3. “The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.” Evaluate this claim.

This claim will be inspected using Language as a Way of Knowing and History as an Area of Knowledge, with relationship to the documentary Holocaust on Trial. The question also touches upon Emotion as a WoK and directly Ethics as an AoK, more specifically duty ethics, "an ethical responsibility". I would like to argue that David Irving proves this statement to be true with his "possession of knowledge", which is highly fallacious, and thus illustrates the various issues of studying History as a AoK.

Irving manipulates the evidence to fit his personal bias. He is indeed a Holocaust Denier which is a powerful label and stereotype with negative connotations, and recognizes this as such, stating from the start that "it's like being called a pedophile" amongst others. In the Holocaust Trial, David Irving stands alone as the prosecutor  as he believes it is his right and moral responsibility to shed light on the issue, "fundamentally a matter of doing your duty and fulfilling your obligations", duty ethics. According to the TOK textbook, "it is worth noting that rights and duties are two different sides of the same coin."
Irving presents three main arguments:
- No systematic plan to eliminate the jews
- No proof Hitler ordered this
- No jews were killed at gas chambers
He uses these as premises to come to come to a seemingly correct conclusion that the Holocaust, as we know it, did not exit.

Irving supports his third premise that no jews were killed at gas chambers, including Auschwitz, using Fred Leuchter, an engineer from Boston and an authority on his field. However, after Leuchter's chemical analysis, his methods and conclusions have been totally discredited, Irving accepts the fact, yet persists in using it as valuable Historical evidence; a fallacy knows as a Prison of Consistency. Moreover, it is Historically proven by the defense that there was an intended huge scale mass murder of the jew race to the point that it was impossible Adolf Hitler, the most influential man in Nazi Germany, could not know of it. Even so, the Holocaust is on trial, not Hitler, and Irving uses a straw man or red hearing when claiming the defense has failed to show the relationship of the killings to Hitler, as a Historian of Hitler, in order to keep his second and last standing claim, hoping to prevent his conclusion from being discredited.

David Irving, an admitted racist and anti-semitist, brings his powerful emotions into a Circular Reasoning. These have given him a biased perception on the nature of the Holocaust leading him to fallacious reasoning, misinterpretations of Historical evidence, and follow with emotive language which is in fact the only creditable aspect Irving has brought to the trial, however, the cycle inevitably repeats as David Irving believes he carries an ethical responsibility to share this knowledge he posses. 

12 Angry Men: Language and Sense Perception

• Describe how two WoK affected the perception of the guilt or innocence of the defendent based on what was seen in class on Aug. 29
• There should be at least 1 reference to WoK material from the textbook for each WoK explored

According to the textbook, in summary, Language in TOK is rule-gorverned, intended, and both creative and open-ended. Briefly explaining, "rule-governed" refers to grammar and "intended" refers to the idea that Language is on-purpose; words have specific meanings and are pronounced in order to communicate those precise meanings. However, it is the "creative and open-ended" part of Language that creates conflict in the film because of the "open to interpretation" nature of words which can be manipulated in both directions of a two-sided argument. In "12 Angry Men" after the accused is voted guilty 11 to 1 (Juror #8), Juror #3 describes him as an "eighteen year old", a young man, while in his deffence Juror #8 refers to him as a "boy". These rational fallacies from both parts are Labels and Stereotypes, "criminal and potential menaces to society". The label "kid" is used multiple times in both forms, to imply immaturity and the need for taking responsibility for one's actions, and to imply vulnerability. Another example of this is the fact that this "kid" grew up without a mother and in the slums; which to Juror #8 means he has already suffered enough and doesn't deserve this accusation, however,  to the other jurors it is yet another proof of his culpability.

Sense Perception is another Way of Knowing that plays an important role in the matter of the film, even so that it is more influential than Language.

Juror #1: "Suppose we go once around the table. I guess your first.." 

Juror #2: "Oh... Well.. it's hard to put into words. I just think he's guilty. I though it was obvious from the word go. I mean, nobody proved otherwise."

Juror #8: "Nobody has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defendant doesn't even have to open his mouth, that's in the Constitution."

Juror #2: "Oh well sure I know that. Umm what I meant was is..... well I.. I just think he's guilty. I mean.. somebody saw him do it".    

 Language well put aside, Sense Perception, specifically Sight here, is used as a valuable, powerful, and only justification. This is empiricism. 

Juror #3: "..I just want to talk about facts. Number one. The old man lived downstairs under the room where the killing took place. At ten minutes after twelve, on the night of the killing, he heard loud noises, he said it sounded like a fight and he heard the kid yell out "Im going to kill you". Seconds later he heard the body hit the floor. Ran to the door, opened the door, saw the kid running downstairs and out of the house."....Juror #10: "Listen, what about the woman across the street? If the third testimony don't prove it then nothing does." Juror #11: "That's right, she was the one who actually saw the killing." 

It is not unheard of that a witness' testimony has in the past lead to several miscarriages of justice, however, all these testimonies (fully based on Sense Perception) in "12 Angry Men" are recognized by Juror #3 and the other jurors as "facts".  

The Trayvon Martin Case & Truth

"Context is all" according to Margaret Atwood. Does that mean there is no such thing as truth in the Trayvon Martin case?

In class, it seems to me that the statement at the center of our profound discussions following Trayvon Martin's death was "Perception is all". However, both of these ("Context is all" from the question posed and "Perception is all") are quantifiers indicating an absolute, "all", and this makes them questionable.

In the first picture above is smiling Trayvon Martin at the age of fifteen (left). Next is Trayvon at the age of 17 (right). Directly above, there is the same picture of fifteen-year-old Trayvon, here next to George Zimmerman (who is wearing the orange color which reminds of prisoners). With our Ways of Knowing at work, Emotion in particular, it is hard to objectively focus on what appears to be the "Truth".

A dictionary definition for "truth is "the quality or state of being in accordance with fact or reality", however, this is incomplete.

According to the "Theory of Knowledge" textbook, we can look at three different theories of truth: the Correspondence Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. 

Correspondence Theory

"According to the correspondence theory", as the book explains, "a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact". This is straight forward as it seems to be our definition of "true". In the article "Hoodies, Trayvon Martin, and America's Racial Fears" by Robin Givhan, the author clearly  shows an example of the Correspondence Theory. Givhan states "nothing will change the terrible fact that an unarmed African-American teenager was killed by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood-watch volunteer who is Hispanic". Although her article is focused primarily on race and rational conflict within the Trayvon Martin Case, she puts all the cards on the table when she states true, factual, evidence.

Coherence Theory

"According to the coherence theory of truth, a proposition is true if it fits in with our overall set of beliefs." Now the question that needs to be asked is: is there only one belief system in Sanford, Florida? in the whole of the United States? in the rest of the world? I believe the answer is 'no', definitely, as in today's globalized world, it is highly likely that you and your neighbor next door have completely different systems of belief. Early in their article, "The Truth About 'Stand Your Ground' Laws", Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski affirm that "Stand Your Ground laws did not apply in that situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed". Personally, their argument seems appealing and reasonable however I, and anyone other than the authors, cannot say with certitude that is 100% 'true', yet, as the title of the article indicates, this is meant to be "The Truth About 'Stand Your Ground' Laws".

Pragmatic Theory

"According to the pragmatic theory of truth, a proposition is true if it is useful or works in practice." This is were the issue comes in when there are two opossing sides to one story as evidence can be classified as 'true' or 'false' according to self-interest, and appeals for the use of Reason. Thereof, truth is manipulate at will, nonetheless, this doesn't not mean that "there is no such thing as truth in Trayvon Martin case" as Margaret Atwood argues, but in the contrary, some evidence is always true, and other evidence has the potential to be truth. 

The Man Box and Gender Roles

When do the roles of man and woman (and to what extent) become gender stereotypes?

At TEDTalks, Tony Porter starts off by listing a few traditional characteristics that build the male behavior and "the man" itself. This is a combination that he labels as the collective socialization of men or "The Man Box", in which he includes some of these:

- Though/Strong/No Pain

- Courageous/No Fear

- Dominating/In Charge/Lead

- Superior

- No Emotions

This "Man Box" alone does not necessarily generate external or common harm (towards woman),  it becomes an issue because of the opposing very negative connotations that they imply. Accordingly, females are:

- Weak

- Scared/Fearful

- Less Value, Property, and Objects (particularly Sexual Objects)/Not In Charge/Follow

- Inferior

- Emotional

The concept of being a man is surprisingly very subjective and has developed over time and human history. Porter's speech is entitle "A call to men" because he argues that it is men who have created the Man Box through different generations due to a full conscious need to stay inside the Box, victimizing women in the process. The so called "Man Box" appears empty above as we can argue there is no such thing as predetermined gender roles/stereotypes that Man (and Woman) are innately born with.

To What Extent Does Perception Define Beauty?

To what extent does perception define beauty?

To answer this question I would first like to define a few terms, including the term "define", and pose the following question: To what extent does perception shape reality?
In this case, "perception" is not only limited to Sense Perception, but to all four of the Ways of Knowing: Sense Perception, Emotion, Reason, and Language.

Reality is subjective. What we perceive to be "our reality" is not necessarily "someone else's reality". For example, Elizabeth Sulser's reality, a woman from Zurich suffering of Synesthesia (which is "the rare neurological condition that  joins senses") allowing her to see and taste sounds, is much different than the reality of most of the people on Earth. "I always see the colors. I cannot go anywhere without colors" she says, and this as become her reality, which is not the same as ours.
   
Now, the answer to "to what extent", which refers to "how much",  is also subjective and depends in our environment. For example, in the Twilight Zone the young lady with the bandages who we perceive as Beautiful, is perceived as grotesque and an abomination in the environment in which the story takes place, to the extent, that she wants to end her life. The short movie defines this by stating that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", however, we have still need to understand why this is the case.   

Going back to the initial question posed, we can define the term "define" as to "give meaning". Personally, as a non-empericist, I believe knowledge is both Innate and Constructive: we are born with our own knowledge and perception which is waiting to be developed and shaped (take in account this is still only my Perception of my Reality). This is why first impressions are very important as they perhaps represent the first time we are exposed to some kind of new knowledge. For example, when we first read the PowerPoint description of Adolf Hitler, we perceive him as a relatively good man (compared to the other description on the same PowerPoint).  Only once we find out the description is the one of Hitler, our perception changes drastically.

Without subjectivity, our surroundings, and depending on the situation or moment in time, as we always look for a justification of what we know, and what we perceive as beautiful; perception alone does not define beauty, but beauty defines perception.

Giving Up One Sense

The five senses that make up our understanding which fit in the Sense Perception category of the Ways of Knowing are:

- Sight
- Hearing
- Touch
- Smell
- Taste

Personally, I think it would be very difficult to give up any of these sense, nonetheless, if I had no choice on the matter, I would give up Taste. Very closely related to Smell, I chose to give up taste over smell because of the power of Smell that is to bring back memories, memories that I probably don't want to lose.

Lets not go into the analysis of the consequences of living without each of the five senses and argue why the consequences are less severe when it comes to losing Taste. Simply, my choice reflects the safest or healthiest way to live lacking one of the five senses. I believe that beyond making up our live physically, our senses warn us about the dangers in our environment. Sight visually show what approaches us and could harm us. Hearing tells us what is near us that could be harmful according to the sound whatever is close by makes. Touch warns us about danger when it is very close to us, for example, when we touch a burning hot plate our Touch sense advices us to take our hand away without even thinking about it. Likewise, Smell can make us perceive whether something nearby is potentially harmful such as poisonous      mushrooms. In away, when we taste something unpleasant our Taste is telling us that something is harmful so "stop eating it", however, for the most part, the damage is already done because that harmful substance was already ingested in your body.   

How Do I Determine What is Knowledge?

"How Do I Determine What is Knowledge?"

To answer this question we first have to answer the question "Where does knowledge come from?", and to do so, we come up with some general sources of knowledge, for example:
- Parents
- Teachers
- Belief System
- Books
- Websites

Ultimately, I decided that the Belief System is one of the most influential factors to determine where knowledge comes from because it involves the four ways of knowing: Sense Perception, Reason, Emotion, and Language (some more than others).

In the "Allegory of the Cave", the prisoners have a distorted System of Belief. As their reality is the shadows created by the fire, they live in a "false" System of Belief that relies only on their Sense Perception; the shadows they see and the voices they hear. Most importantly, "Allegory of the Cave" illustrates how difficult it is to change one's System of Belief. When one of the prisoners escapes, leaves the cave, discovers the sun, and comes back to 'illuminate' the others, he ends up dead.

Going back to the initial question posed, the "Allegory of the Cave" shows how Subjective knowledge is perceived in a stronger way than Objective knowledge, even it being Factual knowledge. So, "How Do I Determine What is Knowledge?" I would like to argue that we simply do not determine what is and what is not knowledge, yet, what indirectly determines this is the balance of the four ways of knowing [Sense Perception, Reason, Emotion, and Language] combined with the balance in the willingness of a person to accept or reject knowledge [Objective or Subjective Knowledge]. This two create a close estimate of what can be considered as "Knowledge".

Francesco Mollinedo

IB Theory of Knowledge
February 2012