Stupidity

-What is stupidity?

Today we looked at what stupidity is, and why it is so difficult to define. A question that was raised was "How can we understand stupidity if we don't understand knowledge?", which is essentially is what TOK explores.

" Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -Albert Einstein


A definition of stupid in the Oxford English Dictionary is as follows:
adj.
1) Lacking intelligence or common sense
2) Dazed and unable to think clearly
3) (informal) used to express exasperation or boredom

In the documentary we watched in class, these 'types' of definitions were what the people interviewed came up with. It seems to be the inability to think appropriately in an intellectual, social, or any sort of situation.In this sense, the expression of 'exasperation or boredom' fits as being bored takes our ability to think properly.

However, everyday we use the word 'stupid' in a much broader sense. Anything we don't approve of is 'stupid'. Where does this ambiguous word which all people use come from?
The documentary showed how humans have had a uncomfortable history with ignorance, and have avoided to confront the issue in a proper academic form. The IQ, which measures intelligence in a scientific manner, on the other hand of the scale also defines stupidity. The IQ test originally served to classify retardation in children, although now we tend to avoid the direct classification of people with low IQ as 'retarded'. Different words that compare levels of stupidity in people were clarified then.

There is also a tendency for people to opt for stupidity. Watching television is a almost brainless activity, which causes a state of virtual catatonia. We know this, yet at the end of the day when we are tired, we often want to watch television brainlessly. The whole commercial industry and the media is based around this concept of brainless activity. Yet it is 'commercial' because it reaches to wide audiences and makes money. So can stupidity be a type of social phenomena/disease? I think the fact that people are living in intellectual society which promotes knowledge means that on the other hand, intelligence is also used to create stupidity. Because there is intelligence, stupidity is created. It is like saying someone can only become healthy because unhealthiness exists, and if unhealthiness didn't exist, then there would be no pursuit for better health.

So what is stupidity? I don't know :)

Mathematics (cont.)

The Problem of Consistency; Beauty and Elegance; Mathematics in the Universe

Although Math seems like the most provable, definite area of knowledge, it has its flaws and paradoxes. 

One example given in the lecture was Gottlob Frege's work, which involved trying to reduce all theories into simple arithmetic. Lord Russell challenged Frege's work at a fundamental level, concerning the 'set paradox'. This paradox was about a set containing all sets that are not members of themselves.

What happens with the set of the "sets that do not contain themselves as elements"? Now it seems that there are knot theories (diagram below) which can get around the set paradox.

With the problem showed in the lecture of whether N=0.999... is equal to 1, the 'paradox' created here depends upon our definition of infinity (quoted from my mom :) ). We can prove N to be 1 with simple algebra:

N = 0.99999

10N = 9.9999

Therefore 

10N-N = 9.9999 - 0.9999

9N = 9

N = 1

The simplicity in this logic is satisfying. However if we were to really look into whether 0.999 does equal 1, we would look at if we define 0.9999 approaching 1 to be 1, thus how we define the infinite number of nines. When talking about beauty and elegance in math, I feel this type of discussion is what attracts people to pure maths. 

Maths does have flaws, but mathematicians work on its flaws to correct them and explain how things work. In fact without its paradoxes and flaws, I'm not sure if there would be that many mathematicians in the world, because everything would work in perfect simple logic. 

Then there is the question, is maths just a coincidence that math is so prevalent in reality? Was maths invented by people or was it discovered? Maths is a pure science, that is systematic and logical, as well as an art to create fundamental logic. It definitely to some point has been defined by people, as we can see in ancient civilizations where maths that began in different areas of the world came about differently. 

I think it makes sense that maths works, because the universe was not created by pure randomness. When things happen there is normally a cause and effect, and if the universe was created by a chain of cause and effects, then it seems reasonable that things fell into place in a somewhat structured way. The coincidence of the Golden Ratio may not be explainable by human minds (at least currently). But the brain is a biological object which has cells, structure, science to it, and it seems logical that we react to certain ratios naturally. 

Maths as an AOK

-What is Mathematics?
-Formal system of knowledge?
-Mathematics as a language?

Maths is defined as the study of quantity, science of order and measure, the "Queen of sciences" etc. It is a area of knowledge that uses a formal system, which acts as a base for reason.
Here are the things that make up the formal system:
1. Axioms
2. Rules of Inference/ Deductive reasoning/ Proof
3. Theorems

It is the axioms that state the most basic rules in mathematics, like if a=b, and b=c, then a=c. These are often perceived as obvious, but its importance increases as the maths becomes more sophisticated.
Consequently, from the axioms we draw inferences, reason, and find proofs. This relies upon the logic that if the premises are true, then the conclusions must be true. We call these conclusions "theorems".

Our general understanding of math comes from these simple axioms and theorems. One example is one of Euclid's axioms, that two points can be joined to create 1 unique line. Simple premises such as this is what enables our mathematics to work.

If we define language as a means of communication, then math can be described as a language. There are limits to expressing a mathematical process (eg. The square root of two hundred and fifty divided by three plus seven), but in a mathematical form, ((250)^120)/10, we can rid of any ambiguities.

The strength of maths can be that it is a universal language. It lacks subjectivity and is mostly if not purely objective, thus it is interpreted in the same way as anyone in the world. It is a tool used in most other AOKs: areas of math such as statistics can help us with predictions in Economics and in the other humanities, likewise calculus was an area of math invented for Physics to expand.

The weakness of math seems to be that it is elitist. A sense of inferiority can be created when one cannot understand math. I personally don't find this a issue specific to math, although it may be most clearly seen in math. Many areas in art are very competitive, and because the truth can be hidden using subjectivity as an excuse, it's just not as clear, but it exists. People can feel more superior/inferior than others because of any type of talent they have, not just math exclusively. I think this seems to be the case in a school environment, because math is a subject which is compulsory and the gap is widened between 'classes'.

As a basis of discussion, we looked at how useful or meaningful is proving Fermat's Last Theorem.(to be cont.)

Art

What is art?
What is the value of art?


As a visual arts student and a musician, I have to confront these questions often. There is a large gap between the aesthetics and the purpose of fine arts and contemporary art, as well as how people define art. I think of art as something human created, which often includes the process of interpreting something. Something interpreted by a person is already human created, thus how the person expresses it becomes art.
This is the conclusion I reach when I think about how art has only existed in human societies, and not in other living beings.
However this thought changes when I am interpreting a piece on a violin, and when I listen to a song on the radio. These two are completely different cultures and ways of thinking. A piece by Mozart would be immensely offended if it were told to be art of equal value to "Friday" by Rebecca Black. There seems to be "good art" and "bad art" which depends from person to person, and often "bad art" is said to not be a "proper piece of art" ie. not worth being called art.
Still, I draw the boundaries of what art is as something that is human created.

An interesting example of what I still call art is what was shown in a presentation a few weeks back: Mandelbrots set, a fractal pattern created by an equation plotted on the complex plane. Although it is on its boundary of being an art, the pattern made by this equation is a discovery, which could only be plotted by the creation of computers. It is like doing an observational painting an apple: we did not create the apple, we are discovering its form, and we are able to depict the apple using the paint brush.
I think the Mandelbrots set image along the same principles, that it is still an art because of how it is created.

There are different criterion by which we judge and place the value on art:
-Aesthetic
-Its statement
which in its sub categories has:
-Political
-Historical
-Sentimental
-Religious

From an exercise we have done in class, which spend 150CHF freely on a set of paintings, we saw that the way we judge art depends greatly on who we are. When I  buy art, I buy it because it has the "I want to put it in my living room" factor. Some people enjoy the meaning of the art much more, and others like the impact of the statement the art makes.

John Carlin- journalist, author

"John Carlin (born 12 May 1956)^[1] is a journalist and author, dealing with both sports and politics. His book Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game that Made a Nation about former South African president Nelson Mandela is the basis for the 2009 film Invictus." - Wikipedia.com


"Journalism is the pass to extraordinary events, people, and parts of the world" 
In this talk, John Carlin revealed to us the nature of journalism. Journalism is a medium in our media, which plays a strong role in our perception of the world. It is our source of information, which creates and shapes our opinions and perception. 

In this talk, Carlin told us anecdotes and messages he had picked up from his experiences. His far most memorable and cherished were his encounters with Nelson Mandela, whom he described to have a charisma and confidence of a hero. Carlin's first encounter with this great man was at his release after 27 years of imprisonment; when he stepped out, surrounded by media including Carlin, ready to change the country. Working for the Independent at the time, Carlin had felt, and known, that this was a great moment in history, and to be witnessing it was one of the privileges of a journalist. 


Mandela's challenge after becoming president was going to be to negotiate on opposition arms. In an interview, Carlin asked him what his formula was going to be. Mandela answered he was going to reconcile black aspirations and white fears: "Respect" for one another is one of the most important social qualities, and in order to reach an understanding and gain respect, he had to know his enemy better. This Mandela had done by learning Afrikaans during his imprisonment, and getting to know the culture and individual personalities of the brutish white prison guards. 


This helped Mandela, as he won over the respect of the prison guards, later the Chief of "In"justice, the head of Secret Intelligence, and even the leader of a white opposition group that emerged, who was an ex-general, ambitious to oppose. By respecting this leader greatly, Mandela was able to convince the 'terrorist' to abandon the group and participate in elections. "I was told I was a coward to talk to the opposition leader. They were wrong: I managed to obtain peace."(Mandela). The respect for the white culture also included the aim that even in the newly reformed country, there had to be a sense of belonging for everyone. When the new government was deciding upon an national anthem, Mandela was wise and made the decision to have both the black and white anthems, so there would not be a feeling of separation and black dominance over the country. Mandela had great political leadership: the power to bend people to your will. He invested a lot of immense respect and trust in people for this, but instead, when he felt betrayed, he was implacable. 


So what was Carlin's view on the nature of journalism? What he had recounted for us showed this: it was a witness account of Carlin's experiences, where he tried to be accurate as possible about the events and the atmosphere, yet there was also messages within this story. "Objectivity in journalism is impossible", and all people have a bias. Carlin stated that "objectivity is a myth", but at least he tried to be as truthful as possible in what he wrote. 
Thus Carlin commented that the reliability of articles were that they were "only approximations of the truth". Some journalists will have more elements of inventions, with ulterior motives. Carlin himself said he was a mercenary, writing articles on various subjects because he was asked to. Nonetheless journalism is normally the best attempts at the truth, by the journalist. 

History (cont.)

History can be a hagiography, a morality tale, and a cautionary tale, all to some extent, because history normally has a purpose for being told. If history is being taught in school, it is not only to educate children on facts of the past, but also to present to them morals and cautions which can be learnt from our history.

For example, there are many elements omitted by Japan in their history textbooks, including facts about their conflict with China and the invasion of Manchuria. Although it seems here that the historian is deliberately twisting the truth, it is not necessarily false, and it is history written for young Japanese students. The bias comes not only from the historian, but also from the audience, who supply the demand for history that has a ulterior motive.

Rwandan Genocide and the Truth reconciliation commission

The talk on the Rwandan genocide raised questions on what is evil. Philip Zimbardo, the professor who conducted the Stanford prison experiment in 1971, defined evil as someone who abuses power by intentionally hurting another person. He also created a thesis, The Lucifer Effect, which looks at what brings out the evil in ‘good’ people. Therefore, when looking at history and judging why certain decisions were made, we need to look at the power dynamics of the time. For example, being the one who feed the information to the public gives one power. That person has the power of language, and can manipulate the thoughts of people in different ways.

Conflict is mostly caused by everyone thinking they are the victims to a problem. Nonetheless, an apology doesn't necessarily solve the problem, as it can be hollow. In the case of USA's apologies to its indigenous communities, the apologies do not mean a lot. However, in the case of Japan and China's ongoing rivalry, neither are willing to admit any responsibility and apologize. I think conflict is almost unavoidable, but as long as the rivalry is relatively peaceful, then it is just like rivalry between sport teams, except political. As long as the living standards of the people are relatively good, violence or major events do not occur. 

AOK- History

-What shapes the views of a historian? (PERCEPTION) 
-Do historians look at facts emotionally?( EMOTION)
-Do historians piece together the past through reason? (REASON)
-Is language the most effective weapon of the historian? (LANGUAGE)

Evidence which recreates history for us, are often buried in a certain chronology and has been treated in a certain manner which also provides information about the piece of evidence. For example, by looking into our garbage, we can discover clues to the past. However, history is a process where we interpret the evidence, and present it in a certain way. It is a science and an art, because it includes the process of  searching evidence that supports a certain hypothesis, and is a skill which is creative, interpretive, and is part of the art of argument.

The factors that shape the views of the historian are important, because  people have different backgrounds, and the differences in their background causes different interpretations . Bias is subjective, because  we cannot judge objectively if we are being lenient towards one argument.

Although the opinions of a historian should not be affected by irrational emotions, historians do see facts emotionally. In fact, if we were presented with just the facts of an event, we may not be able to understand its importance: it is when historians interpret the facts for us, and recount the event with emotion that history seems to have a greater meaning. “Facts do not speak for themselves”- the facts alone do not present the past, but it is the historians, who are emotional beings, who present the past.

History, being a science, should be pieced together through reason. A good historian will use empathy as a tool to understand the motivations for decisions made in the past, analyze its expedience, and be able to examine the personalities of the decision makers, as well as their circumstances and other extraneous factors. It seems unlikely that all the history presented to us has gone through this thorough process with objectivity. It is also logical to say that the past may be pieced together to someone’s advantage, including the historians. This makes the history presented still logical, but maybe not as truthful or objective as people may perceive it to be.

Language is the medium with which a historian presents his/her interpretation. The significance of the language used is that it can evoke emotion or even shape a person’s perception. It is also important as a means to find out the truth, because it is when people and opinions debate upon facts, we are able to approach the truth.