This post is a Lie

The main focus of a lie is mostly to help others, we lie in order to protect the interests of others. we keep certain facts away in order to make sure that a fair and peaceful outcome can happen. lying is a natural part of the world and is a actually a good thing. a lie could be used to keep a painful truth away from your loved ones. lies are beneficial to relationships, it helps create a positive environment for it to be nurtured in and makes the parties content, knowing that their loved one does not know all the gritty bad details of each other.
But just remember that this post is a lie, or is it?
some of what was just said are both lies in of themselves but are also facts that we neglect to notice happen quite a bit. when we do notice them it usually is a big deal and is viewed negatively. but the problem still stands, even though many people know most of these are wrong, we still enact them because we think it's right. the problem it seem is who we are lying too, and that person are ourselves. i believe that the best lies are not made from truth but are the ones we tell ourselves. this is sometimes the case of justification, people lie to themselves to make them feel better, which is what lies are all about. if you say to yourself that the lie you just told is a good thing and that it is for the best, then you are lying to yourself since if it was truly right you would not have needed to justify it.

ethics as science?

if ethics is science then psychology is science, but even that statement is debatable. what i mean is that people don't really consider psychology a science much like they do with ethics and so if the one is a science then so should the other. this leads to another problem of is ethics and psychology equivalent, they are both in a way a human science and that is where they are similar, but ethics is more of it's own study. but here is where i disagree for ethics as a science, ethics is very cultural and tied strongly with religion and belief, two things that are not best suited to be mixed with science. science looks for certain answers and explanations, ethics are rules created by what is believed and changes around the world, science looks for constants. what might have been mentioned is that you can look at ethics scientifically, find ways to explain how it comes to be and experiment with alternative factors, but ethics itself is not a scientific study. can it be a science, is an interesting idea though. but what would that entail. would it be about a universal ethical law, explanations of who ethics are, finding the rules of ethics? i am not sure right now i may come back later to think about this.

building on the shoulders of giants

one aspect of history that finds it's way to center of scientific research is the idea of why do it again if it has already been done. but how great is this idea, if we find that one part of what a giant before us has done is wrong. it affects what research and what we think about in the world of science if the structure that we have been building upon never existed in the first place. this was the problem when a mathmetician and logical thinker tried to prove that 1+1=2, a simple question, but if it is wrong then all the math we've done is wrong too. luckily he did manage to create a logical process in which proves the math statement to be true, but this was a case where our ideas would have been affected by a mistake of the past. which makes me think, what if we forgo the past and reinvent the wheel, do we get stuck on one design or can we find new ways in which to look at science. an example of this is in physics and the idea of quantum physics, stating that everything is too small to matter about matter. chemistry would disagree, but the problem of quantum physics is that we cant prove anything because it keeps changing, so we create ideas and test new theories. this leads to theoretical physics and the study of trying to find loopholes in the laws of physics. so sometimes it might be good to not be on the shoulders of giants in order to create new ideas.

being wrong

One of the more annoying parts of tok and people understanding of what they think knowledge is, is that they say they are never wrong. When someone calls them out on being wrong they say that it is merely your perception and then they say that in their world they are correct. This is annoying because you almost always are wrong, even if it is generally accepted that you are right. the point of tok is not to justify your wrong answers or your ignorance of information, it is only to understand that knowledge is fickle and what we understand today is subject to change. but we also have to respect that knowledge that we have today, because there are many facts that we have today that may actually be the reality and the correct theory, these may never change and it is these facts that no matter what your perception is. what i really mean to say is that ignorance cannot be an excuse for ignorance, which sounds stupid on its own but if you understand what i mean is that people use their understanding of knowledge to justify laziness.

Half- life of facts

After the class when we discussed the one tok essay prompt about how facts true today are disproven tomorrow, I watched a “intellectual” show called QI or quite interesting which is a show hosted by comedian, actor and modern day polymath, Steven fry. It should be noted that this show has a panel of comedians who answer questions which leads to some less than stellar subjects not for younger viewers. This particular episode I watched was called “knowledge”, already very promising, and one of the interesting facts was about the half life of facts and that for every year that passes, the amount of facts that are disproven (in QI in particular) doubles- meaning that facts have a sort of radioactive decay effect to them. This is particularly distressing as it means that what is true, how can we be sure about anything, if only we had a class in school that taught us on how human knowledge works. But we do and It Is called tok and it is quite interesting to know that facts that we learn have a half life like decay which if it tells me anything is that it is important to always keep up with the news and the changes that are made in the world of science and sociology. 

human gradient

an interesting thought that i had quite a while back that i remembered now that we are looking at human sciences is that there is a cultural gradient in the world. what i man is that each native culture can relate socially with a culture that is close to them. to explain the extent that i believe this runs it has to start in Africa with the out of Africa theory. Africans in the south can relate to most Africans in Central and north Africa, empires like Mali had relations and similar cultural practices to Egypt and the middle east. the middle east has similar ties to the Mediterranean nations like Greece and physical similarities to India. Greece relates well to most of all of Europe to the west and on the other side India ties in close the south pacific island and the Vietnam area. the pacific islanders relate to the Chinese above them who in turn relate to Korea, Japan and have ties to mongolia which ties to russia. south pacific islander also relate to the aboriginals in australia who relate more closely to the mauri in new zealand. Japan has close ties to the natives of hawaii, even the indians of the americas are said to have similarities to asia. which at the end leads all the way to south america where the people and empire all have similar cultural influences on each other.
this is a little bit of common sense and the reason why i think it is worth mentioning s that all these cultures and empires do in fact help each other in some way, there are architectural similarities between som of these cultures, shared knowledge spreads easily between places that are similar, yet most of the time they usually end up trying to kill each other if they don't agree with their neighbours knowledge, even in todays world

chains of letters

this was an idea created out of boredom and ties strongly with theatre but the premise of what i had in mind was more to do with tok
the idea is that the words we know and speak are restrictive and limit the level by which we can imagine, and even if we remove all forms of words and all we have left are our experiences and facts we will try and develop ways to communicate and express these experiences.
the idea of how this ties into theatre, is that a script could be written to explain the ideas of what i think of how words chain us and control us in a preformance played out in a slam poem style but this is not impoprtant for a tok blog. but in terms areas of knowledge the specific way i am looking at this is art and that this came from me thinking that the worlds art is being limited by lack of experience and the measurable amount words we have is the volume we have to create. this is however considered null and void in the realm of writing.
however what would be included would be a look into different dialects of languages and ways of speaking such as sign language and the language barrier. the former is a way where when we lack communication and find a way to express what we want, and the latter a way in which words limit our understanding and efficiency of thought
but the whole point of this not that this is bad but rather to explain that our lives are actually pointless without words and that if we cannot share our experience rather than just experiencing then the whole point of the experience is rendered pointless.