During the TOK class, we looked at scientific method in a more detailed manner. One of the things I understood during the class is that scientific method can never lead to the absolute truth because there is always some uncertainty associated with the truth. This leads to the fact that the scientific method follows a perpetual cycle rather than a flow diagram with an end stage.

Another controversy is the the falsification and supporting of hypotheses. I think trying to falsify hypotheses in hopes of reaching the truth is a very long and laborious process because you may only need to falsify one hypothesis or sometimes you may even have to falsify a hundred hypotheses. Therefore, I believe that it is much easier to support a hypothesis and find the truth when a large group of scientists work to experiment, observe, falsify hypotheses and come to a conclusion.

The article “The nastiest feud in science” describes the results of different experimental methods and also the controversies of different experimental methods. For example, in the article, the writer talks about the discovery of Iridium. The article mentions that scientists found Iridium all around the world at the same time and, according to the fossil records, creatures were dying en masse during this time. This observation provided evidence to support the hypothesis that an asteroid had landed on Earth, which lead to the scattering of iridium and rocks all over the Earth. This illustrates the controversy. According to the scientific methods, this method of supporting the hypothesis and finding the truth is is accepted. However, we can never be sure that an asteroid landing on Earth and causing the distribution of iridium all over earth is the absolute truth.

I didn’t clearly understand the task, but I have tried to complete the task based on what my understanding was.

The card game we played in the TOK class was a very interesting one because it involved finding/ recognising patterns. At first I thought it was just a game, but later I understood that the main purpose of the game was to explain the elements of natural sciences. During the game, I came across a variety, some of which are not always explicit. For example, the colour of the card is an explicit variable, however, the hand used to give the card is not an explicit variable.

Three conceptual understandings:

1. In natural sciences, the falsification of claims/ hypotheses is a better method than proofs.

In natural sciences, scientists first formulate a hypothesis based on their observation. Then they try to verify this hypothesis using various methods, for example, proofs and falsification are two methods. If you can falsify your hypothesis, you know that your hypothesis is incorrect and you can formulate a new hypothesis, which takes you one step closer to the truth. However, with the method of proof, sometimes your hypothesis might fit the data, but the hypothesis might actually be incorrect. For example, during the game, my group guessed when there were only 4 cards. Our hypothesis fit the data, however, it was incorrect because we didn’t try falsification before we claimed it to be true.

2) Scientific method relies upon experimentation, observation and reasoning.

First, a scientist formulates a hypothesis based on observation and reasoning. Then the scientists tries to verify his hypothesis through various methods through experimentation. If the hypothesis is proven to be false, the scientist will formulate and new hypothesis and repeat the same procedure until he finds a hypothesis, which is true. Then a reason is provided for why the hypothesis is true before it can be called a law. For example, in the card game, we used falsification to check if our hypothesis was true or not, so we could move on to a new hypothesis and find the truth.

3) Scientific evidence is mainly based on inductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which can be viewed as evidence for the conclusion of truth or a general principle based on some data. Whereas, empirical evidence is experimental evidence. Therefore, I think that scientific evidence is based on inductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Two subjects with the most justified knowledge:

1. Mathematics HL: In my opinion,  the knowledge obtained from mathematics HL is one of the most justified knowledge because I feel everyone needs some level of mathematical knowledge to perform most tasks.  In the modern world, I can’t become an engineer without taking Mathematics HL because the skills covered in Mathematics HL are prerequisites for first-year engineer colleges. Another reason why I think Math HL provides the most justified knowledge is because I think that the skills developed can be used to describe the world around us. Also, I feel that Mathematics provides one of the most justified knowledge is because it teaches us how to come up with logical conclusions and how to clearly justify our statements with reason. Without Math, there wouldn’t be any sciences, which are essential to utilise the rules of systems in order to predict and control the natural world. Math can be utilised to model the behaviour of the natural world and prepare for the future. Therefore, I feel that the Math provides on of the most justified knowledge.
2. Physics HL: The main reason why I think Physics HL provides one of the most justified knowledge is because it helps us challenge and develop our imagination with concepts like relativity and Quantum Physics. Also, I think that Physics HL provides the most justified knowledge is because I want to become an engineer and in order to become an engineer I have to take Physics HL. Another reason why I think the knowledge gained in Physics HL is the most justified is because I believe that Physics plays a key role in future technological advances and the progress of humankind. Also, The skills obtained in Physics HL are essential in order to understand the systems around us. For example, in physics HL, you learn about electrical systems, generators, transformers and so on, which will be very useful in the future when you are planning the layout and budget for your home. Also, physics has a lot of practical real-world applications. For example, gravity can explain how an apple falls of a tree or how an object moving on a rough surface comes to stop eventually.

Two subjects with the least justified knowledge:

1. English language and literature SL: In my opinion, learning English at the IB language and literature SL level provides the least justified knowledge. Now, I will justify why I think so. I strongly believe that being able to read, write, comprehend and speak in english is an essential skill because English is a universal language, which most people understand. However, I feel that developing skills like analysing literature texts is not very useful; because I want to become an engineer and then analysis of literature texts is not a very important skill for engineers. I feel that the minimum English requirement to work as an engineer is to communicate your ideas clearly in different formats.
2. Economics SL: I feel that some amount of basic economics is very valuable in terms of making decisions in everyday life. Basic economics has many applications in daily life: how much can I spend on a weekly basis, how much of groceries do I need and how much time I should spend on each task. In other words, basic economics is essential for the efficient allocation of resources. However, I feel that the knowledge gained from Economics SL is the least justified because I don’t think I will use many of the concepts in the future as an engineer or for allocating my resources.