Who owns knowledge?

If a person wants to acquire new knowledge, they will try to find the source of it. Therefore, answering this question can help people gain various knowledge. Personally, at first, I thought of people as a general concept. Every person has their own worldview. Thus, everybody can bring a piece of knowledge to a major knowledge map.

Despite my first thoughts, I decided to choose something material. And maybe it sounds trivial, but I picked books. To be honest, I do not use books a lot. The majority of educational materials in my school are digital, so I do not have to use textbooks. Even though I prefer books to e-books, There is something special about page-turning. But what about knowledge? Books hold plenty of knowledge. Before the innovation of the Internet, people used books very often because it was almost the only way to discover new information. I want to put an accent on the fact that books have not died out even now. Additionally, books are a great way to learn about different opinions without direct communication. Books are written by people, so they can express their point of view on different aspects of them. Thus, reading books can show people a variety of worldviews. So I suggest you not underestimate the value of books.

Nowadays knowledge is literally everywhere. There are tons of sources, from which people can acquire needed knowledge. But does our knowledge depend on our interactions with other knowers?

My chosen object is a well-worn lanyard, it is full of stickers, scratches and was my guide to the world of knowledge. This lanyard holds memories from my seventh to ninth grades in letovo school. Using this lanyard I have gained both knowledge and experiences, because it gave me access to school and everything in it.

In the real-life context this lanyard was a symbol of my access to all schools’ sources of information. But it is more than just a symbol. Stickers, attached to it are all little memories, that are valuable for me personally. As I look at it, I recall all of the interesting experiences linked to it.

Using my lanyard has helped me gained lots of experiences, including cooperative ones, where I have interacted with other knowers. This leaves a question: does knowledge that I have gained depends on those interactions and experiences with other knowers?

Humans are social creatures, and this lanyard highlights that environment, knowers that surround us are crucial for gaining knowledge. Not only knowers around affect the way we perceive information, but they may also add on to the knowledge you get from any sources. No source is objective and other points of views may be a nice appurtenance for them.

Why do we seek knowledge?

Will to explore and obtain new knowledge is a force that drives evolution. Because of this trait humans were able to develop and create modern world. Seeking for knowledge or curiosity is trait that is given to us from the moment of our birth, and it is a distinctive feature of our species.

light bulb

My object is a light bulb. We all use it in our everyday life. It provides us with light and cozy atmosphere in the room. But light bulb is not only a useful tool, but a symbol of invention. Why do people invent? To make life easier and more enjoyable. In order to invent new things you first need to investigate and do a research. In order to research you have to feel urge to learn something new, ask questions. Therefore, people seek for knowledge, so they could make their life easier and more comfortable by inventing different things, what is possible only if we seek for new information about the world and how it functions. Seeking for knowledge is an integral par of our human-being, and it helps us to create the world around us in which it is pleasant to live.

Journal entry #1

"Woman Admits to Throwing Dog Poo at Neighbors: Provoking Debate on Ethical Responsibility and Human Behavior"

The article reports on a woman who openly admitted to throwing dog excrement at her neighbors. The incident has sparked a heated debate about ethical responsibility, human behavior, and the boundaries of acceptable conduct in a community.

This article primarily relates to the areas of ethics and psychology. It delves into the ethical implications of interactions within society, showcasing the complexities of human behavior and the moral obligations we face as members of a community. The following question arises: how does the recognition of ethical responsibility impact individual behavior and community dynamics?

The second-order knowledge highlights the fundamental issue of ethical responsibility and its impact on human interactions. By questioning the factors that influence individual behavior, this article invites readers to reflect on how their actions align with their moral beliefs. The real-life story described explores the potential consequences of unresolved conflicts and the negative impact they can have on individuals and the larger community.

Various perspectives can shape the way we answer the second-order knowledge question. A psychological perspective may focus on the underlying motivations and cognitive processes that lead someone to engage in such behavior. From an ethical standpoint, considerations of moral principles and values may shape responses on the acceptable boundaries of conflict resolution. The sociological perspective may analyze the impact of community dynamics, social norms, and shared values on individual behavior.

"Journal Entry #1"

A few years ago, when I was studying in a primary school, I attended biology extra curriculum classes. On one of these lessons our teacher killed a fish and opened it in order to show us the internal structure of the fish and how its organism operates (this is not an outstanding practice; it is usually applied at school on biology lessons in the 7th grade). This real-life situation links to ethics, because the question of whether it is ethical to kill animals in order to use them as material to study or not, arises. 1st order question to this situation might be: Why did a teacher kill a fish? 2nd order question might be: Is it ethical to sacrifice animal's life on order to gain knowledge? Answers on this question differ widely and there is a great debate based on the answers to this question. From a scientific and educational perspectives such sacrifices are justified, because students get better understanding of the subject. Assuming this situation from ethical perspective, it may seem unacceptable, because the fish life is valuable and such experiments cannot demand victims. Consequently, other reasobable question arises: To what extent does our ethics constrain development of science? In some countries there are restrictions on using animals in experiments. Such actions undeniably will slower the porcess. It is not necessary to use animals in order to learn something, we may use theory, and make experiments with chemicals and practise on manikens. However, some people might argue, that real practice cannot be replaced with "simulations", and without it, it is impossible to get new knowledge or master what we already know. Is it the same in others areas of knowledge? I believe, that in arts it is totally different. In contrast to science, ethical norms in arts stimulate industry to develop, change, present new outstanding projects. Sometimes artists on purpose pass the border of reasonable and ethical in order to attract more attention and initiate the discussion around their work.

In 2017 an American woman bought a painting with a frame at a thrift store for 4 dollars and tossed away the canvas, thinking nothing of it. 5 years later she dug it up out of storage and posted its picture on Facebook looking to find out who was its author. Knowledgeable commentators pointed out that the style of the painting matches that of an iconic painter Newell Converse Wyeth and may very well be an original. Their assumptions were confirmed by an art piece restorer who met up with the woman and examined the painting. Its authenticity was further proved by experts from Bonhams Skinner auction house: the artist’s style and even the frame itself were recognisable. The painting went on to sell for 191 thousand dollars at a Bonhams Skinner auction. A few questions arise from this story: How does one prove the authenticity of an art piece? Can ‘expert opinion’ be trusted with generating knowledge (such as who a piece belongs to) or is it perhaps possible to fabricate it using your status of an ‘art expert’?

One way to prove the authenticity of an artwork is by procuring a signed certificate from a respected authority or a sales receipt from the artist – clear evidence or authority. But in the case of this story neither was applicable. Another way is comparing the piece with its assumed creator’s other works, by a way of observation and deduction. For example, all of artist A’s works have a signature feature (it could be the chemical composition of the paint or the style etc.), therefore, if this painting also has it, it must belong to artist A and no other. The question of proving genuineness is important because the value of art is subjective and a piece could be estimated to be worth thousands of times more than its face value solely because it belongs to a famous artist, and this can be easily exploited. Therefore, proving authenticity should rely on objective tools, that cannot be swayed cultural interpretation etc.

The problem with this is that such tools are not accessible to the general public and only a small community of knowers can access it. Even the most avid art collector won’t guarantee the legitimacy of an artwork just by looking at it. Therefore, it is in the power of ‘experts’ and ‘restorers’ to use their authority to manipulate the value of a piece in the public’s eye for their own benefit. Only as long as there’s an independent knower that doesn’t share these benefits but can call out illegitimacy, the general public is safe from fraud.

Journal Entry #1

On Monday 18.09 DDT Pro-Wrestling has organized a half-hour fight between Minoru Suzuki and Sanshiro Takagi on the 180mph Nozomi Shinkansen bullet train between Tokyo and Nagoya. DDT hired out the entire carriage for this match. It's not the first time this wrestling group has picked unusual spot for its bout. The group is famous for its out-of-ring fights: they’ve also organized battles in a bookshop and a campsite. Suzuki won this match on the train.

It’s interesting how nowadays different organizations try to attract public interest. It’s not just a match anymore, it’s a performance. In this case, that’s the point where sports become arts. Therefore, the area of knowledge related to this situation could be arts as well, and that’s the perspective from which I want to explore it.

The second-order knowledge question about this situation: How art should be regulated? In this situation both sportsmen remained unscathed and train undamaged, but the whole event was quite dangerous for all the participants, including onlookers. Usual wrestling fights with ambulance service teams and safe rings regularly end with injuries, how safety was provided in this case? Did the performance worth it? This question is significant, because it is related to human lives and health.

People, whose main values are safety and life would answer that art with such risks has to be banned. Person couldn’t choose being in danger. Less radical position on this question is requiring from the organization that is planning a performance determing all the risks and oblige all the participants sign the documents which states that they’re informed about the danger. The answer from ones, who find artworks more valuable for the society would be that artists can’t be restricted in any way.

RLS

Austrian food technology startup Revo Foods has launched vegan salmon fillets, printed on a 3D printer in the supermarkets less than two weeks ago. The fillets, made from mycoprotein, are the world's first 3D-printed food product available to wide public. With up to 60% of global fish stocks being overfished, there is a serious risk of ocean ecosystem destruction. The fishing industry is also a major contributor to plastic pollution in the oceans. The company aims to save the planet and feed its population by producing artificial meat or fish. The fillets are promised to high protein and omega-3 content and recreate the authentic taste and texture of salmon using mycoprotein, created from mycelial mushrooms. The article calims that mycoprotein requires minimal processing and uses fewer resources compared to conventional fish, making it more environmentally friendly.

As the project was introduced not that long ago, it is hard to evaluate it based on any kind of evidence or statistical data. However there are potentially many perspectives in this project such as Revo Foods has received a 1.5 million euro grant to produce more of 3D printed food pieces.

First-order question: how to make ecological situation in the aquatic environments concerning fish quantities more stable and less endangered by fishing industry? In the article there is one example provided. It has not yet proved its efficiency due to its recent introduction but as the scientists have struggled with creating such a product it is probably going to improve situation in some way.

 Second-order question: How to measure the profit from this way of reducing fish consumption? There are many examples, when one problem arose while solving another thus making usage of the method worth of doubt. There would be some experts needed, and general public would have to share one’s personal experience.

Real-life experience 

My grandma was a teacher in the musician school when I was young. That’s why I spent a big part of my childhood being a «little helper» in her lessons. Once when I was in such lesson my grandma and one of her best students discussed impact of Glinka’s in 1822-1835 in Russia and folk motives of his music. There was a big argument between them because my grandma (as many music teachers) said that Gkinka’s music definitely had folk motives and if knowers want to «feel and see» Russian classic music a person will listen Glinka. However, the student said that he thought that there were oriental motives and some even Italian motives. While I was listening this argument I was thinking how knowers can be sure about such facts? 

First-order knowledge question: What part of Glinka’s creation was controversial point? 

Second-order knowledge question: How objective is the knowledge which told us by musicians and music? 

Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?

While learning something new of the world, most of time knowers are using several types of knowledge. Some of the types tend to be much popular then others and the relative importance of knowledge aquired through the rare used types of can be widely argued. But are some types of knowledge really more useful than others?

Famous controversial sneaker

I chose the famous sneaker a photo of which was posted on internet and resulted in a lot of arguments about its actual colour. Users were devided into two camps - ones considered it grey-mint and other - white-pink. Me myself then relied on the types of aquiring the knowledge such as perception, intuition and faith. My confidence in the way what I felt the truth to be, the mint and grey sneaker, was unbeatable at that moment despite considering the existense of other options somewhere in the depths of my mind. However, after a few years I decided to switch to the perception and reasoning combo and discovered that the knowledge I believed to be certainly true had a refuting scientific evidence: if we take a closer look through the same eyes, the author used the cold-toned flash which modified the colouring and it was actually pink and white. This experience clearly illustrates the tendency of the knowledge gained through faith and the "gut feeling" to be in fact false which makes these types of knowledge less significant in useful in real life.

Journal Entry #1

The first real-life situation is described in an article about incredible rescue of dog. A group of crocodiles saved a dog instead of eating it. The dog turned out in a river that was teeming with predators. Crocodiles who noticed the dog helped her to get to a safe place. This behavior is unusual for crocodiles.

This story is connected to one of the areas of knowledge - natural science (especially biology), which is studying animal behavior. Scientists tried to explain why crocodiles helped the dog using their scientific knowledge.

After reading this text I came up with a knowledge question. How do we know how animals think? I consider this question important, because understanding how world around works can help in discovering your own identity. This real-life situation also shows how unpredictable are living creatures. (It can pose one more knowledge question. How precise can be predictions?)

From perspective of religion animals have a soul and empathy about which religious people can read in different parables. Going next to natural science, the majority of scientists consider behavior of animals instinctive, they used scientific method to prove their opinion.

In today's world, the pervasive influence of social media platforms has become an undeniable reality. As users, knowers are constantly bombarded with information, opinions, and news through these platforms, shaping our perspectives and views. This phenomenon raises a fair number of intriguing questions when examined through TOK. Here are two of them:

First-Order Knowledge Question: How does the rapid spread of information through social media affect our perception of reality and the formation of our beliefs?

Social media platforms enable the rapid spread of information, often without accurate fact-checking. That is why, knowers are constantly being exposed to a wide range of perspectives and news sources, which can lead to varying interpretations or even misunderstanding of reality. This makes us as both knowers and social media users question the reliability of the knowledge we get from social media and its impact on our beliefs.

Second-Order Knowledge Question: To what extent should we rely on social media as a source of knowledge, and how can we distinguish credible information from misinformation in the digital age?

Journal entry #1

The real-life situation I chose is based on an article telling us about the mummies found in Mexico that were believed to be aliens. The article is debating whether the found in Kysko, Peru corpses are really the aliens or just modified by time or some other factors human bodies. It also sheds light on other hypothesis and explanations that appeared around this case, such as an opinion of archeologists that that were just corpses constructed by scientists form bones of different animal and humans.

This real-life situation links to the natural science, as doctors, biochemists and other scientists were involved in described investigation. As the article describes the debate between politicians and within scientific society that rose up after the finding we can say that this RLS links human sciences and to be specific sociology or social relations.

This leads me to ask two questions: why fake information gets so easily spread, and how can we stop the spread of fake news? This a significantly important question to ask because people are affected by the information they receive from news and spreading of misleading news can negatively affect groups of people by forming the wrong impression of the situation in their head, or frightening them even though there is no real reason for that.

From perspective of which area of knowledge you will look at these questions will determine your answer. We can view this problem as a scientific matter and discuss it considering phycology and biology of humans psychics. Or we can look from a perspective of a sociologist or marketing specialist. And we will get two completely different outlooks. Answer to these question might differ if we answer them for the specific age groups. Reasons for believing fake news will be diverse for teenagers and elder people.

There is no easy answer to these problems, however finding a solution for them and getting an understanding of them would help to make people more aware and critical (in a good way), making the effect of fake news less harmful.

How does CFS influence society?

In medicine that abbreviation means a syndrome called "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". It refers to a case, when patients's condition can be described as persistent fatigue which lasts for a long time (in some cases, up to years). It causes low productivity and absence of will to move forward. Sometimes, in bond with other illnesses may increase chances of patient getting into depression.

Nowadays that type of illness is a big problem as it might be "contagious". According to the research of Cornell university's scientists, that syndrome might be caused by infections, such as enterovirus, herpes and hepatitis, which appear in eighty percent of human population bodies (in passive form). Injuries or other infections may cause their partial activation leading to CFS, and low chance of their detection (due to low activity). That state may last for years without correct treatment.

That topic represents TOK from different aspects:

Firstly, there is a Methods and Tools question hidden in it. Easy to notice that ironical fatigue is a state which can be easily determined as laziness or some neurological disorder, so it is really not so obvious which treatment will be the suitable one. Especially, when the root of the disease (infection) is really challenging to be found (there are no certain symptoms and the amount of infection is insignificant.

Secondly there is a Scope question which most of people may ask: Why is it so important to know whether infection cause CFS or not? The reason for that is a need in understanding the cause of the productivity deprivation in society which leads to regress. The CFS is one of these causes, which makes that knowledge vital.

FOKQ: What disorders may be the cause of CFS?

SOKQ: How does uncertainty about ways of detecting and treating CFS may influence our society?

RLS

A few months ago, I read an interesting story about the possible effect of AI on jobs and economies. The article discusses which jobs will be probably replaced by AI. According to new research led by Goldman Sachs, global GDP will increase by 7% over 10-year period, because of AI invention. Researches from Princeton university created the top of professions most likely to face disruption, among them were legal services, accountancy and travel agencies. IBM was also mentioned in this article because it is planning to pause hiring people who might be replaced by AI in the nearest future. According to other research, integration of AI into the businesses can lead to a net loss of around 15% of American jobs. In the end, authors mention that still everything is not that dangerous in terms of losing jobs, because the government cares about its citizens and it will not allow firms to leave people without work. (for example In San Francisco, the global center of the ai surge, real-life cops are still employed to direct traffic during rush hour). Also new jobs connected with AI maintains will appear.

First order question - By what percent will the global GDP increase in 10-year period because of AI invention?

Secon order question - How did Goldman Sachs count the percent by which the global GDP will increase in 10-year period because of AI invention?

A new online platform HeyGen has been blowing the minds of internet users. HeyGen uses AI to translate videos into foreign languages while mimicking the speaker’s voice and manner of speech. It can also generate clips out of thin air following a given prompt. While this platform is fascinating and has huge potential to make information more accessible for the modern man, it can also be exploited for malicious purposes. For example, if it becomes so advanced that reality is unintelligible from an ai generated product, this technology could be used to commit identity fraud. Also, if society becomes reliant on this tool, it may be manipulated to push an agenda (for example, a platform similar to HeyGen might be created that distorts the translation of its users’ videos ever so slightly to change the viewer’s perspective on its subjects). Other questions arise too: If language barriers become no longer a problem, will it reduce the incentive to learn them? Is it then ethical to introduce this technology to the public if it might mean the disappearance of “endangered” languages? The knower must question the intentions and implications of using generative AI, what sources of knowledge it is based etc.

First order question: What can be created with generative AI?

Second order question: How objective is the authenticity of videos created using generative AI?