it to grow.
human science corresponds to society and humans themselves. it studies the way they act upon different situations and how they react to different things that happen around them. Human sciences is also when it is hard core human studying of their actions, body language, reactions and everything that they do based on the situation they are in.
This is Jared's Corner
Post in it or else
Jared Cheng Natural Sciences
Natural Science is basically all of the stuff that is physical, no abstract analysis of the eternity nonsense the IB likes to shove down everyone's throats.
Title: Evaluate and put your tears and blood in this one quotation "Science is a big portion to all knowledge as it can be a way and area of knowing."
Jared Cheng Human Science:
So basically a teacher split her classroom (of tiny ones) into a group of blue eyes and brown eyes. She would tell one group that the other eye color is inferior and the tiny ones would treat the others as inferior. She then did the same with the other group and the same result occurred.
The purpose was to show discrimination, but the ethical problems that existed put the tiny ones into a low self-esteem that could be harmful to development.
Deontological ethics is the idea that people do the right thing because it is normal or a "rule". An example of this would be when people obey the law as it is an automatic response.
Natural sciences pertains to the common laws of nature. These laws include subjects such as physics, biology or chemistry. An example of a natural science would be gravity. Gravity works as a law of physics and the natural world around us.
Well this class seems rather promising, as I am rather interested in epistemology. More specifically, I'd like to get to study the foundation of knowledge and learn how to create more sound and valid arguments. The question I guess I'll pose is "Are there types of knowing that are absolute and not relative to a perspective?" This catches my attention because It seems weird to think that there are things in are world that are super true. I've always tried looking at things from different angles. Who am I kidding? I'm writing this at the end of first semester, I think this is what I thought.
Hussain, Troy: Consequentialist Ethics
Consequentialism says that if the end result is morally correct, the all actions taken to reach it are justified. "The end justifies the means"
For example if I were to kill all the islams in the world, my actions would be just. Although I had to kill a ton of people, I would have saved the world from mooslims.
Human sciences are categorized as any humans reactions, thoughts, feelings and physiological part of a human. The study of humans brings the observation form of the unknown. Since a humans actions can be predicted but not their thoughts. Human sciences are observed from the past and the present. This gives an area of knowing due to the broad knowledge of the human. i.e. How they are predicted, why they did what they did, was it them or something biological or mental driving them to do it, etc.
History is the study of past events. Many often misunderstand this AOK, believing it is just a recollection of the past. Rather, historical knowing focuses on using knowledge gained from significant past events and applying the to a current situation. The validity of historical knowledge can be analyzed through historiography.
There is actually a little debate over whether the NS are methods of knowing or ares of knowing. Regardless, as the IB considers it a AOK, is any type of science that deals with our physical world (i.e. Chem, Bio, Phys). Its pretty much everything we consider science except tech and studies of the mind.
History is the study of the past. Within history there can be several biases. The historian can write about certain events that only pertain to certain areas. One example of this would be the civil war. In the south the civil war is seen very differently than it is in the north.
The human sciences are typically defined as the humanities, the social sciences, and psychology. There are debates over whether this is a real science however, as it relies more on empirical observation rather than reasoning as its primary source.
great thanks to theoryofknowledge. net
As a knower I am intrigued by questions regarding knowledge development. I find it interesting how historical knowledge is preserved and embellished - there have been many thinkers in the past and it is strange how societies and cultures value different paradigms and grasp even some of the same fields differently. Who am I kidding? I'm doing this late like Troy.
This specific AOK is interesting in that it is heavily debated whether it is truly a scientific field. Psychology deals with the study of human behavior and requires interpretivist observation and qualitative data. A society's or individual's motive, unless described, may only be assumed and defined within qualitative terms.
History and its nature may be studied extensively. Historiography focuses on the integrity of historical knowledge from particular sources and the very design of history during varying periods. Recorded history may focus on the individual leaders and politics of a nation, the movements and demands of people in society at a time, or paradigm shifts in history (changes of values or development of knowledge). History is typically categorized as cyclical or linear - each is concerned with patterns or trends in history.
Natural sciences are traditional sciences of the physical world - like physics or chemistry. This AOK features quantitative data and testable results, arguably making it a more reliable area for knowledge development. Ways of knowing used in the scientific method are valued by many in Western school of thought.
This features appeal to emotion and pity. Just because a murderer may cry during a trial or justify their actions it is still incorrect that they have murdered someone. In our justice system we would ideally punish all charges equally; yet for most of us personally, we may have appeal to emotions in an argument or debate that yield fallacious beliefs.
Human science is the study of how people interact. It is about human nature and not about the nature of the environment.
Do you see that? Social experiment
Luis El Srouji
There used to be a show titled "Head Games" or something and in that show they were able to make people see a snake in a tree when nothing was there. They used four people and made them approach the tree separately and formed a crowd of people in which some others "saw" the snake. I attempted something similar with my friends at lunch by making a mess on the ground and I had a group of 5 agree they saw a shape. Then we would ask an individual if they also saw the shape; three out of the four people we tested saw the shape. We used quantitative research as we counted the number of successes. We used an behaviorist approach as we simply took their response as if it were honest.
Test Your Awareness: Can you Spot the Pickpocket?
I replicated it on my younger twin siblings (both picked the same wrong person) a neighbor (picked a wrong person) and my parents (in which my dad got right)
I used a case study where I had the participants explain their thoughts during and afterwords. My dad got it right because he knows the basics of thievery and guessed the perpetrator before the crime.
Using Cognitivism is the best school to use in this experiment. By giving a focus in the video and the multiple stimuli of people getting near each other, it is hard to see who exactly is a thief when everyone could be suspects. It is only by seeing ambiguous actions where it brings memories or through more mental processes can the participant spot the thief.
Natural Sciences is one of the six areas of knowlegde that plas a heavy emphasis of the scientific method in discovering our curiousities in the physical world. Natural Science is a broad category that includes specific fields of science: chem, physics...etc.
The "Monster Study" was conducted by the University of Iowa in 1939. The experiment involved 22 orphans and in the study, some children were given positive attention, while others were given negative attention. The purpose of this study was to observe how the children were effected in terms of their performance. The ethics that play in this is the fact that orphans ; kids who do not belong or have have any significance were exploited in this. The children who recieved negative responses reported to having social issues and depression throughout their lives as well as speech problems which is what the children were receiving either compliments or insults. The question raised was whether testing on young people was ethical especially when they were not aware that they were being tested on; and whether or not it is necessary to put people through traumatic experiences just to prove a theory.
Authentic Experiment and Research
Social Survey : Music and Mindset
I decided to do a similar experiment that would work under a limited of time. Also I initially wanted to do something close to the Monster experiment, i wanted to include B.F. Skinner's Behaviorist ideas and concepts such as operant conditioning. I guess the only aspect that i used from the Monster study was the fact that both the subjects/ participants were not aware that they were being studied on and the long time effects afterward. I used the experimental research method for this. So for my experiment, the goal was to train my dog not to pee on the carpet; and not to dig up the carpet. Her bad behavior was responded with negative response by Mother ( yelling/ timeout) and her good behavior was rewarded with treats. The results were that she continued to do more good behavior than bad but she was afraid of Mother because when she saw her, she (Pumpkin) thought she had done something wrong and hid/ hides. To prevent her from digging up the carpet, jalepennnnno pepper were placed in the area. When she approached the area to dig the carpet, she would quickly retreat due to the spicy smell. The aftermath is that she no longer digs up the carpet but is afraid to go near the area where the peppers were.
Luis Hurtado Social Experiment
For my social experiment I worked with Ben and Brandon. We went to the mall and glued money to the floor. We wanted to see how many of the people would attempt to pick up the money and how many would just leave it there and ignore it. Surprisingly 30% of the people attempted to pick up the money and of those people, 100% of those were either emotionally distraught or angered by the fact that they couldn’t pick up the money. This was exactly what we hoped would happened. So to say the least our test was successful.
So this was a pretty basic experiment that just found online, but I found the results to be contrary to what I initially hypothesized, which was interesting. I wanted to see if there was any connection between someone's personality and he type of music they enjoy. The data was gathered different ways. Some of it comes from just observing the people I know, while the rest of it from actual surveys of family and friends. This study was absolutely focused on quantity over quality, as I did not survey any given person for over 2 minutes. I hoped that by simply asking them, I would get a semi accurate read on the data I was looking for (interpretivisitic approach). I found out that the music the people I surveyed listened to was in opposition to the characteristics I assigned them with. Assertive people listened to chill down tempo beat, Really optimistic people liked post-hardcore, ect. I noticed that some of the teachers I enjoy most happened to be fans of more complex genres. In addition, I'm pretty sure that listening to Mr. Morris's music will make you a 133t haxor. I really think I should of interviewed a greater range of different people, because I still think that there would be positive correlation between the characteristics of the music and the person. However, who am I to say that a genre of music is sad, happy, intense, or complex. I guess I have music theory under my belt, but I'm also trying to judge their characteristics from rather shallow knowledge.
noticed that some of the teachers I enjoy most happened to be fans of more complex genres. In addition, I'm pretty sure that listening to Mr. Morris's music will make you a 133t haxor. I really think I should of interviewed a greater range of different people, because I still think that there would be positive correlation between the characteristics of the music and the person. However, who am I to say that a genre of music is sad, happy, intense, or complex. I guess I have music theory under my belt, but I'm also trying to judge their characteristics from rather shallow knowledge.of 5 agree they saw a shape. Then we would ask an individual if they also saw the shape; three out of the four people we tested saw the shape. We used quantitative research as we counted the number of successes. We used an behaviorist approach as we simply took their response as if it were honest.
In response to the false study When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality by Michael J. LaCour1, Donald P. Green2, I wanted to see if people would actually change their minds if persuaded to. In this study it as discovered that all of the data had been forged. The conclusion of the study was highly successful, but it was all fake. I was curious to see if people would change their minds on serious issues with persuasion.
I did not replicate the fake experiment. Instead I created a questionnaire that asked questions regarding gay rights (blood donation), controversy in the military (Drone Program), and conflicts between religion and free speech in the Charlie Hebdo conflict. I gave the basic facts and had the participator give a yes or no answer for the difficult questions. Then I gave them more persuasive information to see if they would change their mind. I asked initial questions to establish the bias of the participator.
link to questions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dK-GbWyYmOahzWZ7ZH5kMBMEjoH0sU7ZnlF-RVXtRzM/edit?usp=sharing
In the end, the majority did not change their minds from their original opinions. From a look at specific biases, people with homosexuals in their families all recognized the discrimination. The majority of the people who had no affiliation with homosexuals did not recognize the discrimination.
People with family in the military were split between yes and no on the Drone Program. In this test half the people changed their minds while the other half did not. Their initial feelings were also split. Far more people not affiliated in the military approved of the Drone Program, and about half of them changed their minds.
In the question regarding Charlie Hebdo, a majority believed it was unjustified and kept their answers. I believe because Charlie Hebdo was the most well known, many had already made up their minds on it, and they did not want to change their minds.
In the understanding of my data I took a naturalist approach. I studied the different influences, and what the people were affiliated to. I did not ask them for their reasoning or thought process. My data is completely based on what they were affiliated with, not their state of mind.
Luis Hurtado Natural Sciences
Natrual sciences is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural occurences. Based on observational and empirical evbidence. There are many overlaps between the natural sciences and human sciences. Today the natural sciences are divided into life sciences and physcial sciences.
Luis Hurtado, Human Sciences
When it came to cloning people believed it couldn't be done. But scientists were able to create a sheep that was an exact match to another sheep. They Named it dolly. Although dolly didn't live long she was enough to prove that such a feat could be pulled off and it wasn't far in the future that we would be able to pull off this type of science. But nothing comes with out controverts, people became angered by the idea and the thoughts of cloning. Fearing what would accompany such a thing. They saw this to be against their religions and saw it as immoral. and in many places it is illegal to attempt anything near cloning.
Natural sciences; Makinsy Gryzik
The natural sciences is very broad in the aspect that it can intertwine with the human sciences. It specifically is a branch of science that deals with the physical world, including our own physiology.
Human sciences; Makinsy Gryzik
Milgrams shocking experiment- subjects were ordered to deliver increasingly strong electrical shocks to another person. 65% of participants were willing to deliver the maximum level of shock even though the person was begging to be released.
Social experiment; Makinsy Gryzik
In this social experiment, the tester attempts to persuade a man to sell his girlfriend for one night for 11,000 dollars, and it works. Surprisingly, so did my experiment. When asked if people would sell their significant others, the answer was of course, no. However, once the parameters were put up, then there was more hesitation and finally acceptance. Over the 25 people I asked, 18 said they would for 10,000 dollars, and 7 said they would not.
I conducted a social experiment based off of people and their perspectives of themselves. First, I watched a video on youtube about a man who asked random individuals if they found themselves attractive. This intrigued me to do the same experiment, but a little different. The difference being that i conducted it over the internet and social media, versus in person. I asked random people off of my friends list, around five or so people. All having different answers. Men seemed to chose no and i had one women say yes. majority said they dont find themselves attractive. may be from the particular individuals or from men themselves.