Religion and Ethics - Week 31

Religion: Hinduism

1. Briefly describe the historical context of the emergence of the religion (where, when, who, why?)

Originated in India, cannot be traced to one individual. The term "hindu" was introduced by foreigners who were referring to people in the north of India. There are three main periods for its development: the ancient (6500 BC - 1000 AD), the medieval (1000 - 1800 AD) and the modern (1800 AD to now). It is often thought as the oldest religion in human civilisation.

2. What are the main distinctive beliefs of its adherents now?

Hindus mainly believe that there is an immense force that unifies all of existence, and is not known by humans. There are many separate gods and goddesses that represent this cosmic force. Every Hindu worships the deities that have a strong influence on their life/situation. They hope to form a connection between themselves and the deity.

3. For adherents of the religion, which is more authoritative; spiritual leaders alive now, sacred texts, individual perspectives?

It is mainly a mixture of sacred texts and individual perspectives.

4. What aspects of the religion do you find attractive and why?

I have always believed that there is something out there, something that we cannot understand, something bigger than us. What I like about Hinduism is that they also follow this belief. I also find that Hinduism is more about your individual take on the religion. I also agree with the idea of "the universe undergoes endless cycles of creation, preservation and dissolution" and the idea of karma, of cause and effect

5. What aspects of the religion do you disagree with and why?

What I don't agree with is the idea of reincarnation, this is something that I have never been able to quite stomach. No matter what religion it is mentioned in. I also do not believe in creating temples or statues, or anything to worship. Yes, I do believe that there is a larger entity around us. But I do not think that it is right to live our lives for them or absolutely worship them.

6. How well do the TOK ways of knowing handle the approach to knowledge within the religion?

I think that all four ways of knowing: reason, sense perception, emotion and language are greatly involved in Hinduism. Sense perception and emotion are all affected by the religion, as the beliefs of an individual will form their view of the world and the way they feel about certain things. Language is also involved because in order to communicate the beliefs or ideas of the religion, you need language. Reason is possibly the one that is more against the religion, as logically it is hard to prove that these deities exist, or that reincarnation does occur. Yet there is also the idea that there are things in the world that humans cannot understand, and possibly never will. And isn't that religion? Trying to make sense of a complicated world?

Painting the Seasons

Yeah right

It's watching you

Maori Origins

"Back to Maori DNA. For the past fifty years debate has raged over where the Maori came from. Some say China (Taiwan), others Indonesia. Events have recently taken a startling turn. Adele White, for the ABC television programme Catalyst (broadcast on 27 March 2003), used mitochondrial (female line) DNA to trace Maori origins back as far as mainland Asia. But where in mainland Asia? The answer came from a surprising quarter - by looking at the gene for alcohol. Adele`s supervisor, Dr. Geoff Chambers, found a match between one of the variant genes for alcohol with people from Taiwan, so it seemed the original homeland of the Maori people was Taiwan. Or was it? When Dr. Chambers` team studied the Y (male) chromosome, they found a different story. While the females came from China, most of the men came from Melanesia."


"From the mid-19th century large numbers of moa bones were discovered alongside human tools. This raised questions about whether the moa had been exterminated by Māori, or by pre-Māori people. If the latter, who were these people and what happened to them? One answer was offered by the geologist Julius von Haast. He concluded that those who had hunted the moa belonged to pre-history and were a Palaeolithic people. Percy Smith’s Great Fleet story neatly offered an explanation for what happened to them and when: New Zealand was first populated by a primitive, nomadic, moa-hunting people (the Palaeolithic Moriori), before being replaced by a superior, agricultural people (the Neolithic Māori). The idea of the Great Fleet was accepted by Māori and Pākehā. Even the Māori scholar Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hīroa), who claimed he had special insights into Māori history because of his ‘Polynesian corpuscles’, nevertheless argued that Polynesians were Aryans who might have originated in the Middle East and most likely did live somewhere in India. Throughout his life he was an ardent supporter of the Great Fleet theory. He also generally supported the story of discovery by the earlier Polynesian explorers Kupe, Toi and Whātonga, but did not accept that there were pre-Polynesian Moriori in New Zealand. Smith’s narrative became a legend. At least until the 1970s, it was a feature of Māori and Pākehā learning, and was enshrined in New Zealand’s wider culture."


"The Great Fleet forms part of the Māori canoe tradition, handed down orally from generation to generation. According to this tradition, the canoes of the Great Fleet arrived from the mythical homeland of Hawaiiki, known as the ancestral homeland, and generally considered as being somewhere in Eastern Polynesia."

The first passage is found from an extract of the 1421 book written by Gavin Menzies. Whereas the second passage is one that I found on the Te Ara govt website and the third from another NZ history website. They are all quite contradicting. The first seems to prove that the Maori originated both from Taiwan (females) and Melanesia (males). Whereas the second and third passages indicate that the Maori came from Eastern Polynesia and came to NZ through the story of the 'Great Fleet'. It is very difficult for me to decide which one to believe. The reason being that the first one seems to have scientific evidence (of the natural sciences) showing that the genes imply that they are Chinese. This does have the tendency to make me want to believe it more strongly as the natural sciences have always been seemingly more logical, reasonable and easily proven, Whereas the second and third passages are of orally told tales. There is a great degree of bias, fabrication and just general inaccuracy that comes with stories told through generations. But the problem is that it is such a strong part of our culture. Many Maoris and Pakehas have been told the story of this Great Fleet and believed it to be true and because of this it is very difficult to imagine otherwise. Children, adults, a great deal of people have been brought up with this idea of events and thus have a strong belief in it. In museums, for example, there are stories, videos and artifacts that follow this tale. There is also so-called proof with the tools and moa bones but it is still very difficult to determine what the "true story" is. Also humans have been travelling the earth for a long time and it is very hard to ever say for certain that they originated from one specific area. For the time being, I'm just going to go along with the idea that both stories could be equally possible. I am quite indecisive.

Random/Representative Sampling

Random/representative sampling

1.Describe the issue/concept


Random sample: chosen through a method of unpredictable components. Therefore the estimates from random samples can be quite uncertain. In random sampling, each element of the population has an equal chance of being chosen at each draw. So it is not unfair or biased.

Representative sample: Where individuals are selected as a representation of the larger population. In statistical sampling, people gather data from a small group and try to make generalisations about a larger group.

2.What implication(s) does this have for knowledge gained in the human sciences (how does this issue or concept affect our ability to learn and know things via the human sciences)

Random sample: The positive aspects of having a random sample is that the results are not biased or unfair in any way. The samples are selected by random are so are not affected by personal opinion. The problems that could arise from this random selection, would be that it is left to chance. As each sample is equally likely to be chosen, they all have an equal chance. As humans are all different, there are no two humans that are the same, it is quite to determine whether those that are selected randomly, are a good sample for what is to be looked for. For example, if we were to study whether all people would flinch when being hit, and we used a random selection of people. The results would be determined by whether that sample of people had flinched or not. Thus if we had managed to select a group of people that all flinched we would conclude that people always flinched when being hit. But, we can not be certain as what if people that did not flinch had just not been selected.

Representative sample: The benefits of representative sampling is that it is more time and cost efficient, as only a smaller sample is needed to collect data from. This sample can then be used as a representation of the larger population, without having to collect data from all the individuals in the larger population. This is extremely beneficial for the human sciences as there are just so many humans in the world. It is almost impossible to get results from every last person on earth. Therefore it is much easier to sample a smaller group and use this as a representation of the larger group. The problems with this is then the fact that each individual is different and how can you assume that if something that applies to the smaller sample will apply to the larger population.

Random/representative sampling: The main benefit of simple random sampling is that it can guarantee that the sample chosen is representative of the population. As the sample was chosen at random out of that larger population. Therefore the statistical conclusions will be valid.

Behaviour Activity - Week 17

In your blog, write a reflection about how the experience felt - indicate which group you were part of. Reflect on how you think these feelings might influence the knowledge gained by a human scientist also studying our in-class simulation.


I was in the group of observers during our class activity today. The role that I was given was to watch and note down the various stages, or process of the activity. Such as how the interaction changed during the course of their task. It was really fascinating because I began to notice quite a clear pattern that repeated.


From what I remember the main pattern that I noticed was:
1. Quite calm and moments of individual input (putting forward ideas and agreeing)
2. Disagreement leading to raised voices as each person tried to prove their argument
3. Laughter and humour...seemingly to lighten the atmosphere after disagreeing
4. Taking on a leadership role and putting people back on task
...this cycle continued quite a few times


This in-class simulation was quite interesting as we were able to piece together a study of the way that the group interacted. As my group (the observers) were all noting different behavioural aspects we were able to put these all together to form an idea of the way this specific group acted. Therefore we could possibly continue the investigation with other groups to see if they created the same patterns or reacted the same way.


What we would have to be careful for though would be not to be biased in any way. As we have done the experiment and gained some fairly good results, we would be biased in the sense that we would be searching for similar results in the next experiment. We would be looking for the same patterns, the same reactions. Instead of seeing it all fresh and new we would have already made some assumptions as to what were going to see. Thus we could possibly create inaccurate data by forcing the results to mould into what were were expecting.


Another one of the rather large errors or limitations of this experiment though was the fact that the "observees" knew that they were being watched. Some admitted to this having possibly affected the way that they acted as they were aware that their actions were being noted. This could have affected our data somewhat, due to the discomfort the subjects of our experiment felt and the awareness they had to being watched.


All in all it was quite a fun and interesting sort of experiment that also allowed us to study human interaction and behaviour. It also allowed us to see the limitations in the knowledge gained from these types of experiments.

Logic - Week 8

Inductive Logic (Generalising)
Definition: Reasoning from the particular to the general.

When the electrons were shot through the two slits and formed a wave pattern, instead of two individual lines on the back board, it was assumed that the electrons were interfering with one another and thus forming the pattern. Yet when a measuring device was used to observe this occurrence near the slits, the electrons in fact changed their paths and formed the two lines that they were originally meant to form.

The idea was proposed as matter is spread out in space, wavy, that is is very difficult to say where it is and what it may do next. This was quantum physics, that there is a huge uncertainty as the effects are so small and changeable that it is stated that nature is a game of chance. There is a real limit to what scientists can know with absolute certainty.

Every time Einstein tried to make sense and reason of certain ideas, people would find ways around it to prove him wrong. He tried extremely hard to show that quantum physics was wrong, yet he did not succeed. Much of physics is probable and unable to reason with.

Deductive Logic (Narrowing down)
Definition: Reasoning from a general premise that is either known or assumed to be true.

An idea that was presented in the first video was that when marbles are shot through a slit, they hit the board in the same line as the slit, then when shot through two slits it forms two lines. When this was applied to quantum physics, electrons were shot through one slit and sure enough it formed one line. So it was assumed that electrons, being tiny particles of matter, would also form two lines. Yet this was proved false. It formed a series of lines, as a wave would.

It was assumed, especially by Einstein that the outcomes of an experiment could not be completely predictable "I can not believe that God plays dice with the universe".

Inside a vacuum electrons perform like solid particles, but when placed in a solid, they perform like waves. Thus was the idea of quantum physics. There came the idea of the particle wave durability of electrons. The transmitter was created for this specific purpose...it was a process of applying quantum theory to practical problems.

Scientific Knowledge - Week 5

Notes
a. What different ways of building knowledge were described?
Ideas, achievements and results. Outside and inside the laboratory. Religious and political. Data gatherer. Plotting. "Great observing logs of raw data".

b. What role has rational thought played in the development of science?
"Science needs evidence". No longer is science just based on theories and information, it has become about data. "Information and analysis from fresh observations". "A commitment to cold, hard, obstinate facts".

c. What other ways of knowing have played roles in scientific discovery?
Astronomy, an understanding/exploration of the cosmos. Mathematics. Theories. Early civilisations had already begun to produce ideas about things that they could not understand, such as heaven. Greek cosmology.

"What surprises me about the way science has progressed"


Science has progressed immensely over the years. For the human race to have started out from nothing but thoughts and concepts and built on that to gradually form "cold, hard, obstinate facts" is quite an incredible feat. What I find very fascinating is how strong the sense of conviction that scientific facts give the majority of people (including myself). It seems to me that we seem very dependent on the idea that if something can be proven scientifically then the likelihood of it being true is very very high. Yet if we think about it...what is science and scientific fact? Are they not all still born from thoughts and concepts of the human mind, and is the human mind that is most prone to failures...and to successes. So how is it that we can be so adamantly convinced that a certain scientific statement is true?

I suppose that science is really all about experimentation, trial and error, and observations. It is about having a theory, putting the theory into practice and then having the results agree with your theory. Then being able to explain a reason for the results and to compare them with the results that others have gained. (As I take chemistry this is the main aspect of science that we focus on). This idea seems quite plausible. That if something can be proven, as in shown to succeed and if a great number of people agree on this, then it must be true. So this is science.

What still continues to astound me though is how science has built upon itself over the years. That it has progressed from a nothing to a whole full concept, subject, system, a belief. I am in awe of the people who gave birth to science or who were the ones that lay down the scaffolding and those who placed the first bricks of what is science today. For example now in chemistry we are learning about atoms, molecules, nucleuses and all this stuff, and with this we can experiment and increase our understanding, but it was the people before us that first discovered nucleuses and the people before them that discovered atoms. Science is really about generations and generations of people building and adding on to scientific facts, which could not be achieved without the previous scientific fact being proved and placed.

Thus as they say, science is truly "standing on the shoulders of giants"

MMR Vaccine = Autism? Week 3

1. What is one key argument or knowledge claim?
The key argument that has been formed is that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine has directly caused autism in a number of children. These claims that the MMR vaccine is closely connected to autism were published in the well-known medical journal, The Lancet, by a Doctor Wakefield. The paper was retracted and Wakefield was stripped of his medical practice in 2010.

2. What evidence supports this claim?
There were twelve children that were studied for the report, eleven boys and one girl. All these children had seemingly grown up naturally with no significant problems in their development, until the vaccine. It was reported that after receiving the MMR vaccine, these children began to have problems with their hearing, speaking and other developmental disabilities. Two of the children were later diagnosed with regressive autism and the other children were diagnosed with other mental disabilities such as Asperger's syndrome. It was reported that symptoms of these disorders occurred in a very short time after receiving the vaccines.

3. What evidence challenges this claim?
Although those reports were made there have been medical records that show that the children had not been developing as normally as reported before the vaccine. It is written in the medical records that many of these children had, in fact, already began showing signs of developmental disabilities before the vaccine had even be given. Another child had been reported to have showed signs of autism a few weeks after the vaccine,  yet medical records insisted that it was months after the vaccine and the child was at the stage in life when symptoms of the syndrome began to appear, so that the vaccine had no direct connection with autism.

4. How is your confidence in a knowledge claim affected by understanding the type/quality/reliability of the evidence?
Your confidence in a knowledge claim can be reinforced or strengthened when there is reliable and factual evidence that is given before you, such as a chronological description (not just personal opinion) of the children's development before, during and after the vaccine. Then you would be able to be more confident with determining whether the vaccine had directly caused the mental disorders to develop. Unfortunately, the government will not allow for any more studies that could possibly resolve this case. This seems to place them in the wrong as it seems to suggest that there is something that the government is attempting to hide. When all the information is gathered of both unaffected and affected children and of the chemicals used in the vaccine and how this could have caused the mental disabilities, then we can begin to determine whether the arguments are true or false.

2 Feb 2011

What are your impressions?
At first I was quite unsure of what to think of the TOK subject. I felt that it had a quite a strong similarity to psychology and that it was really interesting. The discussions that we had were rather fascinating and by the end of the lesson I felt that my brain had gone through quite a rough work out. Many of the topics that we touched on also left me thinking quite a bit, and left me questioning things that I originally would not have.

What are you most interested in or surprised by?
What I found most interesting in today's lesson was when we were discussing the meanings and definitions of certain words. At first we thought that the task was fairly straightforward but when entering deeper into discussion we realized that it was much more difficult to define them than we had guessed. I found it interesting how many things we had believed to have known were harder to prove than we had thought.