The distinction between right and wrong

The concept of what is right and wrong is ambiguous and subjective. In the case of axioms such as two and two added together make four is a fact and thus right, anyone claiming that two and two make any number other than four is wrong. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or that I study at the Dhirubhai Ambani International School are facts that are not open to debate. Thus there is a clear demarcation of what is right and wrong.
An issue that is highly controversial is religion and God. Does God exist? If God is out there which is the correct religion? These are questions that have no answer. There is a proof of the existence of God while leading scientists refute those proofs. Who is right and who is wrong cannot be determined, Which faith is the true faith, is it Shiva, Christ or Allah who is God. A devout Christian would defend his religion and oppose all others, and in the eyes of Christians he would be right while Muslims would believe he is wrong. In this case ones up-bringing, beliefs and emotions plays a role. The Muslims and Christians have never agreed on one aspect. The Muslims do mention and agree upon the existence of man called Jesus Christ but unlike the Christians they call him a prophet and not the Son of God, they also claim that since Mohammed was the last prophet the Muslims are superior to all other religions. I can think of billions of people who would be antagonistic towards such beliefs. So who is right?
Euthanasia is a practice that has gained a lot of heat in the past few years. People who suffer from terminal diseases and have a long arduous painful path to their inevitable graves (in between they may even change physically; deformity) are forced to bear their pain rather than commit an act that would relieve them of their pain. Those who are suffering say that it is right since a life of misery is worse than no life at all, while devout religious believers feel that it is against God's desire. Ethically is it right for one man to take another human being's life. These are issues that have different impacts on each individual. Someone whose relative or friend has suffered and realizes the impact it has on the victim, sympathizes for other people and may conlcude that it is better to allow Euthanasia.
Is Gene Therapy and Genetic modelling in agricultural, ethically right? There is a type of rice called 'golden rice' that is packed with Vitamin A and has been genetically create, thus the issue of science intervening in the very framework of living beings and altering them is raised. Is it our place to chnage God's version of the earth ( as religious believers view the situation). However it is the rice that can solve all Vitamin A crisis in regions where people cannot afford three meals a day.
The concept of right and wrong has been spelt out to a child as if written in a rulebook that has been circulated and studied. For example, son do not steal from others it isn't good to take what does not belong to you, do not cheat the best reward is when you earn it yourself, do not harm others, do not litter, respect your adults, obey your elders. However these rules which seemed to be engraved in the very social fabric of a child seem to undergo a certain degree of scrutiny and flexibility as we grow up. Let us take an extreme example, say one child is suffering from an infection that has a cure beyond the financial means of the child's father, and another child who suffers from the same disease whose father scrapes the botom of his piggy bank to buy the medicine to have it stolen by the first man who could not afford it. In the first father's eye it was a necessary measure and in his opinion passable as the right decision. What about white lies to protect other peoples emotions are those also wrong.
In conclusion right and wrong have no clear-cut boundaries each individual must draw his own line. These limits are often set by an individual's moral and ethical beleif. These boundaries are never set they fluctuate during an individual's lifetime even if his beliefs don't, since various situations will force them to.

The distinction between right and wrong

Is it possible to make a distinction between right and wrong?
--
Before I begin to answer this question, I would like to define the terms in question, i.e. right and wrong.
According to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, right is defined as
· correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth;
· in conformance with justice or law or morality;
while, wrong is defined as
· incorrect: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth;
· contrary to conscience or morality or law;

From the wide range of definitions available for the two seemingly simple words, I have chosen the two that most accurately represent my interpretations of these words, or frame the concept of right and wrong. Let the first definition for each be definition A, and the second definition be definition B.
In both cases, definition A seems to be simple enough. Yes, there is a right and wrong version of facts that can be represented. There would be no or very little ambiguity in such a situation. For example, if I was to say that the Pakistan Cricket Team won the ODI series played against India in India in 2007 I would be wrong, in the sense I would be saying something that was not correct, not in conformity with the truth, because the truth as we know it, is that the Indian cricket team was deemed the winner of that series. Similarly, if I was to say that today (23.11.2007) is a Friday, then I would be right, and nothing in the world could prove that I was making an error, or was not conforming to the truth. In the cases of these two examples, and definitions A for both right and wrong, there is an obvious distinction that can be easily be made separating fact from fiction, and accuracy from inaccuracy. In situations and contexts such as these there is no space for ambiguity or misinterpretation of the terms right and wrong.
In the case of definitions B however, the distinction seems to fade or become subjective. Let’s consider the case of a famous novel character, Olive Twist. Oliver Twist was an orphan, who lived in an orphanage in a dire condition, where he was beaten for simply asking an extra helping of soup. He was "rescued" from this life of abject poverty by the artful dodger, who introduced Twist to a world of petty crimes such as pick-pocketing. Now the question here is was Twist "right" in pick-pocketing. My morals tell me that he was wrong, that he should not have stopped to crime, but on the other hand, it is debatable whether it was wrong for Twist considering the morals that were instilled in him. On the other hand, a boy who kills his mother while high on drugs would be termed as "wrong" because this action goes against the ethics of humanity. This brings in the circuitous argument about morals and ethics, where morals are the values instilled in us differing from individual to individual such as its immoral to tell even white lies, while ethics are general thoughts and beliefs about right and wrong that society believes in, such as no matter what the circumstance, killing a parent is unethical, or child labour is unethical. In such cases, where definition B would come into play, it becomes harder to differentiate between right and wrong. It becomes dependent on perspective and on nurture, as there is no longer a universal distinction between right and wrong.
Which would you consider this wrong, a child cheating on a class test so he doesn’t lose his scholarship after he returns to school after a month of being absent? Or would you consider it right for a daughter to lie to her father in a rural Indian town to try and escape a practice like sati? All these questions transcend the realm of right and wrong, and are not, in purely scientific terms, systematic. That is to say, that every time these question were asked, the reply or the response made would not be the same, as opposed to if someone was to ask whether it was true that communists in Russia were called Reds, wherein there would be a definite right or wrong answer.
It is therefore sufficient to say, that while distinguishing right from wrong on a factual, historical level is relatively easy, making the same distinction in areas where morals or ethics become involved is much more difficult and subjective.

Points made in this week's lesson 'More on Language'

1. Drew attention to the way research goes forward in a social science like psychology;
2. Noted the number of rules the child masters at an early stage (I mentioned that Chomsky says that we must be pre-programmed with them, to which you responded that Mrs Chinai had ascribed it to 'unconscious learning': I said that I could not think of an experiment which would disinguish between the two)
3. the point about the LOSS of the capacity to recognise 'extra-cultural' phonemes (Japanese can't distinguish between 'L' and 'R') being an example of the map not being the territory although it perhaps could have been;
4. the politically sensitive matter of wide variations in vocabulary acquisition and modes of speech by a very young age; these sorts of factors occurring before entry into school having great implications for estimates of the likelihood of progress in school, and creating some of the tensions associated with politically correct ideas of universal entitlement to knowledge.
5. The child's 'Grand Insight' that 'word entities' signify 'reality entities', which gets him to the point where TOK starts (with its question 'do words adequately represent things?')

Did anything else strike you?

copernicus and santa claus

When talking of knowing through perception and reasoning the examples of Copernicus’ theory of heliocentric cosmology and almost every child’s theory about the existence of Father Christmas or Santa Claus seem appropriate to quote.
Nicolaus Copernicus was the first European astronomer to formulate and publish a scientifically based theory of heliocentric cosmology. This theory stated that the sun was at the centre of the solar system and the planets orbit around it. Though he was able to assemble all his data and discoveries in a book, he had to delay the publishing due to fear. Though historians hypothesized that he was afraid of criticism, it is popular belief that he actually delayed the publishing of his book due to conflicts with the church as they preached that the earth was the centre because it was where god’s creations lived. This fear made him hide his belief in his theory. He prepared his theory by observation of the movement of the stars and noticing an unusual pattern. This was knowledge by perception. Then by studying all the data he prepared his theory. This was knowledge by reasoning. Finally he hid his faith in his theory due to fear. This would be the loss of knowledge by emotion.
Almost every person, in his or her childhood, believes that Father Christmas or Santa Claus comes every year on Christmas Eve and gives gifts to these children who have been good all through the year. From the beginning of their childhood, the parents motivate their children to be a good person by reminding them that only good children get gifts on Christmas. This convinces the children that Santa would give them what they want. Every year the children remain good and they get their gifts. This repeated occurrence further assures their belief in Father Christmas. This is knowledge through perception. The fear that they may not get a gift one year forces the child to be good all through the year. This fear again enforces their belief to the extent where it becomes knowledge. This is knowledge by emotion. At some point of time, the child either catches his or her parents as they fool their child or in some other method deduce the non-existence of Father Christmas. This is knowledge by reasoning.

Father Christmas and Copernicus

Father Christmas When every child is small he or she believes in Santa Claus and he is the person who is supposed to be giving gifts to small children. So when i was small even i believed in Santa Claus and asked him for whatever gift i wanted and i always got that gift surprisingly but as i grew older i realized something that it was my mother who always asked me what i had expected from Father Christmas. So it later became quite obvious that it was my mother who had kept the gift in my room and not Father Christmas.When i was small anyone who said that Father Christmas did not exist i thought of that person to be the biggest liar and the day i came to know that Father Christmas did not exist i literally started crying. As my Dad’s birthday is on the 25 th of December we usually celebrated Christmas and his birthday on the same time . Several times on my Dad' birthday i would dress up exactly like Santa with the same " Red Clothes and the Red bag which Santa carried ".I used to then go around the house distributing gifts to all the small kids in my building. At this age thinking about those days feels really funny. We being Human beings never question what is told to us and accept whatever is told to us which we should not from now. What i now feel is that no child should be told about the non existence of Father Christmas and that child should someway or the other come to know on his own this will in one way test him. Copernicus There was a man called Copernicus who had denied the fact that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. People in those days thought the Earth was the centre of the Universe no one knows why they thought so it was maybe because the Pope had said so and at that time no one questioned what the pope said .It was also believed that the Sun rose in the East and set in the West and this showed the Earth was the centre. So this shows that the people believe what is told to them and as Copernicus spoke against the popular classes at that time what he said was not true without actually knowing what he said and on what basis. It was like no one had an own thinking but Copernicus did but the entire society did not believe in what he said but he was later proved to be absolutely right by Galileo. So every person should have an own thinking and should say what that person feels without thinking what the others will think about it.The similarity between Copernicus' theory and about the existence of Santa Claus was that at Copernicus' time people believed in what was told to them by the Pope so did i believe when i was told about the existence of Santa also that what conclusion i come to is that in every human being there is a Copernicus just that the feeling of confidence and logical reasoning is required. The subject Theory of Knowledge is teaching us that we should learn to question what is taught to us and we should have a logical reason in whatever we believe. This is the only way in which one can learn what is true. What i feel is that beliefs can be true or false but truth always has to be true as the word suggests.

Father Christmas and Copernicus

It is common belief, amongst the youngest of our population, that a person called Father Christmas exists. I too, was no exception to this case. Until the age of six I was deeply rooted in the belief that Santa Claus did exist. All those month-long preparations for Christmas lists, decorations and shopping were all in anticipation for that one night of 24th December. The milk, cookies and carrots would be left out by 9, and an hour later I would be tucked into bed, too excited to sleep. The next morning the presents would be there, under the tree, waiting for me. When I turned six, however, my world came crashing down when I was told (by my then-evil sister) that Father Christmas did not exist. At first I could not believe it. Nothing made sense without Santa Claus – where did all the presents come from!? But when I began to reason his existence, some things did not seem to fit. How was it possible that each and every child around the world got a gift exactly on the same night? How were there Santa Clauses at each and every street corner? How did the post reach the North Pole, and more importantly, how could Santa read my writing?! It was nevertheless strange for me to grasp the concept that my parents were the ones delivering the presents and not the happy fat man in the red suit. The destruction of belief in Father Christmas came from my sister’s knowledge which I now had, as well as reasoning from myself. In the same way, when Nicolas Copernicus said that the earth was not the centre of the universe, he too, crashed the world of many people. He said that the earth rotates around the sun and he confirmed this by noticing the behaviour of movements of two particular stars (the planets Mercury and Venus). This came as a great shock and people refused to believe him as the Pope himself believed that the earth was the centre of the universe. His theory went against the belief of religion and philosophy of that time. The previous belief was so strong even though there was no evidence for it. Such a strong destruction of belief brought about a strong sense of denial and many people refused to accept the discovery until many years later. Therefore it is observed that Copernicus’s discovery proved the belief of that time period wrong. It is due to the evidence that the theory was soon accepted. Similarly, when a child discovers that Father Christmas does not exist, it can relate to Copernicus. It is through other’s knowledge, reasoning, self knowledge and the ability to learn, absorb and comprehend information that allows us to reconsider our some times misguided belief.

5 Things I am certain about

1. Everything is destiny we can try changing it but in the end what happens is decided. 2. I believed in Father Christmas when i was small. 3. Every single person in this world has a fingerprint which is different. 4. Laugh and the world laughs with you weep and you weep alone . 5.French is just too tough to be studied

SANTA CLAUS AND NICOLAS COPERNICUS – belief v/s truth

“What do you want from Santa Claus this year?” A question my mother asked me a week prior to Christmas every year. She would also remind me to be good and do all my work by myself. I obeyed her and was at my best behaviour through out the week. On 24th December, I would hang a red sock on my Christmas tree and put my wish list in it. Every Christmas eve I’d sleep in the hall, only to see if Santa really came on reindeers. But, I was a kid and would fall asleep by half past eleven. When I would rise the next morning, I’d see a gift under the tree. Santa always gave me whatever I had asked for.
One Christmas eve, something strange happened; I didn’t fall asleep at half past eleven. I was awake at midnight. Suddenly the room lights came on and heard footsteps. I pretended to be asleep and covered my face with the blanket. When I peeped from one side, I saw a lady in her nightgown keeping the gifts under the tree. Is Santa Claus a lady? I muttered to myself. Unable to pretend any more, I jumped off the sofa and was shocked at what I saw – my mother was the Santa Claus! I was shocked and burst into tears. My mother then explained to me that there was no Santa Claus and it was just a myth about Christmas to make children happy. I had believed in Santa Claus since my 1st Christmas. After 7 long years, I was unable to accept that he did not exist. I felt cheated!
Similarly, when Nicholas Copernicus said that the earth was not the centre of the universe, people refused to believe him. According to the Pope, the earth was the centre of the centre of the universe and all other celestial bodies revolved around it. People had believed this because everyday, they saw the sun rise in the east and set in the west, this made the people think that the sun revolved around the earth; just as I believed in Santa Claus because I received presents every Christmas. Copernicus’ theory that the Earth revolved around the sun seemed false to everyone. It went against the philosophical and religious beliefs that had been held during the medieval times. Their earlier belief had become so strong that they considered it to be the truth even though they had no evidence of it. Just as my mother told me that my belief wasn’t ‘true’ Copernicus explained to the people that the sun was the centre of the solar system and the planets, including the earth revolved around it.
It is thus observed that certain beliefs are accepted as truths because there is no evidence denying it. My belief in Santa Claus had been proved false only after my mother told me that Santa Claus was only a myth. Similarly, when Copernicus showed evidence to the people, they accepted it with difficulty because they considered their earlier belief as their knowledge.

Santa Claus and Nicolas Copernicus: self knowledge leading to destruction of personal beliefs.

Almost every child I know has at some point in there life affirmed their belief in Santa Claus and claimed he does, in fact, exist. I was no different and Santa Claus, to me, was an essential part of my growing years. Every December, I would clean my room, eat all my food, do all my work and try my level best to be ‘good.’ And all this for what? A gift from Santa Claus. Till I was the age of 5, I could not have ever imagined the possibility of there being no Santa Claus. The thought hadn’t even occurred to me. It was impossible. I wasn’t particularly bright either. If I was, I would have probably noticed that whether I was ‘good’ or not, the gifts came and whether I was at home, or on vacation, Santa somehow always knew where I was and sent the gifts right there. Looking back at all this now, makes me feel stupid. But it is true, it never struck me that Santa was probably a myth.
When I was 6, my elder sister told me there was no Santa. I responded with denial. I couldn’t believe it at first. But then things began falling in place and the more closely I looked at the Santa issue, the more I realized that there indeed was no Santa. It was humanly impossible to deliver gifts to all the kids in the world, all in the same night. It was unreal to have a body double at every other departmental store, function or Christmas party. It was strange that the gift I told my parents I wanted was the one that Santa gave to me. Everything, for once, seemed true.
This destruction of belief in Santa came about due to the knowledge I obtained from my sister and it was further confirmed with me reasoning things out in my head. A very similar and monumental destruction of belief was in the early years of the 16th century, when Nicolas Copernicus discovered that the earth was not the centre of the universe. He said that the earth does rotate and by noticing the movements of two particular stars in the night sky (which were actually the planets- Mercury and Venus) he said that the earth was not at the centre of the universe. This came as a great shock to the society then and it went against the views of the church which believed that the earth was at the centre. It can be said that Nicolas Copernicus displaced the earth from the centre. He shook everybody with his opinion and explanation. It was such a strong destruction of belief (similar to mine of the existence of Santa) that it was met with a strong denial. No one accepted this fact till much later.
Thus Copernicus’ findings and discovery prove wrong the belief of the entire society that the earth was at the centre. At a much smaller level, each child’s discovery (through people around him, reasoning or whatever else) of the non-existence of a Santa Claus can be compared to Copernicus’ theory. It often is self knowledge and ability to reason rationally that enables people to move away from their often misguided beliefs. Be it something as large as what lies at the centre of the universe, or whether there is a Santa Claus.

My Santa Claus= Copernicus’s Revolving Sun?

Apart from the fact that they shared the same name i.e. Nicholas (albeit with different spellings), both Copernicus and Santa Claus seemed to evoke quite a few similar ideas. It might seem amazing to some, how two such different people would have something in common, yet a pattern can be identified relating the two men.

When I was younger, I believed in Santa Claus, a jolly old man living at the North Pole, leaving the comforts of his fantastic workshop only once a year, on Christmas, to bring all us children gifts that had been craftily made by his elves at his workshop. Every morning on the 25th of December, I would get out my bed and walk over to the Christmas tree to search for my presents. Three things confirmed my belief in Santa Claus. The first was that my parents had told me, and read me stories about him, exemplifying knowledge through authority, or people who I trusted. The second was the disappearance of the cookies and milk I always left out for Santa, believing he must be tired and hungry after his journey. Whenever I woke up, they were gone, suggesting that someone had eaten them. My belief, that Santa was too powerful for someone else to eat his food, provided the base for my reasoning, leaving no space for doubts. Finally, Santa always got me what I asked for, regardless of what it may have been. Looking back, this might have been because my demands were too modest, and easy to satisfy, maybe because my parents always ‘advised’ me on what I should ask for, Santa not liking greedy children.

The first traces of doubt appeared in my mind when one year the gifts were wrapped in paper from a local store. This was furthered when I saw my driver carrying the presents up into my parents’ room. My brother fuelled my speculation, by telling me Santa did not exist, prompting me to stage a ‘stake out’ to catch the imposter in the act. Maybe that’s why I wasn’t as shocked as one might’ve imagined when I caught my mom tiptoeing down the stairs to begin placing the gifts under the tree. One quick confrontation later, I knew the truth and all my doubts about Santa Clause (or his existence) had been dispelled. Unwilling to let go of the idea that his entire existence had been fabricated, I started to do research about him, trying to trace his roots. My findings were most interesting, as I came to know of the existence of a Saint Nicholas, who used to give money to the poor. The tradition stemmed from his existence, and I found that further reports of a Sinter Klaas (the Dutch version of Santa Claus), actually existed, a thin man who visited orphanages and children’s homes, giving each child some fruit or food. With the amalgamation of these two stories Santa Claus was born, along with the stories of Christmas candies and Christmas being a special day for children specifically, without its religious connotations.

Copernicus found himself in a similar situation, well before I existed. While the rest of the world proclaimed that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that all the celestial bodies revolved around the sun, Copernicus used his naked eye and observed the orbital of the other planets. Like the Santa Claus theory, people had observed the sun rising and setting on two different sides of the earth prompting them to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Like me believing my parents when they told me about the existence of Santa Claus, people believed the Pope and the Church when they said that it is in fact the sun that revolves around the earth. Despite the Church’s obvious dismissal of his ideas, Copernicus persevered to prove his theory, and continued countering Aristotle’s.

Years later, when Galileo used his telescope to prove the same, the Church once again rejected the proposal, misleading the masses. Despite several threats from the Church, Galileo continued to further this research, until he finally succeeded against all odds, having the support of enough empirical evidence, as well as reason and logic, thus making Copernicus’s theory hard to disprove, until the Church, again like my parents, finally had to declare that they had, in fact, been wrong and succeeded in misleading so many people. We can therefore see between the two situations, a common thread on the basis of which a belief was first formed, and then shattered by the truth tests, namely coherence and correspondence. Knowing what I knew about the wrapping paper, and the existence of the local department store I was able to judge the red herring in the situation. Similarly, knowing what Copernicus knew about the planets’ movement, and by his careful observation, he was able to recognize the Church’s error, and find a way of rectifying it. The two parallels drawn between these situations indicate the necessity of one to be a thinking and logical individual, whether we set out to prove the existence of Santa Claus, or shake the fundamentals of astronomy.

Comparison of the beliefs of Copernicus and my belief in Santa

Comparison of the beliefs of Nicolas Copernicus and my belief in Santa Claus.

In my childhood, I had a firm belief that Santa Claus existed. Every year on Christmas Eve, I would hang a sock in the living room (even though there was no Christmas tree) and go to sleep convinced that the next day I would wake up to find Santa’s gifts. And indeed the gifts would be there the next day, waiting to be opened by me. For all I cared, Santa Claus was very much alive and walking this earth. And why not? Throughout the day I would see Santa in shops, and this reaffirmed my belief.
Since we continuously shifted from city to city, one strange fact I started noticing since I was around 7 years old was that Santa Claus’ appearance changed from city to city. I could clearly make out the difference by looking at past photos. In fact, even in the same city there would be a distinctly different Santa from shop to shop. Doubts began to creep into my mind. At the age of eight I was in two minds, and by the time I was 9 years old I felt certain that Santa Claus was in fact a myth (I was also supported by a large number of my friends in this claim). That was the time when I told my parents with complete commitment that Santa Claus didn’t exist, and they congratulated me on having made this ‘path-breaking’ discovery.
In short, I used the following ways of knowing to arrive at this conclusion: reason and language.
Moving on to the great astronomer Nicolas Copernicus. Born at a time (15th century) when it was widely believed that the earth was the centre of the universe (Aristotle’s theory), Copernicus proved through careful observation that the truth lay elsewhere. He noticed that all the heavenly bodies that could be seen with the naked eye followed a circular path….. except Mercury and Venus. These two planets followed a zig-zag path. On further analysis he found that this could be possible only if they moved around the Sun. This conclusion was in stark contrast to the idea propogated by the Church. He further expanded the theory to state that the now obvious fact that the earth also revolved around the Sun, and the Earth was not the centre of the universe.
Copernicus’ allegation was deemed preposterous by the Church. Galileo later invented the telescope and was able to study this theory in greater depth. His findings also led him to the same conclusion. However, when he tried to bring this to the attention of the Church he was forced to retract his statement by the church. Galileo is very famously supposed to have said to the Pope that he was in fact mistaken. His quick thinking saved his life. However, in the years to come this theory was again proved to be correct. It is now hailed as one of the greatest astronomical discoveries.
Thus, Copernicus gathered empirical evidence and proved Aristotle’s theory wrong. Similarly, in my small way, I proved that the story of Santa Claus was in fact a legend. Copernicus’ task was magnified by the firm stand of the Church. He worked against popular public opinion which was prevalent then, and also did not have the luxury of a telescope. Comparatively, for children, finding the truth behind Santa is an infinitesimal task, yet it proves that there is a little bit of Copernicus in all of us.

5 things i am certain about

Things i am certain about
1. The world isnt flat its round
2. The presence of gravity keeps on the ground
3. There are 7 days in a week, 365 days in a year, which is the time it takes the earth to go around the sun once
4. Every person has a different fingerprint
5. There are infinite numbers, there is no limit to what a number can be

Distinction between knowledge and belief

In Socrates’ opinion, there is a difference between knowledge and belief. While beliefs can be either true or false, there is no such thing such as true knowledge or false knowledge. Knowledge, by definition, is justified true belief while “false knowledge” is not knowledge but rather a mistaken belief. Knowledge is not mere opinion or probable assent. Truth and certitudes are conditions of knowledge. Belief refers to assent without certainty and usually indicates the attitude of the mind in regard to matters that are not governed by universal laws of the world. However, sometimes, belief may also denote certitude, but in belief, the evidence is more obscure and indistinct than it is in knowledge.
What we perceive is belief because at every moment, there is a different perception represented by a different perceptual object and a different perceiver. Hence, only knowledge can depict reality, inerrancy and infallibility. However, “knowledge” does not mean “absolute certainty”, because our justifications and truth tests are not perfect.
This distinction between knowledge and belief is very important. We may “know” many things which we do not “believe” in and we may believe in many things which are not classified as “knowledge”. We realize that in order for our belief to qualify as knowledge, it must be true, justified and must necessitate its truth.
For example, I know that the earth revolves around the sun along with other planets in the solar system. Previously, this would have been considered a falsehood as people “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth and considered it as knowledge. Now, there is enough evidence to support the proposition that the earth revolves around the sun. It is a justified and irrefutable claim. Thus, it is knowledge.
There is a problem with the psychological state of conviction as it relates to knowledge and belief. As knowledge is a primitive fact of consciousness, it cannot as such be defined. The mind also contributes its share to the knowing process. Therefore, knowledge undergoes great changes during a course of time in one’s mind. Different minds too take different views on the same object. Copernicus’ knowledge was not considered so because the people in that era considered their old beliefs to be absolute truths. It was difficult to persuade them that their conviction was wrong. Conviction based on knowledge too can be misleading if the knowledge is not substantial.

Five things i am certain about:

1) I was born on 18th December 1990.
2) Somiran could not find our TOK class on Friday 28th September 2007
3) I am a girl
4) One day has 24 hours
5) My first name consists of nine letters - Vaishnavi

5 Things I'm Certain About

With great difficulty did i finally pick out 5 things that I was absolutely sure about:
1) My fingers are typing out this post
2) We can see better during the 'Day' rather than the 'Night' (as we know them to be now).
3) My parents have been alive for a longer time than me.
4) DAIMUN 2007 is a MUN held in Dhirubhai Ambani International School this year.
5) I am a girl.

Five things I am certain about:

The five things I am certain about are:

1. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of India.
2. India lost to Bangladesh in the World Cup 2007.
3. I can't speak in French (because i don't know French)
4. If I sit in a car I will get off from the same car.
5. India is the second most populated country in the world.

Five things I am certain about:

The five things I am certain about are:

1. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of India.
2. India lost to Bangladesh in the World Cup 2007.
3. I can't speak in French (because i don't know French)
4. If I sit in a car I will get off from the same car.
5. India is the second most populated country in the world.

Knowledge & Belief...

Knowledge v/s Belief

According to the conversation, the main distinction between belief and knowledge lies in the validity of the claim. Therefore, while belief can be debatable and controversial, knowledge stands to be irrefutable. Belief therefore can be true or false i.e. people may choose to agree or disagree with a proposed belief, however knowledge is universally accepted. In that sense, knowledge can be defined as universally accepted belief, which therefore makes it indisputable.
This distinction is important when considering conviction. Although personal beliefs could make a man convinced they are not enough to convince all people. People with knowledge however can lead to influencing other people and convincing them of the same by providing empirical evidence. Conviction based on belief often lacks evidence and stems mainly from personal opinion which may not be shared universally. For e.g. Scientists believe that the universe was created by the big bang, however others believe it was created by God. An e.g. of knowledge would be that all matter is made up of molecules, as this is a claim that no one would refute.
Conviction based on belief would include hopes such as "I believe that India will win the ICC t-20 World Cup", and would combine aspiration to form this form of feverous conviction. Given the nature of this conviction it is unlikely that many would choose to dispute it considering the strength of conviction; this however cannot be considered to be conviction based on knowledge.
Conviction based on knowledge would be less emotionally inclined, relating to things like "I know that the school has 1000 students", as this can be easily supported by the statistics and registration figures from the school. Although people may be tempted to argue these figures, the empirical evidence provided would make it quite an insoluble argument.
The problem that lies with conviction based on belief is psychological by nature. People with strong belief will refuse to be convinced of any other form of argument regardless of whether there is substantial evidence, and often their arguments may be based on purely emotional grounds. This form of conviction often makes other arguments null and void because of the fervour with which they are expressed and have the power of influencing a large number of people. An example of this lies in the now common belief that stemmed from the attacks of 9/11 that all Muslims are terrorists. Although this is conviction based on belief, it has no knowledge involved in it, except for the fact that the man behind the attacks was a Muslim. Despite this, the conviction with which this belief was expressed resulted in a large part of the global audience becoming convinced of the same.
Alternatively conviction based on knowledge can alter conviction based on belief, as knowledge is constantly evolving and changing. Often, two pieces of knowledge may contradict each other and could effectively destroy any opinion that an individual may formulate. E.g. India won a string of cricket matches under the captaincy of Ajay Jadeja. Alternatively, Jadeja was found to be guilty of match fixing. This is where a knowledge based argument may break down, and introduce the circular argument as to whether India really did "win" those matches, again, knowing what the definition to "win" is. This form of conviction can also therefore be erroneous if the complete knowledge about the issue in question remains unknown. In this sense, conviction based on partial or incomplete knowledge may be as misleading as conviction based on belief.

5 THINGS I'M CERTAIN ABOUT

1] MY NAME IS AASHNA
2]I AM STUDYING IN DAIS.
3] INDIA WON THE TWENTY20 2007 WORLD CUP.
4]YUVRAJ SCORED 6 6S IN ONE OVER AGAINST ENGLAND IN TWENTY 20.
5]I GAVE MY ICSE BOARD EXAMS IN 2007.

5 things I'm certain about...

5 things i am certain about:
1. Manchester United won the 2006-07 season of the English Premier League (sigh!!!!)
2. INDIA ARE TWENTY-TWENTY CRICKET WORLD CHAMPIONS (hurray!!!)
3. I have my French oral on Thursday, 27th september.
4. Earth is the third planet from the Sun in the Solar System.
5. Hutch is now Vodafone.

-adwait

NB: This was posted by Adwait as a comment to my post, so I'm reposting it as a proper Blog Post.

Five Things I Am Certain About

These are 5 things that i am certain about:-
1) My name is Ramya Ramnath.
2) India is part of the Indian sub-continent
3) A country called America does not exist and it is in fact the United States Of America
4) India won the twenty20 world cup!
5) India did not win the 2006 world cup

I am certain about a lot of things and here are 5 things which I am absolutely certain about:

1. The moon revolves around the Earth and is hence classified as a satellite of the Earth.

2. My Theory of Knowledge teacher is a person who is known as Mr. Nicklin.

3. Drinking water satisfies my thirst and eating food satisfies my hunger under current "definitions" of "thirst" and "hunger".

4. The Head of State of India is the President.

5. Yuvraj Singh became the first cricketer to hit six sixes in an over in the ICC T-20 World Cup.

5 things I'm certain about

1. If I throw a piece of cork into the sea, or any water body for that matter, it will begin to float.

2. India was ruled by a dynasty of rulers now known as the Mughals

3. India defeated Australia in the semi-final of the 2007 ICC20-20 Cricket World Cup

4. Frances Hodsgon Burnett was the author of the novels "A Little Princess" and "Little Lord Fauntleroy"

5. Both Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee are actors in the Indian film industry, and have won at least one filmfare award each.

TOK Journal

To avoid misunderstanding, the electronic blog is a super-journal, but this does not remove the need for you to keep a 'hard-copy journal' which should include all the handouts and hand-written items from the lessons. You should also keep an independent soft copy of everything to do with your TOK work in case anything goes wrong with the blog, and a hard copy version for your 'hard-copy journal'.

Here is the section with the gaps filled in, to avoid confusion:

There are many sources of knowledge - our parents, our schools, our religious leaders, our sports coaches and music teachers, our friends, others in our society, the media, our own experiences and thoughts:

Ways of Knowing

1. perception
(Our senses give us our observations about the natural world and people)

2. reasoning
(Our own thinking helps us to classify, generalize, and predict)

3. language
(Our language gives us the beliefs and knowledge of our speech community.)

4. emotion
(Our feelings give us self-knowledge and understanding of others.)

How do our ways of knowing lead us to "KNOWLEDGE"?

When you look at the 'things people know' as they are posted on the blog, you can analyse them in terms of these different meanings of the word 'know'. ENGLISH provides distinctions different from those made in many other languages, for example :

· “I KNOW ABOUT... [the French ‘je suis au courant de…’] many things which I do not believe. Information or data is important as justification for well-founded beliefs, but it is not itself KNOWLEDGE

· I KNOW HOW... ! [the French ‘je sais’] to swim, to cook, to use a computer, to get along with others, to think critically... This kind of knowing is SKILL, whether intellectual or practical:

· I KNOW THAT... this is so. [the French ‘Je sais QUE’] This kind of knowledge is PROPOSITlONAL KNOWLEDGE. It consists of knowledge claims which, expressed in language, can be examined and tested for justification and truth.

· I KNOW THIS PERSON OR PLACE... [the French ‘je connais’] This kind of knowing is DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, whether of feelings or people or...

One standard definition of KNOWLEDGE is "justified true belief” - and includes ONLY propositional knowledge ("I know that..") It takes the form of claims that can be scrutinized publicly.

1. I believe that...": The claim is accepted, whether with mild indifference or passionateconviction. The strength of the emotion is not what makes a belief into knowledge. ‘Subjective Certainty is no guarantee of objective accuracy’

3. "My belief is true." In this definition of knowledge, the claim must be able to be tested for truth via correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic tests.

2. "My belief is justified.": in this definition of knowledge, only public forms of justification,such as evidence and reasoning, are accepted. The claim can't just be "true belief -sometimes just a lucky accident of guessing right!

"KNOWLEDGE" DOES NOT MEAN "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY." OUR JUSTIFICATIONS AND TRUTH TESTS ARE NOT PERFECT.

5 Things I am certain about.

These are five things about which I am certain about. I hope and wish that no one will bet against it.

1. Given the nature of what 'East' is, I can say beyond reasonable doubt that India is a country East of Africa.

2. I come to school everyday with the same man: my father.

3. If I run continously for more than 10 minutes, I will be tired(drained of energy).

4. I am certain that when i press a particular letter key on my keyboard, the corresponding letter shows on the monitor of the computer.

5. If i throw a ball up (on Earth) it will come down. I am certain about this. Trust me.

How to post

When you post any one of your TOK entries on this blog, use your name as the label. So where it asks Labels for this post just fill in your name (eg Shloka) and then post it. This will allow the post to get saved as part of your archives, so later when you need to find all your entries or posts you just need to search for your name and you'll find anything you ever posted on this blog.

Email Ids

This Blog is for all of Mr. Nicklin's Year XI TOK students (Block 1). Please leave your email ids as a comment to this post so that I can register you as a member (author) of this blog. Alternatively you can send me an email as shloka.mehta@gmail.com, and I'll register you as an author.