ToK Journal 2016-2018

This week I have been thinking a lot about determining whether the knowlege claim is raeasonable and how we examine those claims. From the ToK classes I now know that here are two criteria: evidence and coherence.  The second one for me is the most interesting. I've become more interested in how scientists made some breakthroughs. Where their evidence coherent with what they already knew? Maybe some new knowledge claims are true and break our false perception of things but are not coherent with our current knowledge? Is it possible to examine that? Is it possible to knowledge claim not be coherent or having an evidence that humans cannot understand? I'm wondering if people can go beyond their confirmation bias and see world in a whole new way. I belive that by leaving some cultural biases and maybe even current reasonable knowlege can help us see things that are not in our access right now because of how we think things are. Of course in this case we cannot accept all t

This week (12-18.09) I started my ToK classes. We've studied problems of knowlege and the example of the maps and how our culture influence our perception of the world. Europeans see Europe in the center of Earth when at the same time an American can be use to maps that show America in the centre. The Earth is a spheare so we cannot really say what is truerly ''in the center''. This idea really hit me. I started thinking how much our culture influence on our knowledge? Is a culture sometimes a part o knowledge? Map used before discovering America. Another thing that intriceted me was an idea or maybe a statement, that knowledge is simplified. Bringing back the maps example: of course it is not possible for us to create real 1:1 map of the world- firstly, that kind of map it is simply not possible to make and secondly, it would be completly useless for us. So for the usefulness of the maps they are simplified. And the same is with many other areas of