Mungkin dunia blogger tidak lagi semeriah dulu. Tapi aku tetap setia menulis disini. Dari 2009 hingga kini.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

IB - Theory of knowledge

I just wanna share what my group and I have prepared for TOK presentation on 2012. Its not so good, but we made it just by only a trial. So, I hope it can give some help or maybe hint. Any question, u can email me at, or find me at any link which can be found on the right side of this blog.

Our KI is based on a movie entitled In Time

Theory of knowledge

KI: How does scientific revolution convey the value of human?

Juon (Introduction) : Today we will discuss our knowledge issue which is how does scientific revolution convey the value of human? This KI has been derived from a real life situation which is the invention of genetic engineering which makes human life easier and healthier. Actually, it was trigger from the movie entitle In Time where it is a scene in the movie which stated that the world is no longer the same as before due to the development in genetic engineering. This movie makes us think of various knowledge claims and try to relate it with nowadays situation. The real life situation must be a “real one” so we relate it to the real world, our world. In our world we are well informed with advancement and invention of genetic engineering. Following the history of scientific genetic engineering itself, we are introduce with Dolly, which is the first clone sheep, and then a few years later, in vitro fertilization is developed Robert Edward which is also awarded Nobel prices. So, our real life situation here is cleared, which is the invention and development of genetic engineering. This real life situation which finally make come out with our knowledge issue which we are about to discuss today which is how does scientific revolution convey the value of human?

Yana (Definition) : To make things clear, here I would like to give some brief definitions for some words in our knowledge issues and thus make it clearer and easier to be understand. Scientific revolution-advance in technology

Convey-to portrays

The value of human-the positive value of human

So I restate and rephrase our KI back which is, in what way the advance in technology shows the positive value of human? Before we go further discussing our KI, I would like to brief further on the meaning of the words in our KI. Scientific revolution is a part in natural science which the nature of science subject itself to be obsolete. It keeps changing from day to day according to the condition or the environment. According to the physicist, Thomas Kuhn, scientific revolution is like any other revolution in which one system is replaced, dramatically by another system. The invention of scientific revolution is actually to overcome the flaws in the recent technology. The inventor tried to create something in order to give benefits to the society. Example of scientific revolution is in the evolve of telecommunication. Few years back, we use telephone just for texting and calling, but now with the advancement and the invention of smart phone, everyone can make a video call. Same goes to the medical field, which from traditional surgery to a laser surgery which far more advance and cost less complications. It is undeniable that scientific revolutions have its own purpose and from it, the value of human is conveyed. The scientific revolution does convey the positive value of human but to certain extent. So today, we would like to discuss the way scientific revolution portraying the value of human which we specify just now to the moral value of human.

Juon (First claim) : So, I will like to agree with Yana that the scientific revolution does convey the positive value of human but to certain extent. So how does it convey? So my I will come out with my first claim which is the first way that scientific revolution conveys the value of human is through emotion of the human itself before the scientific research are being done. Emotion of the human here is defined as the emotion of empathy. The empathy of human towards others. Why? Because the human feel empathy to see others suffer from diseases and what-not which these suffer people are unable to cure or cannot be cure perfectly due to imperfection of the recent technology. This emotion of human which is empathy finally lead to invention of new technology in other words it lead to scientific revolution in order to help the suffers. By this invention the flaws in technology is covered and it going towards perfection. We take an example of Wilhelm Conrad, the inventor of radiation therapy. Being expert in physics, he had invented this radiation therapy in order to save patient who are suffer from cancer. From his personal experienced facing a cancer patient lead him to invent something using his knowledge in order to help these patients. He tried to figure out the solution which can give a better life to the majority of the society. He invented the radiation therapy which using radiation to kill cancer instead of using drug which may lead to dangerous effect to human in the past. From the statistic he managed to reduce the amount of dead of cancer patient by 30% in 1896. From this example itself we can see that how emotion leads someone to have empathy followed by curiosity and finally the invention of or act to do something for the community. The feeling of curiosity born after empathy is due to the curiosity of a person on why these recent scientists and technology cannot help people effectively. What are the flaws and imperfection of that recent technology? Thus lead them to invention thus helping orders. Thus, my first claim which is scientific revolution conveys the value of human is through emotion of the human itself before the scientific research are being done.

Dila (counter claim): I agree with Juon saying that scientific revolution conveys the value of human is through emotion of the human itself before the scientific research are being done. However, I would like to say that we cannot say that empathy really convey the moral value of human. This is because, sometimes the emotion of empathy by human itself may goes against the principle of humanity. The principle of humanity here is for human to be good and have the feel of sympathy and empathy towards human and others living organism. Why I am saying so? This is proven by the consequence and the cost that it takes during the process of scientific revolution itself. Human such as scientist, researcher do experiments on animal or other living things in order to find the best result in their investigation that they claims to give benefits to majority of the people. For example, the vivisection, this is a process of using animals for experiment. We take an example of the cancer treatment. The scientists use mice as a tester in their investigation. The mice were injected by the experimental chemicals or being exposed to radiation which cause harm. Almost all of the tested mice are suffering and die due to the experiment. In the United Kingdom, almost 3milions experiment are carried out on animal each year. This is absolutely an ethical issue. These cruel and immoral which portrays the value of heartless, selfish and violence in human is absolutely against the value of human. The scientists here are wrong in which they are only focus on human but they forget that animals also have much right to live as human. So, I would like to say that yet the scientific revolution conveys the value of human through emotion of the human itself before the scientific research are being done but not during the process of scientific revolution itself due to inhumanity been portrays during the process.

Juon (Counter- counter claim) : Yes Dila, you are right saying about the consequence during the scientific revolution which is inhuman as we human, kill animals throughout the process is absolutely against the humanity principle which is for human to be good and have the feel of sympathy and empathy towards human and others living organism. However, it still emotion influence oneself in doing scientific research. The empathy which born from emotion does exist before, during and after the process of scientific revolutions and this is where human have to make a right decision. Yes, we cannot deny that ethical issues have risen but we have set the policy and rules to do this. The Organization for Economic Co-operation,(OECD) and Development which its memberships are almost all country in the world including us Malaysia agree with 3R’s principle which are replacement, reduction and replacement. In facts, the scientific method also in need of these kind of experiment in order to gain objectivity. The scientific method is a process of inductivism whereby observations are made of the world around us, a hypothesis is formed based on these observations, an experiment is created to test the hypothesis, based on the results of the experiment conclusions are drawn from which laws are formed, theories can then be established by relating the specific laws to wider contexts. The importance of the experiment is paramount in the scientific method in that a good experiment must, firstly, have a level of controllability to limit what can adversely influence the accuracy of the results. Secondly, there has to be a quantifiable measure (measurability) to the experiment so that there is a level of accuracy and objectivity to the results. Finally, the experiment must have repeatability in that the experiment could be repeated over and over again to confirm the results of the initial experiment. Thus, with the need of scientific method as well as the 3R’s principle which allows human to perform experiment on animals. The scientists are allows to perform experiment on animals in some condition that they must preserve the animal, minimum the amount of usage without compromising the objectives of the project, as well improvements to procedures and husbandry which minimise actual or potential pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm and improve animal welfare

Yana (Claim 2): I agree with Juon saying that the value of human are still been portrays through emotion either it is before, during and even after the scientific revolution, and the use of animals are right as long we use the 3R’s principle develop by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD which is agreed by most of nations all around the world. So here I come out with the second claim which is scientific revolution convey the value of human through reasoning. This is where reasoning comes in. Reasons come based on logic. Reasons are needed as the truth is difficult to be established. Some decision in scientific revolution is really subjective which involve emotion in it, so reasoning is needed. Reasoning is defined as the process of using known facts to arrive at new facts. In this way reason can help us arrive at new facts or new knowledge but only as long as the original facts we put into the process are correct and the process itself is reliable. When we are saying about reasoning, we can also relate it to epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy defined as “the study of human knowledge.” Like TOK, epistemology involves questioning our sources and the nature and accuracy of our knowledge in the hope that we will develop a more informed understanding of what we know and don't know. That is, enabling us to become more epistemically aware. Basically, in epistemology we are facing two serious epistemological problems. The first one is How can we determine which facts are true? And also, how can we determine which facts are important? We need to answer those two questions in order to gain a strong argument. By answering those question, the value of human is portrays through the determination of human to come out with strong argument. Reasons come when the logic and strong argument exist. Scientist found out that scientific revolution would give benefits to majority of society. For an example, the invention of nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plant generate greater amount of energy with less cost. Moreover, the use of the nuclear energy keeps the air clean and preserves the earth climate which contributes a sustainable development in the world. Sustainable development is the development that good for the present as well as for the future generation. Although, the process to build power plant is highly cost, the scientist, researcher have done a lot of research in this area in order to give benefits to human. This portrays the value of determination in human itself. The determination is because of the strong argument to benefits the society throughout the scientific revolution. With the logic and the strong reason, decision is made. Scientists believe that this scientific revolution have beneficial to mankind. This evoked the determination in oneself in justifying scientific revolution.

Dila (counter claim): Yana was right thou, but I believe that not all people can accept the reason. The perception involved may lead the reason to be not strong enough to be trusted. The moral value of human which is determination is somehow shows that people are too selfish. Because they have reasons and they always believe in it, but they ignore other opinions. Thomas Kuhn (1922-96) speaks of paradigm shifts in scientific thought over time. Science is by no means smooth progress and undergoes a series of revolutions when scientists discover shortcomings in the current paradigm and, therefore, put forward new ways of looking at things and with it new theories. Kuhn refers to periods of normal science, when people are generally happy with the paradigm and work with it. Popper would, perhaps, be infuriated by these periods of normal science. In a paradigm shift not everyone is converted to the new way of thinking. A paradigm shift will only occur should a critical mass of people be will to question the existing paradigm and for revolution to subsequently occur. Arguments will still continue as some people still cling to the old paradigm. It often needs the old, some say 'conservative', people to die for the opposition to the new paradigm to dwindle. As paradigm shifts are very much a choice between competing theories, how do we may the choice as to which theory we go along with? While we would like to think that prime motivation of scientists is in discovering the truth, there are other motives for scientists in determining the scientific agenda. Arguments over motive in science are of termed priority disputes. The motives are somewhat questionable such as gaining a reputation, jealousy, ambition, social status and public recognition. Scientists are also influenced by the funding that is available for research and, as a result, are lured to those fields. Also for political reasons scientists may be discouraged from working in certain fields as opposed to others that receive less of a critical eye. There is also the pressure for scientific reasoning to conform with the values of both the scientific community and society at large. All these factors, perhaps, place rational thought in science in a different light? For example, the Tokyo incident in 11 March 2011, which destroyed the power plant and made the area contaminated with radiation. Many of them especially people live nearby are suffering from this incident. The perception of scientist that Yana said earlier are all gone, due to this incident. Where is the clean air? Where is the sustainable area? The community scare and not agree with the power plant built at their community area but the scientist and government of Tokyo still continue their power plan base on the reason they hold on, not the reason of the community. So now, we can see that there are no values of human here. Reason does shows that people are too determine and passionate but somehow it also show people are too selfish by standing with their reason ignoring others.

Yana (Counter-counter-claim) : I agree with you Dila, seems that reasons is somehow involve biasness in it and reason does shows that people are too determine and passionate and somehow it also show people are too selfish by standing with their reason ignoring others. I believe with the involvement of the authority. The reasoning will not come with biasness. Authority can be defined as the power and right of a person to use and allocate the resources efficiently, to take decisions and to give orders so as to achieve the organizational objectives. Authority must be well- defined. All people who have the authority should know what is the scope of their authority is and they shouldn’t misutilize it. Authority is the right to give commands, orders and get the things done. The top level management has greatest authority. Authority always flows from top to bottom. It explains how a superior gets work done from his subordinate by clearly explaining what is expected of him and how he should go about it. Authority should be accompanied with an equal amount of responsibility. Delegating the authority to someone else doesn’t imply escaping from accountability. Accountability still rest with the person having the utmost authority. Other people are continual sources of information. Such information, however, is always second-hand knowledge - or third-, fourth-, or nth-hand knowledge. It is all "hearsay." The farther it is removed from our own personal experience, the more caution we must exercise before accepting a fact-claim. All of our historical knowledge is acquired in this way as is most of our knowledge of the sciences. We can't experience the past or personally repeat every experiment, so we must trust the specialists and accept, though not blindly, the discov­eries they record for us. They key thing with knowledge from authority is that it can be double-checked and the work of scientists and historians is continually being ‘double checked’ as other workers in the same field (even sometimes us in our classrooms) repeat their experiments or investigations. A healthy cynicism of sources, the development of the skills required to check facts and an awareness of which sources are more or less reliable is a good way to ensure that the knowledge we receive from authority is as good as it can be. An example for authority is the incident of 9/11 which killed most of the people. The government of united state blames the Islamic community for that attack whereas Islamic community said it is a corruption or inside work of the united states government itself. These situations prolong until the arrival of non-government association which study about this incident, like The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has come out with their claim saying that, the incident are cause by the US inside conspiracy itself, and totally not related with middle east and al-Qaeda. See, the involvement of authority sort of can solve the problem and the truth and the better way is appear without biasness.

Dila (conclusion) : So, now we have arrived to conclusion of our discussion. Our KI, which is “how does scientific revolution convey the value of human?” I would like to say that, this KI answered throughout the discussion. The conclusion will be, yes, the scientific revolution conveys the value of human throughout the scientific revolution by the emotion and the strong reasoning in the human himself before, during and after the revolution occurs to some extent. The extent here is due to ethical issue comes by during the process of scientific revolution which we human do not portrays the humanitarian principle, but as long we follows the 3R’s principle which is agree by all the nation all around the world, it is ok to do experiment on animal as long the replace, reduce and refine is applied. The extent is also because the biasness in making perception in order to come out with a strong argument to be believe by all. Someone may be affected with their personal experienced, political views and even their religion. The authority plays it roles in deciding which reason or argument is reliable and valid as the authority do not have biasness and are far more convincing. I guess that is all for our presentation today. Thank you.

That's all. I hope it will be helpful :)