# data[].attributes.body
the knowledge of science can be represented in many forms to make the general public understand it, for example inform of art.

# data[].attributes.body
To understand the nature of knowledge we evaluated the scientific method and also discussed how arts and sciences often work together as arts help beautify and present the complexity of science.

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion today was insightful, we analyzed the scientific methods and understood the role of them in natural sciences. we also looked at the steps for a scientific method and discussed validity of each step.

# data[].attributes.body
NEW POINT

I was talking to Philip Sir once in a research session about how I sometimes wished we could start learning everything experientially from scratch in school and I wondered how education would be different if we did that. So instead of learning THAT gravity exists and the value of acceleration due to gravity, we would drop a ball, measure time and arrive at the value of acceleration ourselves. And similarly, we would do EVERYTHING from Bio to Economics in the same way, drawing conclusions ourselves. I wondered whether maybe we would find new things when fresh, 'uneducated' brains, that have not yet been mindlessly filled with theories and formulae, iterating the same simple experiments that have been done in history might demonstrate new findings that change the laws and theories we accept as valid today and make our understanding of the world more accurate.

Summary
- 2 types of reasoning in science: deductive (general to specific) and inductive (specific to general)
- Communal nature of science: we build off of existing knowledge "If I can see further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants"
- Smaller research groups are better at hypothesising and ideation (first few steps in the scientific method that require thinking) while larger groups are more efficient at testing because there are more hands at work
- Iteration turns a hypothesis into an established theory and theories are tested until they become laws
- All theories have limitations and to apply one, you need several others to make up for the limitations in the first (e.g. physics mechanics)
- Tools used to measure in natural science diminish accuracy of findings because they change the nature of the subject under observation (e.g. thermometer)
- Art and science aren't all that separate. (e.g. space installation)
--> the left and right hemisphere of the brain theory is a myth, not scientifically proven
--> art is useful in science to understand things better (e.g. diagrams and space illustrations) and science is useful in art to produce better quality, more layered and intricate artwork (e.g. math in music, rhyme schemes in poetry, chemistry in visual art)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Knowledge in science can be represented in many different ways that help different learners.
2. Knowledge of science can be applied to help other disciplines grow
3. Knowledge in science is built off pre-existing knowledge

# data[].attributes.body
1. todays class was really interesting as we learned about the process of scientific methods and how science can be presented in many different ways.
2. not only this but we also looked at how art is related to science and like one of the kid said putting ice related to environment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sum up the discussion on nature of knowledge in sciences based on today's discussion.

# data[].attributes.subject
Sum up the discussion on nature of knowledge in sciences based on today's discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
eating an apple a day keeps the doctor away.
Dogs and cats are colorblind.
Bats are blind.
Giraffes sleep for only 30 minutes a day.

Sharks die if they stop swimming.

# data[].attributes.body
- Tabula Rasa Theory (Blank state)- The blank state theory popularised in 1869, said that individuals are born without built-in mental content  and that knowledge solely comes from experience and perception. However, modern research has proven that genes and other inherited traits from birth also play an important role.

- 19th century theory by Cesare Lombroso (professor of criminology) believing that criminals were part ape.

# data[].attributes.body
- Eating chocolate gives you acne.
- Eating food within 5 seconds of dropping it on the floor is safe.
- Dogs and cats are colorblind.
- Lightning never strikes the same place twice.

# data[].attributes.body
Aether: A theoretical, massless, and weightless object that physicists believed transmitted electromagnetic waves. This was however, disputed with newer advancements in technology.

Human fish theory: In 1811, Johann Friedrich Meckel successfully predicted that human embryos would have gill slits. This helped him convince the public that human beings were the "most perfect" organisms.

Infinite earth theory: Another example is 18th-century geologist James Hutton’s idea that the Earth is like an organic body that constantly reproduces itself to indefinitely provide a habitable world for humans.

# data[].attributes.headline
Phrenology - the theory that an individual’s personality could be “read” from the shape of his skull. But neuroscientists today are using their new tools to revisit and explore the idea that different personality traits are localized in different brain regions. The emerging field of personality neuroscience is producing some intriguing early results.

# data[].attributes.subject
Phrenology - the theory that an individual’s personality could be “read” from the shape of his skull. But neuroscientists today are using their new tools to revisit and explore the idea that different personality traits are localized in different brain regions. The emerging field of personality neuroscience is producing some intriguing early results.

# data[].attributes.body
examples of things believed to be true in the 19th century but now proven false.:
1. Einstein’s Static (or Stationary) Universe : A static universe, also called a “stationary” or “Einstein” universe, was a model proposed by Albert Einstein in 1917. Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the relationship between red shift obliterated it by completely demonstrating that the universe is constantly expanding.

2.  Phrenology : Now widely considered as a pseudoscience, phrenology was the study of the shape of skull as indicative of the strengths of different faculties. Modern scientific research wiped it out by proving that personality traits could not be traced to specific portions of the brain.

# data[].attributes.body
1. the model of an atom
2. some of Sigmund Freud's theories about gender and homosexuality have been discredited by today's psychologists.

# data[].attributes.body
Historians believed that Napoleon's height was 5 feet 2 inches (in french units) but when converted to imperial he turned out to be 5 feet 7 inches. his height was recorded in french units instead of the generally accepted units

# data[].attributes.body
Theories proved wrong
- scientific racism - that some races biologically have superior genes

- flat earth theory - that the Earth is flat; still believed by some people even today

- homeopathy - that a disease can be cured by a few doses of what caused it

- maternal impression - that a mother's thoughts caused birth defects in their child

- geocentric universe - Earth is the center of the universe

- Earth's tectonic plates did not move

- universe is static, does not expand or contract

- humans are born without any mental content and everything is gained from experience - incorrect because we are born with genes and other birth traits

- bad smells cause disease (like the plague) - this is partially correct as when there is rotten food or bacteria, there may be a bad order but this is not the sore cause

# data[].attributes.headline
Things believed to be true in the 19th century but now proven to be false

# data[].attributes.subject
Things believed to be true in the 19th century but now proven to be false

# data[].attributes.body
1. Model of Atom

2. Flat Earth Theory (some groups still do contradict)

# data[].attributes.body
geologist James Hutton’s idea that the Earth is like an organic body that constantly reproduces itself to indefinitely provide a habitable world for humans. was proven wrong as earth gradually expands as it cools, not reproduce itself to indefinitely provide habitable world for humans.

# data[].attributes.body
examples of things believed to be true in the 19th century but now proven false.

1. model of atom

2.
https://theconversation.com/the-19th-century-tumult-over-climate-change-and-why-it-matters-today-101757

# data[].attributes.headline
Look for some examples of things believed to be true in the 19th century but now proven false.

# data[].attributes.subject
Look for some examples of things believed to be true in the 19th century but now proven false.

# data[].attributes.body
statistics and facts are instantly make a piece of information seem more accurate and reliable even if it is not; as they provide proof and evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
The method used to survey and poll people contains a lot of bias, either intentionally or unintentionally. Questions can easily be manipulated to get a certain response from the responder. Scientific experiments have set controlled and uncontrolled variables that can consciously be manipulated. For example, if you drop an object off a building, it will always fall to the ground. It is fact and can be proved in different locations on the planet. However, if you ask different people whether there should or should not be gun control, the answers will vary as easy individual is responding with bias.

# data[].attributes.body
How far do you think the methods used in human sciences scientific? How do statistics, graphs and quantitative instruments used affect the value of knowledge in human sciences?
Surveys and polls are very unreliable as a variety of audiences are used in the survey which creates bias on what to conclude from the survey.

# data[].attributes.body
The way a question is phrased, data is used, audience is chosen and other external factors are changed, helps manipulate data in favour of the creator of a certain survey or poll.

# data[].attributes.body
It was an interesting technique, heard many interesting and contrasting opinions on difficult topics.

# data[].attributes.body
Surveys and polls are so unreliable.
Primary research in human science requires communication between the researcher and the group of people under study.
I learned that there is always a gap between thought and expression, so the communication between the researcher and subjects can never be truly objective.

For example, in a survey the language and questions affect the respondents answers as we saw in the activity we did.

In an observation, the Hawthorne effect comes into play.

Without objective communication, the results are also subjective.

Science is the practice of determining a relationship between two variables in a controlled manner.
Therefore, with the subjectivity of human science research methods, the true relationship between variables is difficult to discern because variables can never be fully controlled.

So how much truth do human-science-related statistics really hold? And can we even call human sciences, sciences?

# data[].attributes.body
The experiments help in contributing to the reliability and accuracy of the survey.

# data[].attributes.body
Statistics can influence/change different perspectives, however some can be biased which may affect value and credibility of knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
stats can influence people mind sets as it helps them see proof and data which has been collected. it sometimes forces the people and shows them bias data which would help further on prove their point. it helps manipulate people to help benefit them.

# data[].attributes.body
The study of human behaviour is complex in nature and it can be approached through different perspectives. the statistics and graphs are used to manipulate humans mind and the forming of the questions also works with that. That is how the knowledge of human sciences is affected.

# data[].attributes.body
Methods used in human science can be scientific since this is the study of Human considering the pattern of their behavior. The use of statistics, graphs and etc., are a way of manipulating the brain and affect the knowledge that the individual has already.

# data[].attributes.body
The method is based on observation and hypothesis, which is tested (through experimentation). Scientists may formulate a law and/or a theory, both of which explain things about the natural world.

# data[].attributes.body
Since the human sciences are impossible to measure objectively, and rely on the interpretation of the participants and the researchers, I do not think they are truly scientific. However, with the right measures to eradicate bias, I think they can be relatively more scientific. I think statistics and graphs help the value of knowledge in the human sciences because they're undeniable. There aren't two ways that one can interpret a graph, which makes it easier to convince people to believe in the theory.

# data[].attributes.headline
How far do you think the methods used in human sciences scientific? How do statistics, graphs and quantitative instruments used affect the value of knowledge in human sciences? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How far do you think the methods used in human sciences scientific? How do statistics, graphs and quantitative instruments used affect the value of knowledge in human sciences? 

# data[].attributes.headline
How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

# data[].attributes.body
The act of observing impacts what is being observed as the subject being observed, when a human or animal, may be change their behavior when being observed.

# data[].attributes.body
1. When we're observing a phenomenon a certain situation, we have a certain outcome that we expect or are looking for which can influence what we find in our observation.
2. If we're observing a group of people that are aware that they're being observed, their behaviour could differ to appear more socially correct

# data[].attributes.body
depending on the context or situation, our perception of something that we observe, varies. The same thing can be observed in many different ways, depending on different points of view

# data[].attributes.body
When we are observing something, we are observing it from our own perspective which contains bias. These observations are subjective so the context in which the thing being observed is viewed differs.

# data[].attributes.body
The act of observing will influence thing being observed as the way we observe a situation and the way someone just observed the situation can have different perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
How does act of observing impact what is being observed?
Observing is an act that requires an individual to take in what is happening around him or her without  them being involved in the situations,  While being observed is something that brings about a change in a persons behavior, when someone is being watched they become conscious and act differently.
While decisions made could be a result of these observation that shape an individuals perspective. Being observed changes the behavioral part of humans .

# data[].attributes.body
When observed something, there are expectations and assumptions that we make in order to analyse what is being observed, which causes the observation to not always go in the same path of what we expect and assume. We tend to think critically on these topics and then it impacts the observations inn both negative and positive ways.

# data[].attributes.body
the object being observed might get conscious and act different. people are generally more careful when they know someone is watching them.

# data[].attributes.body
When we are consciously observing something we tend to develop a rather permanent image of the same in our head and that might change our reaction towards it in the future. Our perception affects the intake and also the future potential reaction.

# data[].attributes.body
When one is consciously observing someone then the other person can get nervous and anxious about themselves as they have to be seen in the perfect light in front of people.

# data[].attributes.body
observation is closely monitoring something or someone while perception is creating an idea about something without knowing anything major.

# data[].attributes.body
How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

In science
When observing the lines of incidence and lines of refraction in a glass block, your eye level impacts the observation of the line's direction. Human error is very very common in this experiment. We did it in grade 9 physics and couldn't come to proper a conclusion.

in general life
The way you perceive people and make judgements about people - they're good / bad / pretty / ugly / smart / dumb are coloured by your own understanding of life and emotions.

# data[].attributes.body
Observation of a situation is extremely subjective. The way one perceives and analyses things is impacted by personal bias.

# data[].attributes.body
The act of observing impacts what is being observes because the act of observing  helps in understanding what is being observed

# data[].attributes.body
The act of observing helps us understand what is being observed. The act of observing makes us more aware and conscious of what is to be observed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kabir- How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

# data[].attributes.subject
Kabir- How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

# data[].attributes.body
The act of observing impacts what is being observed because we as humans observe different things in different ways and we might interpret that differently. for example, animals might view the jungle as their habitat and humans might view the jungle as a tourist destination or for sight seeing purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
the act of observing something being done can change the way people perceive the observation or what they were observing.

# data[].attributes.body
when we observe something, there are expectations and assumptions that we make while observing. but whatever we observe may not be true always. when we observe that, everyone has different ways of perceiving it. for example, when we look at a chemical reaction, i observe it in a different way and a scientist observe it in a different way. other example can be, when someone is observing me, my behaviour automatically changes. this applies to every human being, its normal.

# data[].attributes.body
When we observe something,  it lends context to the thing that is being observed, and allows for that same thing to be perceived in different ways of have different meanings.

# data[].attributes.headline
How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

# data[].attributes.subject
How does act of observing impact what is being observed?

# data[].attributes.body
The map is not a territory but just a representation of our territorial boundaries. Furthermore, it can contain conflicts like insufficient accuracy and researcher bias .  I also learnt about Eurocentrism, and  its criticisms. Furthermore, today we also analysed different types of maps and talked about their features and limitations.

# data[].attributes.body
From this class, we gathered that a map is not a territory. It is a representation of reality, which subjective and therefore includes conflicts such as the lack of accuracy, bias of the creator and the influence of European imperialism. I believe that maps are an analogy to understand or enhance our knowledge of the world around us. However, the personal knowledge of the creator significantly affects our collective knowledge as knowers. For example, we looked at the map where USA is in the centre and contrasted it with the map where Europe is in the centre. These maps open the door to other possibilities of geography and how borders are just a human construct— as opposed to a geographical conflict. Our history has impacted our collective knowledge of the world- with Europe in the centre today. 

# data[].attributes.body
Today's class was an insightful one. We talked about how maps contain the bias of the creator and that data used in the maps may not be as accurate as we would initially think. We also discussed on how factors, such as map color, can impact the viewer's perception of the data it is depicting.

# data[].attributes.body
Over the past few lessons, I learned that maps are not a territory, rather just a representation of that same territory.

# data[].attributes.body
A map isn't territory because it doesn't just represent that. A map also represents the economy, the spread of a virus and other measurable factors which affects its look and a country or continent's size. No map is both accurate and simple to understand because the more accurate a map is the harder it is to understand. Many maps are also eurocentered which makes them biased towards the west and ignores the rest of the world which is then not represented  correctly.

# data[].attributes.body
A map is not a territory rather it is a representation of our beliefs regarding the division of the world on various grounds. Maps are not always accurate. Factors such as statistical errors, perception bias and political plays can lead to this inaccuracy.

# data[].attributes.body
A map isn't a territory because a map represents several factors of a country including the economy, the political status and other such factors which can be represented through a map.

# data[].attributes.body
A map is not the territory, but rather defined as a representational mode of territory. In today's class, we discussed how maps are not necessarily accurate and can also include biases which can interfere with the validity of the findings of the sample.

# data[].attributes.body
maps are not always a 100% accurate as they arent a territory, they are a representation of territories.

# data[].attributes.body
in todays class we discussed several types of world maps and London metro map and how it ids different from the satellite and normally.
we discussed that map is not a territory, it's a model.
maam also showed us a picture of a pipe where it wasn't a pipe it looked like a pipe. "this is not a pipe, its an image of a pipe. "

# data[].attributes.body
looking at the different types of maps questioned the accuracy. a map is not a territory it is simply a model or a representation.

# data[].attributes.body
i learnt about many different types of maps, their features and flaws and when they are suitable to use or not. We had also outlined the difference between maps during a class activity when we compared the railway map of the London metro to its satellite representation.

# data[].attributes.body
Map is not the territory, Since maps are depicted differently everywhere, Such as the example of Kashmir, When viewing map from china, The map would show, how the larger part of Kashmir is occupied by China, while the same map in Pakistan would show something else, and differently in India. This shows that map does not help identify territories.

# data[].attributes.body
Maps are not necessarily accurate, their are many variable that some maps ignore. Before making a decision based on the statistics visible on the map, the person evaluating should also think about the factors that have not been included in the map.

# data[].attributes.body
Today  we viewed different maps and discussed their accuracy and also discussed how maps are not territory but a representation of a territory which will include the creator's bias.

# data[].attributes.body
Map is not the territory. It is a representation / model of territory.

This is not a pipe. It is an image of a pipe.

Models are coloured by the biases of their creators.
Despite their inaccuracy, models can be useful depending on their purpose.

The map we are used to seeing is euro-centric.
- Greenwich time
- West and the rest
- Europe is in centre
Other kinds of maps appear distorted to us because they are so unfamiliar to the eye.

Why are maps inaccurate?
- they are based on statistics
- statistics are based on samples
- sampling has a lot of scope for inaccuracy
--> sample number chosen
--> method of sampling chosen (random/cluster/stratified)

While representing knowledge there is often a tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy.

Things to think about for the next class
- If statistics are inaccurate, what is the next best option of data collection?
- What are some specific examples of the tradeoff between accuracy and simplicity?
- What has appeared distorted to you because of its mere unfamiliarity? How did you react to it? Were you open-minded or did you deem it inaccurate?

# data[].attributes.body
A map is not the territory itself, but  a simplified model or representation of the territory. Models such as maps, are often biased due to the perspectives of the creators, therefore they are inaccurate. However, the purpose of a map is to be helpful for navigation, and as maps are a simplified version of territories, they are easy to interpret

# data[].attributes.body
In today's discussion (and the ones leading up to it), we discussed several different types of maps and their accuracy. While doing this, we explored the need for accuracy over simplicity in certain situations and visa versa. We also discussed creator bias.

# data[].attributes.body
A map is not the territory but it would rather be described a representation of different political borders, terrains, economic position etc.

# data[].attributes.body
the video talked about none of the maps are a 100 percent accurate

# data[].attributes.body
the world map is a lie.
As the world is a globe it is difficult to take a picture.

# data[].attributes.body
The falsehood and the fake fabrication of the world map.

# data[].attributes.body
Headline:
The world map is a lie

It is difficult to accurately map the world in two dimensions because of the earth's spherical nature.
Many models try to do it but none is 100% accurate

# data[].attributes.body
Are all the maps misleading and inaccurate?

The video explained how most of the world maps are misleading and inaccurate

# data[].attributes.body
The video showed the different projections of world geography and how none of them are 100% accurate. It did so by projecting circles of the same size over a globe and then showing how they get distorted in the different projections. In conclusion, the globe as we know it, isn't accurately mapped.

# data[].attributes.body
the video highlighted that none of the world maps we reference are completely accurate, therefore the world is actually quite different that we perceive.

# data[].attributes.body
the world maps's a lie

# data[].attributes.body
World maps: Not everything seems as it truly is

# data[].attributes.body
"The world not as you know it"
or
"World Map: psych!"

The video projected all the inaccuracies on our current world map, where the sizes of countries are smaller in real than how they are drawn.

# data[].attributes.body
the video showed the different projections of the world and how it is divided into northern and  southern hemisphere.
i think that it is very important to map the world accurately on the map because the earth is in a spherical shape. so for example when we look at Antartica, it is not exactly accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
the video shows different world maps and makes us question if the one we usually look at is even accurate.

# data[].attributes.body
The video highlighted the various different world maps and made us question ourselves "Have we been looking at the world map the wrong way?".

# data[].attributes.headline
Sum up the essence of the video in a headline. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sum up the essence of the video in a headline. 

# data[].attributes.body
knowledge and knowing can both be personal and shared information. The difference is that knowledge is controlled information from the past whereas knowing could also be a certain prediction etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Knowledge is what you know and knowing is learning something new

# data[].attributes.body
Knowledge comes from the outside and can be controlled by us whereas knowing, cannot be accumulated.

# data[].attributes.body
Knowledge is always of the past and the amount of knowledge we store and process can be controlled.
Knowing is immediate and depends on the surroundings, it's being aware of certain things and the amount we intake is usually uncontrollable.

# data[].attributes.body
knowledge can be controlled. we can control what we learn from books or school for example. however we cannot control what we know

# data[].attributes.body
We can control the amount of knowledge that we gain as it comes from the outside into our brains. Whereas, knowing cannot be controlled as it is like wind and can come and go from anywhere

# data[].attributes.body
I know that salad isn't real food but my knowledge about the components and structure of a salad-- relating to their nutritional value suggest otherwise.
While knowledge is gained from the external world, from 'outside', including studies, observations, logic, etc. knowing is more intrinsic and intuitive. For example, I know how to balance on a cycle because balance comes intrinsically. On the other hand, the knowledge of balance such that relates to the field of physics.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a difference between knowledge and knowing. knowledge is information acquired through education or experience. knowing is showing that you have knowledge. knowing is something that you cannot control .

# data[].attributes.body
knowledge is accumulated from the outside, something we learn from others. knowing is something you already know, maybe through judgement or perception.

# data[].attributes.body
Knowledge- can be the information one knows, however can be false as well. can be controlled.
Knowing- can be the information we know and we claim that its true. cannot be controlled.