# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tree Parts Vocabulary Poster in Green Handdrawn Style

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Is New Knowledge Created infographic- Rahael

# data[].attributes.body
This is an accurate quote to me personally because creativity isn't as conscious a process as people can assume it to be.

# data[].attributes.body
"If we're to address the broader polarization of society, attempting to understand, empathize and build trust, are surely important tools to use whatever the shape of your world."

-What role does being a 'nuanced thinker' play in helping us to achieve this?

It is the main way that we are able

# data[].attributes.body
●Why it argue that people see feminist ideals as being incompatible with true science?

●How can feminism generate new questions and methodologies that help scientists identify and correct hidden biases?

●Why does the article argue that the idea that science is objective is “outdated”?

# data[].attributes.body
"Without being able to change your perspectives, you are unable to understand mathematics."

do you agree? Justify your answer

I agree that mathematics is unforgiving if you are unable to change your perspective because I

# data[].attributes.body
"Study the historian before you study the facts." -EH Carr

-to what extent does this answer the problems associated with history?

-can it be applied to other AOKs?

Separate the art from the artist

This does not answer the problems associated with history because it puts the brunt of the issue on the student/learner of history and not the teacher/historians

# data[].attributes.body
Questioning assumptions is incredibly difficult. Because to question assumptions, to doubt what you assume to be true already, especially if that assumption is what defines who you are, is to do the thing our brain evolved to avoid, which is uncertainty.

Can the arts help us to overcome this challenge? What other strategies can we draw on to deal with this uncertainty?

The arts can help us overcome the challenge of questioning our assumptions because consuming art forces you to be a spectator and take in both sides of a story, after which you form an opinion that could now be different to the one you had before because you thought more what you had previously automatically concluded. We could

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I agree. If you put in a heavily biased prompt/question then the answer provided would likely be in favor of the answer you were looking for. Being aware of how our own biased input affects the AI's output does help with using AI more objectively because you then have a tendency to pay more attention to detail and notice when the answers you're getting are leaning to one-specific side. It also keeps you from getting too reliant on AI because it forces you to notice its flaws and possibly how inaccurate or biased it is. Another thing is, while the way we word things can make the AI lean one way in its answer, at times the AI tool can lean heavily one way on its own and not change its answer because of the way it was programmed/set up.

# data[].attributes.body
Science is the search for truth, that is the effort to understand the world: it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality.

what key strategy would you identify to helps us achieve this?

The strategy I'd recommend is looking at things from an outside perspective to ensure you aren't missing any details. When looking at things through a different lens, you see things you wouldn't, or couldn't have seen before. An academic example would be like changing the font of an essay you wrote so that you can read through it and catch things you wouldn't have before because your eyes were used to the font. Its making make an effort to be objective without

# data[].attributes.body
which of the biases do you think are most widespread?

I think in this age of technology, confirmation bias is huge culprit in everyone's tendencies to gravitate towards their own echo chambers. I also think clustering illusion and conservatism bias go hand in hand with confirmation bias in terms of how they aide and enhance the grip people tend to have in their beliefs and why they seek to validate them constantly.

which of the biases do you think you're most vulnerable to

can you think of any strategies to overcome these biases

# data[].attributes.body
1st slide- which exports make that country the most money

2nd slide- % of people having sex weekly, by country

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone as individual knowers and as a collective, both online and in real life, should step up to the plate and take responsibility to control the spread of misinformation as we can be all both harmed by it and tend to spread it around without much thought. As individual knowers, we should be skeptical of information that doesn't cite a source, information that sounds too good to be true, information that's used as clickbait, and honestly most of what we see on social media. As a general rule of thumb, the person talking about it gets paid for your interaction with their post and they themselves are not a true journalist, then it's best to factcheck their facts. As a collective, we should take heed not to send the first video we get about a subject/topic to our friends and family, or repost it, until we make sure that what is being said is relevant and accurate other than just being something we agree with. We also should not rely on AI to tell us reliable information because while it is helpful when quickly searching something up, it not guaranteed to be accurate at all times so it should be taken with a grain with of salt.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree that language can be accurately compared to a plant due to its ever-changing nature. I think its possible to go as far to say that not only does it grow, shrink, die, etcetera, like a plant, we as human beings impact it in a very similar way to how we interact with plants. Linguistic prescriptivism, relativism, and determinism all talk about how the languages we speak affect us and our views of the world, that our perspectives in our native tongue hinder us. While I don't completely disagree with those claims, I don't think they allow for the whole picture to be examined. The reason why certain languages have an abundance of certain words and topics compared to the scarcity of some other ones, is because of the experiences and culture of the people speaking that language to begin with. The purpose of language is communication, so if there was no need to include a word beforehand then the lack of experience is the hinderance and not the usage of language. So once more people who speak that language experience/come across more things, the language expands to adapt to ensure that they can communicate with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
Language is a gatekeeper of our identities through how it dictates the opening and closing of the doors of communication and understanding. When we lack of knowledge of a language, that can keep us disconnected from our family/our culture because we can't communicate properly or understand the nuances of what they're saying/talking about. When we know a lot of languages, our doors are flung open, which allows different perspectives to be able to flow in out as we have been given more access to them. Things like untranslatable words are a great example of both because when you don't have any knowledge of the language, it can be hard to understand why the word is even necessary because there is no word like it in your language, but when you learn a language and engage with the others who speak it, you suddenly understand the cultural reason behind the need and usage of that word, you also may start to resonate with it a bit more because you can now comfortably understand it. When you speak different languages, the way of communication is different is each language. Who you are is different in each language. Not only because of who you're around when you speak those specific languages, but also how you choose to express yourself and how you identify in each one. So if someone only knows you in one language, they only know a fraction of who you really are.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree that the language we speak limits us based on the language's "limits". The so-called limits can be worked around with more elaboration and we could always learn another language if need be. Learning a language is easier said than done if you don't have all the resources needed for it but considering the main point of language isn't perfection, the goal is to be able to communicate with and understand others who speak that language. I do, however, agree that the specific words we use in the languages we speak have a hand in limiting us in both our view of the world and how we approach things. Things like positive/negative self talk and joking around pessimistically have a larger effect on us than people give them credit for. It's one thing to talk about things objectively but its another to go out of your way to say negative things about things you don't necessarily want to stay negative or perceive in a negative light. The tone or wording something is said in has a big effect on how that statement is not only received but also reacted to by others.

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree because math at its foundation is about numbers, which are objective a majority of the time, aside from the names and context we assign to their values, so it makes sense that ethics wouldn't be at the forefront of it like in the sciences or the arts. Today's lesson referred to math as a metaphor for the understanding of different perspectives. The man (I've forgotten his name) used many examples to prove his point that numbers can be subjective depending on the context and therefore are related to empathy. He mentioned sound, as in time signatures in music, and shapes made thorough things like parabolas, and so on and so forth. He said that a number a simple as 4/3 can be many things depending on what it's being used for. While I see his point and understand it, I think his explanation was an oversimplification of math in attempt in connect it to ethics and empathy. At its core it's used to portray numbers in equations and the objective conclusions you come to based on the answers you get. To say that its subjective because it can be made to apply to multiple different contexts is redundant because that is the whole point of math and numbers, it isn't just meant to apply to one context, its meant to be an outline that is filled in based on what it's being used for because it in of itself stays the same the whole time.

# data[].attributes.body
Kevin Elliot says that science is inherently "value-laden" because science is done for human beings, by human beings. While values can have a bad influence on science like the things the tobacco, lead, and fossil fuel industries that manipulated science to "boost their profit margins" or "spread misinformation" that worked in their favor.

Values shouldn't be taboo when referencing science or conducting experiments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Initial Conclusions of Data 4/18/25 (4/21/25) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Initial Conclusions of Data 4/18/25 (4/21/25) 

# data[].attributes.body
There aren't that many people of color in the US compared to white people. There also is an uneven distribution of people across the country.

# data[].attributes.body
How does this quote help us to understand the way we should draw on empathy in the human sciences

It blatantly points out that it's a lot easier to condemn people for their actions than understand what perspective they're coming from. The quote, in itself, is an example of how, not only hard it is to shake off the tendency of criticizing those we don't understand, but at the same time we shouldn't get caught up by trying to put ourselves in the by its use of the word "evildoer".

Using knowledge generated from empathy can and should be used to explain the reasoning behind someone's actions but it shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card. If the actions and the reasonings

where should the limits be when using knowledge generated by empathy?

# data[].attributes.body
Reading about concepts and listening to people you completely disagree with will not aide you in anything other than with coming up with more arguments to disagree with them upon. Most people, when listening to opinions that they don't align with, listen to respond and don't listen to understand. However, listening with an open mind and being willing to accept being wrong before you go and engage with things you disagree with definitely heighten your understanding, if not anything else. Confirmation bias is definitely one that's a lot harder to get rid of so it's not an easy solution to disregard your own beliefs but it's definitely an important one.

# data[].attributes.body
How does being aware of philosophical issues and disputes help us to become more effective knowers about the world?

Through exposure to philosophical issues and disputes, we can question systems that have been made to seem as though they are set in stone and we can attempt to discuss the issues within them. To be an effective knower, however, isn't an achievable goal so becoming aware of philosophical Knowledge is hard to gauge, for the most part, and is therefore subjective when it comes to our experiences through our senses.

# data[].attributes.body
My main approaches to knowing about the world is through both reason and experience, substituting one for the other when I feel the need to. I personally find that reason alone can't get you all the answers you need do to there always being some kind of nuance and perspective you're missing. I've also found that experiencing everything that there is to experience is physically and mentally taxing and also impossible so you have to have a decent fusion of the two to come to any kind of conclusion that will benefit you in the long run. The truth tests that I tend to lean on the most have to be correspondence and coherence because they make the most sense for my brain. Correspondence is one of my favorites to use even if I'm not conscious acknowledging it because if I don't have anything else on hand, using what I know to be objectively true has never truly failed me. Coherence is the other test I use but I don't trust it as much due to how much less accurate it can tend to be. I can remember facts pretty well a good chunk of the time but I tend to lose certain details so its not the most reliable method for me.

# data[].attributes.body
The correspondence truth test-

Assuming that a statement is true if it reflects or corresponds to reality. (Empiricism)

Strengths- Straightforward, absolute/concrete

Weaknesses- Can only be used in specific scenarios where the evidence is objective and was witnessed

Ex. There are onions in the spaghetti sauce. I smelled the onions while she was cooking the spaghetti

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1.10 In search of truth _ Student handout (24-25)- Rahael

# data[].attributes.headline
"Just Asking Questions" Article 3/18/25 

# data[].attributes.subject
"Just Asking Questions" Article 3/18/25 

# data[].attributes.body
The difference between healthy skepticism and toxic denialism is that healthy skepticism is questions things in away that is open and balanced, while toxic denialism asks leading questions to support/defend a specific point-of-view. While both types of questioning question facts, the latter has less to do with critical thinking and normally has no legitimate evidence to back up their questions and claims. It can be both easy and hard, at times, to determine the difference between the two as it depends on the tone and wording of the questions being asked and whether or not they align with our own personal biases because that can cloud our reasoning. When it is difficult to tell the difference between them, it can be easier to accidentally fall down the rabbit hole of things like conspiracy theories and not accepting the answers to your questions because they don't align with what you want to believe. Warren suggests questioning yourself and making sure you're considering all the sides of the issue while also being sure to be open to answers that conflict with your own views. It's also important to understand that you, yourself, as the questioner have to back up your questions and claims with evidence as to why your questions came about in the first place, rather than others having to "prove you wrong." Lastly, Warren also mentions how your tone and language are important when questioning things because when you use questions to argue or criticize you're no longer asking them to learn more but to prove a point.

# data[].attributes.body
As a general rule of thumb, we use our intuition when we don't have all the information we need to make a sound decision about a smaller matter or form an opinion about a topic that isn't that serious. And we use our intuition to trust that we have well-rounded facts that cover all the bases we need covered before acting on anything. We shouldn't utilize just our intuition when dealing with

# data[].attributes.body
I do agree that reason and emotion are heavily intertwined because emotion is what influences our reasoning, even more so than logic because we tend to mistake emotion as logic. I had originally thought there was a correlation between the 2 but that they were different at their core. Now I know that they are in fact connected and that reasoning can't be objective a majority of the time because of the inclusion of emotion.

# data[].attributes.body
The implications are that we really don't know what's going on and what we're truly experiencing a majority of the time. Descartes talked about not trusting the senses because of how wrong they can be, Beau Lotto said that context is everything, Loftus's point was that memories are constructive, they lack permanence and can be changed, etc. The gist of what everyone we've listened to so far is saying is that what we perceive to be reality is so subjective and skewed by so many factors that there essentially is no such thing as a universal truth. Because of that, we should always be cautious of what we're perceiving, how we're processing it, and how we react to it because there is always the possibility of being wrong, which can have drastic consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
Making a physical note of your memories, like using a diary or journaling, can make it easier to cement them in your brain and help so that we don't waver when someone makes an attempt to obscure them. Taking what everyone else says with a grain of salt also helps with not second-guessing your own thoughts and mind.

# data[].attributes.body
Beau Lotto meant that everything we perceive is influenced by the context we're witnessing it through. Even the background behind a color will change how you see it and therefore categorize it. It implies that context is important every situation. That the smallest of details can be the most crucial in the determining the best course of action.

# data[].attributes.body
We're interested in second-order knowledge more so than first-order in TOK because TOK has to do with how and why we know what we know more so than what exactly we know. First order knowledge is normally quantitative so it tends to be more rigid and narrow and doesn't allow room for speculation whereas second order is qualitative and is more debatable so it allows and encourages the analysis of different perspectives and/or outcomes thus expanding one's beliefs and views.

# data[].attributes.body
Gist- Mayor proposes car-free Pike Place

AOK- Natural and Human sciences

OTs- Politics and Technology

1st- What would more foot traffic do for the businesses on Pike Place?

2nd- How would decreasing car use in major cities affect the use of technology in transportation?

# data[].attributes.headline
First and Second Order Knowledge- 2/19/25

# data[].attributes.subject
First and Second Order Knowledge- 2/19/25

# data[].attributes.body
First Order Knowledge- directly about the world. Has a narrow scope, related to a specific aspect of an area of knowledge. They are more descriptive and factual. (WHAT do we know)

Second Order Knowledge- about the process of finding out about the world. Has a broad scope, related to one or more entire areas of knowledge. They are more analytical and debatable. (HOW do we know)

# data[].attributes.body
If I was asked what theory of knowledge was I'd say that it is the study of why we know what we know and how we know it. I'd say that it explores the areas of knowledge like history, math, the arts, etc. in the context of specific themes like religion and politics.

I currently don't have any questions.

# data[].attributes.body
My key biases and assumptions are:

that being a perpetuator of any kind of racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, etc. makes you a person I don't want to interact with

that most men kinda suck due to how most cultures, if not all, coddle them and make it so that they don't care to understand something that "doesn't" affect them (the patriarchy)

that continuing to have children while knowing about the current state of the world and the state of its future (climate change and current politics, etc.) is unethical

that being against abortion is being against the autonomy of women

that being a trump supporter makes you, not a totally evil human being, but an ignorant one that does not see the harm in negatively impacting others as long as you get what you want.

I don't mind confronting these biases because I have my reasons for them and wouldn't mind strengthening those reasons or even changing them. At the same time, I don't want to exit my echo chamber fully because all of my biases are pertinent to me and therefore, affect me to an extent.