Month: February 2018

Anthropologists embedded in the US Military intervetions

psh@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg Uncategorized 0 Comment

Ethical Dilemmas in Human Sciences

In 2007, the American Anthropological Association called the Army’s effort to embed social scientists with combat units “an unacceptable application of anthropological expertise,” citing a moral conflict between studying groups of Iraqis or Afghans and advising troops who might end up killing them. The AAA’s own ethical code includes this paragraph.

“In research, anthropologists’ paramount responsibility is to those they study. When there is a conflict of interest, these individuals must come first. Anthropologists must do everything in their power to protect the physical, social, and psychological welfare and to honour the dignity and privacy of those studied.” Savage Minds

 

Background to the story here. Question: Can Human Scientist every be fully responsible for the future application of the knowledge they produce? How can we fully know the consequences or implications of the knowledge we produce in research?

G11 Practise Titles (2018)

psh@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg Uncategorized 4 Comments
  1. “In gaining knowledge, each area of knowledge uses a network of ways of knowing.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge. (May 16) 

     

  2. Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between experts in a discipline? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge. (May 2017)

     

  3. “Humans are pattern-seeking animals and we are adept at finding patterns whether they exist or not” (adapted from Michael Shermer). Discuss knowledge questions raised by this idea in two areas of knowledge. (May 2017)

     

  4. Areas of knowledge have methods for testing and supporting knowledge claims. How can we know that these methods themselves are reliable? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge. (Nov. 2017)

Some do and don’t for essay writing!

Do allow your own voice to guide the essay. You should not discuss the knowledge issues as a passive observer.  Phrases like; “…this left me unconvinced” “…initially I found this metaphor seductive but…” ‘…while I accept the reasoning behind..I struggle to see how such a conclusion..” The examiner want to see that knowledge comes with responsibility and that you are already developing  principles.

Do use unusual examples. The IB complains that the same examples* are recycled over and over again. The main worry is that students have gone to a ‘help’ site and taken examples. Be creative and original. Making unexpected links between AOK and WOK will make your essay stand out. (You can still use examples from the list I’ve linked to but try and provide an original angle).

Don’t use dictionary definitions of key terms. “Chambers defines ‘experts’ as… “ Find an example. The UK legal system has faced a crisis caused by its over reliance on so called expert witnesses. This raises a more interesting focus: the struggle to assign or identify someone as an expert. From this point you have an impetus for the essay, an overall point that can be argued that maintains a narrative through 1000+ words.

Don’t use ‘truisms’. “Some of the fundamental concepts of physics have been debated by Scientists across the centuries…”. The examiners know this already. A waffly introduction or conclusion will have a significantly negative impact on your grade!

Do signpost. Tell the reader what you are going to do, what it is you are doing and what it is you did. Make sure your paragraphs link and the overall thread of your argument is maintained.

Do use qualified language. Do not say prove, rather ‘supported the theory’ of ‘provided against the idea’. 

Do use good, apt and well researched quotations. But please research, do not be the student who quote’s ‘Francis Bacon the Artist’ when it was really ‘Francis Bacon the philosopher’.

A debate about matter, energy and spirit.

psh@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg Uncategorized 1 Comment

A follow up from one of the many interesting discussions coming out of the TOK Religious Knowledge Day. I briefly started to debate with Mr. Suarez the concept of ‘matter‘, energy and energy.

I take a strictly materialist point of view. That is to say, for me, matter is primary. This is a rejection of the idea that spirit or consciousness could precede matter. From the Big Bang to the history of our own lives, matter is the starting point of analysis. Atoms come together, cells grow and these processes lead to life.  Life itself is able to express conscious thoughts but this is because of the evolutionary development of life from very rudimentary single cells organism to the complex and abstract thinking that this debate represents. Mankind is nature made conscious. This is a bold claim. But, I believe, no other living organism, or matter itself, has consciousness of the same quality as man’s consciousness. Mankind is aware of its history and with that awareness it can rise to challenge of shaping it’s own future.

If like me, you believe that ‘matter is primary’, then this perspective should also pervade your methodology. When I look at Historical events, from the Rwanda Genocide to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I begin my investigation by looking at the material conditions that led to changes in the way that the consciousness of a population changed. I believe that the expression of hatred that was so damaging to each of these societies was driven by material conditions. In Rwanda a key factor was the falling crop yields. In Northern Ireland the poor state of the area’s housing and the high levels unemployment were the flash point of the conflict. It is surely difficult to believe that doctrinal difference in faith between Catholic and Protestant was the real cause of the conflict. Conscious and spirit were the product of material conditions and not the other way round.

Mr Suarez correctly pointed out that there is a real challenge being a materialist. I still have to explain what matter is. I have to reject, without sufficient evidence, that the Universe is ‘knowing‘ in some way.

So, if time allows, I would like to invite Mr Suarez to begin a well mannered debate on this topic of a Universe without any meaning spirit outside what mankind gives it. Over to you Mr Suarez.