# data[].attributes.body
In the areas of both disaster relief and longer-term human development, an awareness and appreciation for multiple areas of knowledge is key to effectiveness. For example, in Niger, we know that a central problem is food insecurity; vast numbers of people suffer from frood shortages or the threat of food shortages. Potential solutions are many (food distribution, better farming techniques, new crop varieties, encouragement of small business, population relocation, etc.) but will work and some may make things worse. Thus an effective response depends on an appreciation and understanding of multiple areas of knowledge:

# data[].attributes.body
To what extent are interdisciplinary approaches useful?
To what extent dos production of knowledge depend on interdisciplinary approaches?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please [contact us](https://www.ted.com/contact) and let us know what happened.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supernatural or Science: How Do We Explain Miracles?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since God created the universe and established the natural laws which govern it, is He not also able to supersede those laws when He chooses?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read about Leonardo da Vinci’s work with mathematics. This website features all major works from the Italian Renaissance master.

# data[].attributes.body
art vs math
engineers have to draw first

miracles versus science and logic
(virgin mary)

Math in Da Vinci's artwork

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins
The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Does it even matter?

Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion
The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. Unfortunately, if you don't agree with this label, you too are labeled. Regardless of whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist, if you disagree with the stereotype, you're condemned and "exposed" as a religious fanatic who is secretly trying to pass religion off as science or, even worse, trying to disprove science in order to redeem a ridiculous, unscientific, religious worldview. The fact is neither model of origins has been established beyond a reasonable doubt (otherwise, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called the "theory" of evolution). Whether we like to admit it or not, those of us who subscribe to the theory of evolution do so by faith. And while the recognition of design in biology may have theological implications, it is not based upon religious premise - it's based upon empirical observation and logic.

Creation vs. Evolution - Why Does It Matter?
Why do we even squabble over creation vs. evolution? Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns.

Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Fьhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.

And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone might not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself.

Explore More Now!

Footnotes:

1. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924, p. 286.

2. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 400.

3. Adolf Hitler, quoted in Joachim Fest's, Hitler, 1974, p. 679-680.

4. Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 14.

5. Ibid., p. 230.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents?

# data[].attributes.body
-What is the role of confusion in the production(approach) of knowledge? (confusion is a great starting point for the production of knowledge
-what is confusion?
-if knowledge is confusing, is it truly knowledge?
-What is Knowledge?
-How can be knowledge that is confusing be true knowledge?

# data[].attributes.body
Confusion
-take the approach that maybe confusion is different in different areas of knowledge?
-or one definition for confusion throughout paper and compare areas of knowledge?
-what is confusion in natural sciences versus religion?
-Is confusion a bad thing?

# data[].attributes.body
-obvious claim is that interdisciplinary approaches lead to confusion (negative)
-counterclaim - does not lead only to confusion
-"production of knowledge"??
-explore the word CONFUSION
-What is confusion? (disagreement, uncertainty?)
not repeatable or predictable

# data[].attributes.body
How do we acquire knowledge in the natural sciences?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How do we acquire knowledge in the natural sciences?

1. The scientific 'method'

400 years ago, Galileo set up an experiment to test the hypothesis that objects accelerate when they fall. Experimentation was commonly employed by the Arabs, but their methods were looked down on by the Europeans, who followed the Church's dictum that conclusions could only be reached by discussions and logic, following Aristotle.

Galileo's reliance on empirical knowledge led Europe into the Enlightenment, and established the scientific method, which is still regarded as the only satisfactory approach when it comes to the acquisition of knowledge about the natural world.

The stages of the scientific method

Watch this clip, and write a short description of each of the following stages of the scientific method.

1. The problem

2. Hypothesis

3. Prediction

4. Testing

5. Peer review

6. Publication

7. Replication or falsification

8. Theory

9. Corrections and modifications

10. Laws

Science should, therefore, provide an explanation based on impartial research backed by rigorous checks and balances, and not belief. False scientific evidence should never get past stage 4, let alone become a theory.

2. Serendipity in science

Serendipity is a very peculiar English word, with a very specific meaning. It is a very useful when applied to discoveries in science that have been made 'by chance', although as Louis Pasteur said, 'Chance favours the prepared mind.' The best way to understand the role of chance is to focus on specific cases, and below there is a list of examples from which you can find these. Do they support Pasteur's assertion?

3. The role of induction and falsification

We have seen that the scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis. There are many ways in which a scientist may arrive at their hypothesis (including serendipity), but probably the most common one is observationalist-inductionism – that is, observing that a phenomenon has always occurred that way in the past, and inducing that it will always happen that way in the future. Proving this hypothesis to be true will be the aim of their experimentation during the testing stage.

To put this in context, let's say that I am the first scientist to notice that water always boils at the same temperature, 100?C. Using induction, I suggest the hypothesis that water always boils at 100?C. I then set out to test this hypothesis, and boil water over a period of years, and always arriving at the same conclusion. I submit my findings to a respected journal, my peers check my findings, and my hypothesis is published. No one refutes my idea, and my hypothesis duly becomes a theory. Over time, the theory then becomes a law.

But there is a problem with this way of viewing science. We cannot prove anything with 100% certainty in the natural world, so the purpose of science is not to show that things are true, rather that things are false. If a hypothesis stands up to testing over a long period of time, it is given the term theory. This means that we are not so much interested in theories that are true as we are theories that are not false.

This idea provides us with a convenient definition of a scientific hypothesis: a statement that can be (potentially) falsified. If it is not (potentially) falsifiable, then it isn't scientific, and belongs to some other field. In the example given above, if I say that water boils at 100?C, this is clearly scientific, as it can be proven false (or true) in an experiment. If I say that the earth was created by God, this clearly isn't a scientific theory, because there is no way of testing this idea, and proving it to be false (or true).

The scientist/philosopher who advocated this idea was Karl Popper. In the 1960s he challenged what was then the accepted view that science worked along observationalist-inductionist lines – or, reaching conclusions about hypotheses on the basis of previous results, rather than the potential falsifiability of the idea. According to Popper, nothing that cannot be falsified can be called a scientific hypothesis/theory.

Some people have criticised Popper's ideas, as it is difficult to show that some theories are false – for example, evolution. Indeed, Popper said of this:

Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program.

However, the idea of falsification being an integral part of a scientific theory is a very useful way of testing the validity of most scientific hypotheses, and separating the ones that have little claim to scientific legitimacy.

4. Are scientists always objective?

The scientific method is designed to be flawless system, protecting us not only from 'bad science', but also allowing 'good science' to emerge and flourish. How well it does this is open to interpretation. To form an opinion on this, read through this on the climate change e-mail scandal.

1. What does the article say about the peer review system?

2. Why does the article say that there are 'cracks in the system'?

3. What is the University of East Anglia's CRU and who heads it?

4. What allegations have been made against him?

5. If these allegations are true, what does it suggest about the scientific method?

6. Research another scientific scandal, explaining what occurred, why, and the results.

7. Do you think that scientists have any special ethical obligations that other professionals don't have? If so, what are they, and why?

Concluding questions

1. Which element of our acquisition of knowledge in the natural sciences do you think is the most important? Why?

2. How important is the role of reason in the process of knowledge acquisition in the natural sciences?

3. Is the scientific method flawless?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do we acquire knowledge in the natural sciences?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
400 years ago, Galileo set up an experiment to test the hypothesis that objects accelerate when they fall. Experimentation was commonly employed by the Arabs, but their methods were looked down on by the Europeans, who followed the Church's dictum that conclusions could only be reached by discussions and logic, following Aristotle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
So how do we know? TOK website for IB students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The classification of religion as an 'Area of Knowledge', just like the inclusion of faith as a 'Way of Knowing' can be disputed. Even though most people recognise that religion plays a vital role in the lives of many, atheists will probably question to which extent religion or faith can be sources and areas of knowledge. Nevertheless, one should understand that many peoples and cultures have organised their lives around religion. Religion aims to answer some of the bigger questions in life, such as the reason for our existence, human suffering, and the universe's mysterious ways. There are several views of religion. Theism claims that the universe is created and ruled by a powerful, omnipotent God. Amongst the major world religions, Judeism, Islam and Christianity are examples of Theistic religions. A Panthesistic view of religion, on the other hand, draws on the notion that God is everything and everything is part of God. Hinduism, Buddhism and Toaism are Pantheistic religions. Agnostic knowers neither accept nor deny the existence of God or a higher reality. They are conscience of their 'ignorance', which is an interesting point of view from a TOK perspective. The issues of proof, validity and rationality in religion, lead some people to take an Atheist stance. 'An Atheist denies the existence of a creator God and believes that the universe is material in nature and has no spiritual dimension.' (Lagemaat, 2011). Regardless of your stance on religion as an Area of Knowledge, one cannot deny that religious knowledge is highly dependent on one's knowledge community, which is in its turn influenced by individual and shared memory, language, and emotion. Religion plays a substantial role when we make value judgments and faith is an invaluable Way of Knowing when we analyse Religious Knowledge.

Religion, proof and knowledge.

Logical positivists argue that true knowledge can only be obtained through empirical or logical/linguistic verification. Logical positivists are skeptical of theology, as there is no place for it in their empirical, logical and linguistic theory of knowledge. Even though one might argue that empirical justification is irrelevant in the context of metaphysical knowledge claims, the issue of religious proof, validity and justification remains critical to many knowers. If we look at the Ways of Knowing, would you claim that religion is a matter of imagination in order to fulfill a psychological need? Or does faith intrinsically not require proof? Are faith, intuition, language and emotion Ways of Knowing that lead us to Religous Knowledge, regardless of what empirical evidence or reason seem to show us? Kant opposes a rationalist and empirical understanding of God whilst arguing for a metaphysical and moral approach to religious philosophy. His is often contrasted with Hume in his view of religion and morality. the Atheists claim that faith and reason cannot be reconciled and according to Freud, religious faith is an irrational wish fulfillment (Lagemaat, 2011). Are advances in science irreconcilable with religion? Does the Theory of Evolution annihilate Creationist claims? Are paradigm shifts in the last 2000 years proof of confirmation bias of the religious knowers or atheist knowers and the knowledge communities they belong to? Finally, the incredible variety of religious beliefs, both currently and historically, may lead some to doubt the absolute nature of religious truth. Religious pluralism explains this diversity as different aspects and 'guises leading to the same truth. Ethically, this position seems acceptable, but it may also lead to some philosophical and theological paradoxes.

A human basis of religion?

Atheists often point out the problems with issues? If so, is there any point in 'believing'? One could argue that we see what we want to see and see what we see from a human perspective. Michael Shermer explores some anthro-pomorphic interpretations of God within most (institutionalised) religions. If you believe in God, do you think of God in terms of gender? Ethnicity? Does your God resemble a human being in any way? If so, does your God belong to your 'knowledge community'? Why? If Dogs would believe in God, what would their God look like, according to you? It is indeed very difficult to think of God in terms that are completely unrelated to our physical world. What is the role of anthropomorphic analogies in religion? Is true religion unrelated to our physical experience, given that it deals with metaphysical anthropomorphic interpretations of visual stimuli at TED. Yet, should the problem of anthropomorphism automatically lead to skepticism in the field of religion? Somewhat related to the anthropomorphic interpretations of God is the importance of human experience in the context of religion. Some people go through intense religious experiences at some point in their lives and some have described something similar when going through a 'near-death experience'. Other believers claim to have witnessed miracles. These miracles often influence the faith of other believers and they have been described in religious texts. Hume refutes the notion of miracles and many philosophers have tried to steer away from an all too human interpretation of God. But, as pointed out below, this can lead to paradoxes.

Philosophy and God

Is it possible to think about God without resorting to anthropomorphism? 'Some philosophers paint God as an 'omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omniamorous (all loving) creator of the universe' (Lagemaat, 2011). Yet, such concepts may lead to religious paradoxes. The paradox of omnipotence is the most widely discussed. But also concepts such as suffering (particularly relevant to Christianity) could seem paradoxical. If Christ died to relieve suffering in the world, why is there so much suffering? If God is omnipotent and does aim to relieve suffering, why is the world as it is? Richard van de Lagemaat also discusses the 'paradox of change' and the 'paradox of free will' in his course companion. The paradoxical nature of religious philosophy certainly provides much food for thought: entire courses at top universities in the world are devoted to its discussion and analysis.

Mater dolorosa: the suffering mother as common 'theme' in Christianity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The classification of religion as an 'Area of Knowledge', just like the inclusion of faith as a 'Way of Knowing' can be disputed. Even though most people recognise that religion plays a vital role in the lives of many, atheists will probably question to which extent religion or faith can be sources and areas of knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Through music, architecture, painting, sculpture and literature, there are many and varied expressions of religious ideas. In Theory of Knowledge you might study Religious Knowledge Systems as an area of knowledge, and the knowledge framework is designed to help you think about the nature of the subject area and make links and connections with other subject areas. There are five aspects to it: 1) scope and applications, 2) key concepts, 3) methodology, 4) historical development, 5) links with personal knowledge.

In terms of scope, Religious Knowledge Systems have a number of shared features: holy books, places of worship, leaders, followers, a sense of what is sacred, places of pilgrimage. The list could continue. The cultural phenomenon of religion is universal, and in his book 'The Soul of the World', Roger Scruton argues that the sense of what is sacred is central to being human. In terms of applications and uses, religious ideas might have an impact on behaviour and you could further investigate the link between religion and ethics.

In terms of key concepts, you might consider the language that describes the concepts that are common to all religions, for example: prayer, worship, freedom, charity, teaching, rite of passage, spirit, holy, divine, love, or spiritual journey. You might also make a separate list for concepts that are specific to particular religions, for example: enlightenment in Buddhism, confession in Roman Catholic tradition, the Torah in Judaism, or alms-givng/ zakah in Islam. The theologian, Giles Fraser explores the concept of religious freedom and the idea of moral character.

In terms of historical development you might look at the origins and development of different Religious Knowledge Systems, and consider the development of religious ideas over time. Professor Kate Copper considers the features that transformed Christianity from an obscure Jewish sect to a world religion with over 2 billion followers today.

Arguably Religious Knowledge Systems might have a significant impact on our personal knowledge. Whilst some believers claim to know God personally, some atheists might proselytise for their personal viewpoint. Regardless of whether you have a religious viewpoint, there's a distinction to be made between the personal view you have and the manner in which you hold it. Finally you might consider the factors such as culture, country, school curriculum, education, age and personal experience that might shape your perspective of a Religious Knowledge System.
General questions

How do we know what makes a religion survive?

What would constitute an adequate explanation as to why a religion survives?

What are the relative merits of different perspectives on a religious knowledge system - those 'inside' the religion who belong to it, or those 'outside' who observe it?

Knowledge questions

How far does memory of the past play a role in religious knowledge systems?

To what extent are there links and connections between religious knowledge systems and ethics?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IB TOK: What is a Religious Knowledge System?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Through music, architecture, painting, sculpture and literature, there are many and varied expressions of religious ideas. In Theory of Knowledge you might study Religious Knowledge Systems as an area of knowledge, and the knowledge framework is designed to help you think about the nature of the subject area and make links and connections with other subject areas.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Religion Good or Bad?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kwame Anthony Appiah: Is religion good or bad? (This is a trick question)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plenty of good things are done in the name of religion, and plenty of bad things too. But what is religion, exactly - is it good or bad, in and of itself? Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah offers a generous, surprising view.