How it worked?
Process of elimination
More symbols to work with
Apriori Knowledge-
used prior experiences to make assumptions
initial assumptions led to certain conclusions
We infer from past experiences led to certain conclusions
We are NOT pure empiricists
Rationalists-
Assumptions=Premise
Deduction-
Apriori Knowledge (in form of general theory)
APPLYING IT
All dogs are mammals
Fido is a dog
therefore Fido is a mammal
above a syllogism
syllogism
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH
either valid or invalid
3 terms occuring twice
A quantifer at begining
to be valid conclusion must follow premise
Valid Syllogies
All penguins are black and white
This tv show is black and white
therefore this tv show is a penguin
All panthers are pink
Huey Newton is a Panther
Therefore Huey Newton is Pink
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
TOK Project- Option 2
Original: “The Charge of the Light Brigade”
By: Alfred Tennyson
By: Alfred Tennyson
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
Modified for project:
One more lesson, One more lesson,
One more day of frustration,
All in Dr. Itard’s House
Victor was taught
“Not the scissors, Victor!
The Hammer!” Itard said:
In the House of Dr. Itard
Victor was taught.
"Bring me the K, Victor!”
Was there a way to civilize him? To give him humanity?He didn’t know
He’d try to teach him;
Through memorization,
Through training,
Through cruelty:
He would make him human
In the House of Dr. Itard
Victor was taught.
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
In a boy devoid of any human traits,
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
Beneath the layers of wildness;
He taught and lectured,
Victor obeying and following,
Into the jaws of shocks,
Into the mouth of the closet,
In the House of Dr. Itard
Victor was taught.
Victor placed the tools correctly,
Placed the letters by memory,
And then by recognition,
Learning language, while
Paris questioned Dr. Itard;
Thrown into the closet
Shocked into crying;
Itard hoping for some glimmer of humanity
And to make Victor understand right and wrong
Shattering his wildness,
And giving him humanity.
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
To further his science,
He wanted to prove humanity was there,
To better understand the brain
He would teach him;
Through recognition,
And through Victor’s inherent need for order,
And through cruelty;
Victor learned,
Thrown into the closet
And shocked,
In Dr. Itard’s House
Victor was taught.
Will he ever truly understand?
The way humans think?
Will he ever feel what humans feel?Can he ever get past his wildness?
And finally find humanity?
Honor Victor, the outcast,
And the one who’ll never be the way he was meant to be,
The one who fell to the wild.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Genie Questions #2
1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
Chomsky argued that the basics of language are ingrained in all of us; that our ability to use grammar is pre-programed into us when we are born and we can process grammar from the beginning and the only thing we need to learn is vocabulary.
2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
It makes sense that you wouldn't fly if you were raised by birds, but language is entirely different. Walking and talking are very different processes. One is a noise while the other is a movement.
3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
To some extent, due to the fact that we did develop language ourselves because there were pre-linguistic humans, and now we have many languages.
4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Because it was her first sign of outside interaction; she was finally interacting with other children. She was turning her anger outward, no longer keeping it pent up inside herself. This was seen as encouraging by her therapists, as she was finally interacting with the outside world.
5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie's language was developing rather well in that she could understand an encouraging amount, but was having trouble actually saying things. Her vocabulary (what she could say) was limited due to her extensive solitary confinement and limited development of her vocal cords. After a while, it became clear to the doctors that she would never be able to fully develop a vocabulary akin to an average person's.
6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The main deference is that the film ends on a more positive note, as if they really will be able to teach Victor how to speak and interact, while the reading seems to be less optimistic and seems to suggest they will never be able to fully teach Genie or Victor how to speak.
7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
They each saw in the movie what they wanted to see; that no matter what happened during the movie, they saw it as justification of what they think is going to happen. Each one of them saw the movie as confirmation of what they already believed; they primed themselves to react in a certain way and they did react that way.
8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61.
I think it has merit, because if everything was dependent on language than Genie would not end up understanding true emotions. She may start to connect everything with the langauge and nothing with actions, and completely focus on langugae and completely look over anything else.
9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Vistor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
I agree that it was to optomistic, but you have to take in the fact it was a movie, and most movies have optomistic endings, especially in the early 70's, unless it was a war movie. Most films don't want to be seen as pessimistic, and so, as is usual with movies in general, the ending is too optomistic.
Chomsky argued that the basics of language are ingrained in all of us; that our ability to use grammar is pre-programed into us when we are born and we can process grammar from the beginning and the only thing we need to learn is vocabulary.
2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
It makes sense that you wouldn't fly if you were raised by birds, but language is entirely different. Walking and talking are very different processes. One is a noise while the other is a movement.
3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
To some extent, due to the fact that we did develop language ourselves because there were pre-linguistic humans, and now we have many languages.
4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
Because it was her first sign of outside interaction; she was finally interacting with other children. She was turning her anger outward, no longer keeping it pent up inside herself. This was seen as encouraging by her therapists, as she was finally interacting with the outside world.
5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Genie's language was developing rather well in that she could understand an encouraging amount, but was having trouble actually saying things. Her vocabulary (what she could say) was limited due to her extensive solitary confinement and limited development of her vocal cords. After a while, it became clear to the doctors that she would never be able to fully develop a vocabulary akin to an average person's.
6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
The main deference is that the film ends on a more positive note, as if they really will be able to teach Victor how to speak and interact, while the reading seems to be less optimistic and seems to suggest they will never be able to fully teach Genie or Victor how to speak.
7. How did the film, Wild Child impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
They each saw in the movie what they wanted to see; that no matter what happened during the movie, they saw it as justification of what they think is going to happen. Each one of them saw the movie as confirmation of what they already believed; they primed themselves to react in a certain way and they did react that way.
8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61.
I think it has merit, because if everything was dependent on language than Genie would not end up understanding true emotions. She may start to connect everything with the langauge and nothing with actions, and completely focus on langugae and completely look over anything else.
9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Vistor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
He wanted to teach him that other people mattered, and wanted him to be able to feel sorry for other people, so he could begin to feel emotions and actually think like a human being. I don't think CAS does this, because, by this point, you either care about others or you don't.
10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?I agree that it was to optomistic, but you have to take in the fact it was a movie, and most movies have optomistic endings, especially in the early 70's, unless it was a war movie. Most films don't want to be seen as pessimistic, and so, as is usual with movies in general, the ending is too optomistic.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Linguisticly Able
1.)What are the functions of language? Just provide the main ones Abel describes.
5.)What is the difference between Animal and Human Language?
We can understand Human Language, and (as far as we know) Animal language has no real set of rules, while any human language does, and those rules make it much more precise. Also (again, as far as we know) Animal language is unable to convey emotions as well as Human language. Human language also has difficulties in conveying emoition, but at least it can, whereas Animal language can't.
6.)What is Chomsky’s argument on how humans learn language? Be specific about linguistic competence.
Chomsky argues that we, as humans, have the function of grammar pre-programmed into them and only have to learn vocabulary. That the basis for language is built into everyone of us, and that grammar is inherently the same throughout all human languages, and that every human is linguistically comptent; that every human can learn languages.
8.)How would you answer Abel’s questions:” Would an infant learn to speak, although isolated from adults, he were constantly within earshot of a radio?” (p. 231)
That it would be doubtful, because he may learn the sturucture and random words, he would not be able to use those words in context, due to the fact that he would not learn what the words refer to.
9.)Why does Abel believe that “language is not in fact unique in the spectrum of human capacities?” (p. 231)
The functions of language are grammar and vocabulary. They are distinctly unique and have very different characteristics and rules.
3.)What is the “inscrutability of reference?” (p. 228)
The undenaible fact that words refer to things, and we take the "meaning" of that word from what that word refers to. It doesn't actually mean anything, but it refers to meaning.
4.)What does Abel mean when he says that “Words are mete breaths of air, or scribbled pencil marks, but as used in a ‘language game’ by a speech community they are not arbitrary? “( p. 228)
That when you talk or communicate with words, they actually mean something. They having a meaning for you and they have a meaning for the people your talking to.5.)What is the difference between Animal and Human Language?
We can understand Human Language, and (as far as we know) Animal language has no real set of rules, while any human language does, and those rules make it much more precise. Also (again, as far as we know) Animal language is unable to convey emotions as well as Human language. Human language also has difficulties in conveying emoition, but at least it can, whereas Animal language can't.
6.)What is Chomsky’s argument on how humans learn language? Be specific about linguistic competence.
Chomsky argues that we, as humans, have the function of grammar pre-programmed into them and only have to learn vocabulary. That the basis for language is built into everyone of us, and that grammar is inherently the same throughout all human languages, and that every human is linguistically comptent; that every human can learn languages.
8.)How would you answer Abel’s questions:” Would an infant learn to speak, although isolated from adults, he were constantly within earshot of a radio?” (p. 231)
That it would be doubtful, because he may learn the sturucture and random words, he would not be able to use those words in context, due to the fact that he would not learn what the words refer to.
9.)Why does Abel believe that “language is not in fact unique in the spectrum of human capacities?” (p. 231)
Because there is evidence that other animals communicate, althought thier communication has much less structure than ours does, and lacks descernable rules, as far as humans can tell. So they don't use language per say, more modified signals.
10.)What does Abel mean when he says: “We all learn these codes of stance, mannerism, gesture, tactility, interpersonal behavior…yet we are equally unable to state them fully”? (p. 232)
Language is incapable of fully expressing these, because words don't completely convey them. Everyone takes words to mean something slightly different. Words don't have concret refrences; they vary from person to person and people see them differently.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Genie
1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
Psamtik's experiment was too put two babies into a hut completely by themselves for two years in an effort to find out what the protolanguage is; the first language humans ever spoke. He did not learn what it was, although he thought he did, for many reasons.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
Abel hinted at this when he said that language in itself is still not resolved. There are new theroies and the question is still open. Linguistics is still an unfinished study. We still don't know for sure what our "first" language was or even if there was a "first" language.
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Because both studies are expanded from observation; there is no way to actively study linguistics in an experiment the same way there is no way to study astronomy in an experiment.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
Because she was completely malnourished, weighing only 59 pounds and was only 54 inches tall at the age of 13, and seemed completely unreactive. She seemed almost robotic, not interacting with anything.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
First, people belived that god gave them the gift of language and "Who are you to question god?" but over time a new theory gained support; that we were born with it and it was inherent within our bodies; that it was seperate from our souls. After awhile this was questioned by cases of children who were raised in solitude and who possessed no language skills at all, and a new theory gained prevalance; that we must be taught language for us to effectively utilize it. Thus it evolved from religious to biological to psychological.
Psamtik's experiment was too put two babies into a hut completely by themselves for two years in an effort to find out what the protolanguage is; the first language humans ever spoke. He did not learn what it was, although he thought he did, for many reasons.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
Abel hinted at this when he said that language in itself is still not resolved. There are new theroies and the question is still open. Linguistics is still an unfinished study. We still don't know for sure what our "first" language was or even if there was a "first" language.
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Because both studies are expanded from observation; there is no way to actively study linguistics in an experiment the same way there is no way to study astronomy in an experiment.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
Because she was completely malnourished, weighing only 59 pounds and was only 54 inches tall at the age of 13, and seemed completely unreactive. She seemed almost robotic, not interacting with anything.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
First, people belived that god gave them the gift of language and "Who are you to question god?" but over time a new theory gained support; that we were born with it and it was inherent within our bodies; that it was seperate from our souls. After awhile this was questioned by cases of children who were raised in solitude and who possessed no language skills at all, and a new theory gained prevalance; that we must be taught language for us to effectively utilize it. Thus it evolved from religious to biological to psychological.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
