Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start 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.


ToK Course Presentation

No description

Petra Ekroos

on 21 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of ToK Course Presentation

IB11 TOK "...our knowledge is only a collection of scraps and fragments that we put together into a pleasing design, and often the discovery of one new fragment would cause us to alter utterly the whole design."
-- Morris Bishop To what extent is this true in history and natural sciences? Real life issue The discovery of the wave-particle duality of light Knowledge issue To what extent can we rely on the current paradigm in anything, since it is so fickle to change? - "We have no other choice"
- Organizations and structures
- Still unreliable? constructivism What is a pleasing design?
(emotion based knowledge-construction) We have to have some system to be able to function as a group, a society and/or a species. - Nothing is true everything is permitted "Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks: but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house."
-- Poincaré If something contradicts the current paradigm, it is "false" pros cons - The bricks just get updated to better "materials" and are laid with better mortar Science is becoming more accurate, not actually changing drastically overnight Not everything is known, but is that a valid reason to question all the things we know? Just because we do not know everything, we cannot ignore that we DO know something - and we can use that information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
easy to 'supervise' Aristotle proposed light is disturbance of element air possibility of inaccuracy higher
chances or improving lower Democritus thought that all things in the universe (including light) consisted of particles (light = solar atom) Descartes: "behavior of light could be re-created by modeling wave-like disturbances in a universal medium" Newton: "because light reflects in straight lines, it must be a particle" Hooke and Huygens:
if different speeds at different media, refraction is explaned as medium-dependent propagation of waves learning through own experience
putting pieces together
empirical supported by Young's double-slit experiment how we would like things to be
"makes sense"
Lenin vs. Stalin in history Maxwell destroyed the corpucular (small particle) theory by combining four equations to explain oscillating electric and magnetic fields Also calculated speed of light, which is constant for EM waves As an explanation to the photoelectric effect, Einstein suggested that light consists of packets of energy, photons Light has
- relative mass
- wavelength light both particle AND wave All other theories needed to be revised as well? - de Broglie: matter waves
- probability equations Sources
Full transcript