As I go further into my studies I can see contradictions to my previous learning. This has led me to question the truth behind the information I call knowledge. What I learnt yesterday is contradicted by today so what I learn tomorrow in university show me a new picture again. And which picture should I trust- the simplistic one I saw as a child or the new one? these questions have put me in a dilemma and my reason seems to be failing me.
Where does knowledge come from? How is knowledge attained? Do we tend to oversimplify the Ways of Knowing? Do we believe in science, and how much do we believe it? There are many sources of knowledge throughout the world that communicate to people about what events that have happened and what is happening at this very moment. However may lie or are misleading, have bias, and come from different perspectives. Being misleading, having bias, and having different perspectives with in a source make the sources harder to be considered trustworthy. . Not all these sources can be trusted. Which one should we trust? As a TOK learner I am trying to find answers but the more I try the more I obfuscated I get.
I always believed that history was written based on biased perceptions and manipulated by those in power. But I always believed that science and mathematics to be absolute and true. But lately my beliefs are changing. In the ICSE I was told that Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix model and received a Nobel Award for it. This was written in Biology textbook. After coming to the IB I learnt that it was actually their assistant Roselyn Franklin who made the discovery but died soon after and the two scientists took credit for her discovery. Also in ICSE we learnt three Laws of Genetic Inheritance by Mendel’s that governed the inheritance. However in the IB I learnt polygenetic inheritance that gives a completely new picture of how the Human body actually functions. Everytime I learn something new I have to revise previous knowledge claims; this means I never knew the truth. The revised version I know today I think is the truth but is that so? In math I was told that the root of negative numbers does not exist, in the IB I learnt that the root of a negative number is an imaginary and denoted by the letter ‘i’. Today I do not know the value of ‘i’, but will I know tomorrow, does it have a value or no, if no then why am I using it.
Thus there have been many questions lately that have perturbed me. All I can say is that we never really know the whole truth, but we must acquire as much information as possible and then only make a knowledge claim. One book or any one source for that matter is not full proof. Counter arguments need to be considered and related areas have to be analysed.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
knowledge at work- Nuclear Issue with Iran
In this article we see how two countries are perturbed by different issues. Iran has social and political issues that it wishes to discuss with while US wants to discuss the Nuclear deal. Both countries are unwilling to understand the other’s concerns. Both countries do evidently not understand each others perspective and want to further their own motives.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.
To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)