Examples

Natural and Human Sciences (The problem of consciousness Part 5)

This time last year we started a thread of posts on the idea of consciousness. We got somewhat distracted, but here's a follow up... (see the tab on 'Consciousness' to view the previous posts.)

A deterministic argument against dualism

Scientists refute both forms of dualism by resorting to a deterministic argument to explain behaviours like choosing things.

Choosing anything can be explained by pointing to a chain of physical causes and effects which links the initial decision to a combination of brain activity, the nervous system, muscle movement and the environment. The series of physical causes comprising of these factors, it is argued, explain or determine why I chose to wear a blue shirt this morning instead of a white one.

Scientists would have us believe that if they were supplied in advance with a knowledge of all the laws of nature, as well as all of the physical facts relating to my body and environment just a few moments before I chose my blue shirt, they would, in principle, be able to predict the outcome of my decision. The choice of blue shirt, in other words, was fixed in advance by how things were physically.

What are the implications of this?

1. There is no place for a non-physical fact to play a part in the chain of cause and effect – a mental fact or property couldn’t affect the ways things turned out. I would have always chosen the blue shirt.

2. According to dualists, the mind or consciousness is at least partly non-physical and they are committed to the view that the mind or mental properties can affect the way things turn out in the physical world (they want their cake and they want to eat it).

3. But if the deterministic explanation is right, the dualist would be forced to accept that he could omit the mind altogether from his belief system, since it is irrelevant to what goes on in the body when we choose things.

4. However, he might point to the absurdity of the situation; that of course we couldn’t get rid of the mind or consciousness since it makes us what we are.

5. We would then have to point out to him that, according to the ‘chain of cause and effect’ argument, the mind can only affect the outcome of my physical actions if the mind is itself physical.

6. The dualist is left with two alternatives:

a. Holding on to an inconsistant belief in the duality of the mind.
b. Rejecting dualism altogether.

Science appears to win the argument that the world only consists of physical facts. But some people find it difficult to accept that human consciousness is so easily reducible and that our actions are physically pre-determined.


The Black and White room argument against materialism

In the 1980s, the philosopher, Frank Jackson, devised the following thought experiment in a defence of the dualistic position (click on the picture above.)

Imagine a girl, Mary, is born and raised in a room where she can only experience black and white. The scientists who study her have made sure that she has no other colour experiences. She only ever experiences black, white and shades of grey. Mary begins to study science and eventually becomes a world renowned expert in brain science. She discovers everything that goes on inside the brain of people when they have colour experiences – she learns, for example, all the physical facts possible in the chain of causes and effects that explain what happens when people have the experience of seeing red.

Now one day, one of the scientists who’s been studying her development, brings a red tomato into the room. In spite of everything she knows about the ‘experience of red’, Mary is shocked. She does not know that to experience red feels like this. How could she? She’d never experienced redness before. Evidently, Mary has learned a new fact – the fact that experiencing red feels ‘like this’. She thought she knew all the physical facts pertaining to colour experiences. This fact, she now thinks, can’t be a physical fact. She concludes that the ‘experience of red’ and what this experience ‘feels like’ are two different things. The former may be a physical fact, but the latter is not.

According to Jackson, there are two major implications of this thought experiment:

1. there must be something more than physical facts to explain the existence of consciousness.

2. there exists an ‘explanatory gap’ whereby science falls short: it cannot explain everything in terms of an appeal to physical facts alone.

So we are left with our original distinction: is consciousness something irreducibly subjective and private (like the dualists believe) or is it something outward – a physical manifestation of inward states linked to our brain functions and nervous system?

We appear to be nowhere near a definitive answer as to how this piece of flesh we call a human body comes to be full of thoughts and self-awareness...

Notes on Structure and Layout

The ToK Essay: A SEXCI essay – worked example
Imagine that Rose is pondering the 2010 essay title #6:

‘All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. On what grounds and to what extent would you agree with this assertion?’

Suppose now that the following line of thought takes place in her mind (think of it as a debate between opposing voices – for ease of understanding, we’ve labeled these voices The Angel, The Daemon and The Other):

The Angel: I agree. If someone claims to know that there’s water on Mars, they better have a good reason to believe this. I read a BBC article which suggests that the scars on the surface are water tracks or valleys which once had flowing water running through them. Reason is a good way of measuring the reliability of knowledge claims. If we didn’t demand reasons for people’s beliefs, all kinds of dangerous beliefs could be passed around.

The Daemon: I disagree. It depends on the kind of knowledge claim, doesn’t it? Take religion, for example. Someone who believes in God may not exactly be able to provide any reasons for his belief that are acceptable to an atheist. It’s a matter of faith. They can point to various things like miracle healings or people’s near-death experiences where a guardian angel appears before them, but they can’t tell the atheist that they have given her any ‘reasons’ to justify their claim. There are some beliefs that cannot be rationally criticized because they have nothing to do with reason.

The Other: Hold your horses, if you have beliefs that are NOT open to rational criticism, then surely you’re holding irrational beliefs and that doesn’t seem right – clearly, it is not inconsistent for me to believe that torture is wrong and yet there are circumstances (reasons) under which it is justified: for example, to gain intelligence that could save many lives. Perhaps the belief in God is like this. You might say that this is ‘dangerous’, but first, I think we have to be clear about what we mean by ‘rational criticism’…

Let’s break down the dialogue into its constituent parts:

S = There is water on Mars

E = Scars on the surface are water tracks

eX = Reason is a good way of measuring the reliability of knowledge claims

C = Belief in God. - Miracle healings or people’s near death experiences. - It’s a matter of faith; some beliefs that cannot be rationally criticized because they have nothing to do with reason.

I = That doesn’t seem right. - if you have beliefs that are NOT open to rational criticism, then surely you’re holding irrational beliefs. - Surely we have to be clear about what we mean by ‘rational criticism’.

There’s no reason why your planning can’t take the form of this to and fro momentum of argumentation, building in any reading material that you've selected and even snippets of conversations that you've had with other students and teachers on the topic.

The internal dialogue might go on as follows:

The Angel: Ah! You mean whether we should follow Plato’s suggestion that knowledge is ‘justified true belief’ – rational criticism means that we must justify our beliefs in the light of reason? If I believe that smoking kills, then first, I must believe this; second, it must be true and third, I need some reasons to explain why I believe this.

The Daemon: Yes, we could do this, but you know the problems that this leads us to. For example, if you justify your belief that smoking kills by explaining that it causes lung cancer, you need to justify your belief in that cause itself by way of another reason and so on ad inifintum.

The Other: Indeed, the old ‘infinite regress problem’. We could dwell forever on possible solutions for this, but why don’t we focus instead on the idea that ‘rational criticism’ means more that we need a method to approach the issue of beliefs: a method which allows us to accept or reject beliefs on the basis of observable evidence.

The Angel (casting a sullen look at her feet): Oh dear! You’re getting much too scientific for my liking.

The Daemon (rubbing his hands together with glee): Now we’re getting somewhere – you’re talking about falsification aren’t you? Well…

Writing like this can be fun, creative and most of all, really opens your mind to alternative arguments.

TOK Websites

1. http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/

This website is based in Patana school, Thailand. Mr. Hoye has constructed a fabulous site whose main interest lies in the suggestions of how to plan your essays and presentations. It also provides thought-provoking articles relating to the differrent aspects of the TOK course which will provide you with ample examples to support your arguments and counter-arguments, as well as a range of useful web links. Above all else, the website is really easy to navigate.

2. http://blogs.triplealearning.com/category/diploma/dp_tok/

Triplealearning is a company that specialises in providing online IB training courses for IB teachers. Once a teacher has been on a course, he can engage in follow-up discussions on the triplealearning blog. They have a blog for every subject on the IB course. The TOK blog is interesting largely for the teaching resources that the teachers share with each other - a vast bank of examples that you could tap into for your essays and presentations!

Notes on Structure and Layout

The ToK Essay: Writing with a SEXCI style

Having recently glanced through our copy of The Oxford Union Society Guide to Schools’ Debating,* we came across a section entitled ‘Argumentation (SEXI)’ which explains a ‘technique for thinking about arguments’ – ‘[SEXI] stands for State, EXplain, Illustrate’:

“ ‘State’ means simply to say what your team believes, ‘EXplain’ means providing the logic and reasoning for why that statement is true and ‘Illustrate’ means providing evidence to show that the ‘EXplanation’ is not just theoretical but that there are instances where it is so…”

It occurred to us that a TOK essay might be thought of as presenting an internal debate or dialogue which loosely follows this technique. Now this is nothing new to IB teachers who have taught Philosophy for a number of years. A few years ago, one of the assessment requirements was for students to write a Socratic dialogue on philosophical issue.

Now we’re not suggesting that TOK students write an essay in the form of a Socratic dialogue (although it’s been pointed out to us that there’s nothing in the marking criteria to prevent you from doing this). What we are suggesting is that the Oxford Union’s idea of a debating technique of argumentation might, with one or two adjustments, give you a framework to write the main body of your TOK essays.

Consider this:

S = statement or knowledge claim

E = example or evidence to support the claim

eX = explanation of how the example/evidence is relevant or supports the claim

C = counter-argument (which follows the ‘statement – example – explanation’ procedure above)

I = implication (So what? If we accept all this, what follows? What connections can we make with the other ideas about knowledge? What is the Knowledge Issue?)

The first four parts of the process would make one paragraph of an essay and other paragraphs would utilize the same format with the final point (I) being the opening statement or knowledge claim (S) to start the next paragraph…

It’s the C and the I parts that build in the TOK element to your essay.

A worked example will follow.

*BAILEY, J. & MOLYNEAUX, G., The Oxford Union Society Guide to Schools’ Debating, Oxford Union Society, Oxford, 2005.

Examples

Human Sciences (Economics)

At the end of last month, stock market experts at StockMarketFunding.com pointed to a potential collapse in the stock market in the middle of October. The date 16th October is mentioned in the following clip:

It's all to do with 'Put Options' and if you can get through this and the rest of the stock market jargon, you'll see that the experts predict a crash in the US stock market that could have serious ramifications all over the world.

Historically, 'Red October' might very well have the same global impact as the fateful 'Black Monday' of 19th October 1987 or the panic of 2008 during 'Black Week' (beginning 6th October) which some argue sparked a global economic crisis, whose fallout we are experiencing at present.

How far does the knowledge of experts created insecurity and fear about the economy? To what extent are their predictions based on reliable evidence? In what ways does their language obfuscate or clarify the reality of the financial situation?

These are all KIs that emerge out of a very real life situation and could be useful to explore as the basis of a TOK presentation. Indeed, if you imagine that the above paragraphs are a set of preparation notes, you'd have a potential script for an introduction to a presentation...

A Polemic on independent thinking

Following on from the previous post...

Some initial thoughts

While we agree with some of the critic’s insights into students’ use of sources and examples, we still can’t find any coherent reasons as to why teachers should take an ‘aggressive approach’ to steer their students away from using ibtokspot.

Here is, however, the critic’s ‘argument’:

P1: The blog site provides ‘detailed discussion’ of essay titles.
P2: The writer of the blog intends to organise study weekends in order to discuss the 2011 titles ‘in depth.’
Therefore, use of this and other such sites is ‘unacceptable’.

If we put aside the logic (or lack of it) on which this argument is based, the assumption is, of course, that it is not good to ‘collude’ when preparing to do a TOK assessment, especially the essay. At least, not the kind of collusion that happens on ibtokspot.

And what type of collusion is that? Well, presumably the critic believes that the site ‘colludes’ by giving all you TOK students out there answers to the prescribed titles which have the same finality of absolute mathematical certainty as one of those banal examples that keep cropping up in TOK essays: 2 + 2 = 4.

Or does the critic have in mind the type of collusion which implies that students are incapable of thinking for themselves (see point one on ‘Precepts for everyday life’) and making their own judgments about what is right and wrong so they have to go to ‘worrisome’ websites to think for them?

Indeed, it could be the type of collusion that is founded on a belief that teachers themselves are somehow too lazy or incompetent to guide their students in the right direction so that students have to turn elsewhere for solutions – which begs the question of why some schools list ibtokspot as a useful resource...

What is the critic afraid of exactly? Well, we do not know exactly. Although, if we notice the critic’s urgency to police or blacklist the ‘unacceptable’ websites, this would imply that there exists in these sites some sort of insidious criminal intent to undermine the education of our youth; a disease, for which the report will be the ultimate antidote.

It is very clear that the perfidious ibtokspot must be giving the profoundly apathetic student an ‘easy way out’ for his essay preparation; providing some sort of unfair leverage in the market for top grades; presenting an unmerited ‘leg up’, as the English say, to the ‘Can’t be bothered with TOK’ Brigade.

Here, an imaginary dialogue

The critic cries: ‘Let’s make things as difficult as possible for everyone concerned. We do not think that students can think independently, so we must get them to jump through different sized hoops to test them. That’ll teach them nicely.’

Ibtokspot replies (a little understatedly): ‘That’s somewhat patronising don’t you think? Reducing students to the same common denominator (of mediocrity) whereby they need constant molly-coddling, hand-holding and monitoring. Big Brother is watching you!’

The critic adjoins (with a look of admonishment): ‘We don’t mind if our TOK students have help and tuition, but there’s a limit to everything, isn’t there? We can’t have them relying on dodgy websites with questionable authority and badly written articles – my, how un-intellectual and academically shoddy their work will turn out!’

Ibtokspot replies (with forced sympathy which is laced with a hint of irony): ‘Presumably the help and tuition must come solely from within the boundary of a school or some other educational institution which has the best interests of the student at heart; a place which will, moreover, instil in the students the best approach to writing and thinking and do so without clogging their minds with bad practice.’

What do we think?

TWADDLE. RUBBISH. BS.

Now, let us make an observation: the criticism of the website is at best fuzzy and at worst, it’s symptomatic of the kind of narrow-minded and short-sighted, oh yes, and technophobic, hysteria that appears to be plaguing education these days, especially in the UK (refer to the tab labelled ‘Education’) – though it’s by no means exclusive to this island as exemplified by the critic’s report.

Yes, ibtokspot promotes the sceptical approach of questioning everything – even oneself (precept 8) – which implies that everything written on the blog is questionable, so don’t take it as gospel truth (does this really need to be said!)

Yes, ibtokspot is a kind of ‘tutor’ outside of the school environment – in the French sense of the word ‘tuteur’ meaning literally, a stick to support the growth of a sapling (do we really need to go on!)

And yes, ibtokspot stimulates discussion because that is exactly what young people want both in and out of school, especially if no-one else is willing to listen (what else is there to say!)

No, using ibtokspot isn’t cheating, unless of course you lift sentences verbatim from the site and pass them off as your own (say ‘no’ to plagiarism!)

No, the existence of ibtokspot isn’t a threat to the brilliant work of schools and teachers and examiners (bravo!)

And quite categorically no, ibtokspot does not play on, or profit from, the insecurities of students who are struggling with what TOK is all about (even teachers struggle with this!)

To Conclude

Here’s a perfect agricultural analogy: in the field of education, the work of ibtokspot is the manure which helps to fertilise the earth in which the seedling young minds of students grow to think for themselves, be themselves, speak up, feel free to agree and disagree, be honest with themselves and others, be open-minded, avoid being judgemental and to question everything – even their own thinking.

Back to BS again. Just like knowledge, guiding people to think for themselves can either help or hinder us in our day to day relationships with each other and our environment.

But you already knew that didn’t you?

Websites

ibtokspot.blogspot.com

This is a website that might interest you.

According to one report (click here for a link to a pdf file), ibtokspot is under scrutiny, or at least it should be. The site has been identified as being ‘particularly worrisome’ because...

Well, that’s just it – there appear to be no real reasons to support this claim.

We’ll post something more on this when we’ve had time to ponder. Meanwhile, read the opening 50 or so lines of the report and make up your own minds...