Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
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."
"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.
Monday, June 27, 2011
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.
Monday, June 13, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)