18/4/11

WAYS OF KNOWING
"I know more than I can say" - Michael Polanyi


Ethics
Should offensive language be censored?
In my person opinion, I believe that language shouldn't be censored. This is because, with this offensive language concealed, we don't know the reality behind what's happening. News reporters, politicians etc. use fancy substitute words, which end in the public unknowing to the happenings. Even though it may be offensive to some, like using 'kill' instead of 'neutralize', it at least tells the truth like it is. I understand that news reporters etc. substitute the offensive words to make them less offensive, but they end up concealing the negative truth to the public, so that the war in Iraq, may not sound as bad as it truly is.


History
Is it possible to describe historical events in an unbiased way?
I believe so. This is because historians should be able to find evidence from the many perspectives of war and then with all of the knowledge gained from the evidence, summarize it to be unbiased. This may be hard to do in practice, but it would be ideal. The other possible way for a historical event to be unbiased is expose people to both views, so that they can see the perspectives of others and then make a further judgement. However, they would have to be fairly open-minded if it was for example, an old Jewish lady reading about the Nazis and trying to see it may not have entirely been the soldiers fault.


HUMAN SCIENCES
Is language unique to human beings?
If this question means, do only human beings find language important, then I say no. Animals, for example, have their own way of communicating through their language, through sounds and behavior. They may not have symbols to represent 'words' as we do, because they can't write, but they can communicate through their own language. What isn't clear is if Japanese people managed to translate the English language vice versa, how come we can't translate the animals' sounds into English, vice versa? Because animals are said to have the same brain capacity, if not more in some species. If we developed from cavemen, who grunted at each other, to people with a system with symbols that represent different sounds in our language, how come animals can't develop a similar system? It's odd to think that animals can 'talk' in a different language, but if you think about it in reference to the cavemen idea, it might be possible! Like cavemen started off, animals use body language to communicate, like sign language. But why haven't they developed a symbolic system of some sort to represent their language as fast as human beings?


MATHEMATICS
How is mathematics like a language?
Like our own language, words and meanings are represented by symbols. Maths can be considered a language because it also has mathematical grammar. It is similar to English, something will not make sense if it isn't in a specific order. If it's not in that order, it will then not make sense and be a mathematical error. However, unlike other languages, we can not write mathematical symbols to make sense of the formal way to write phrases like "How are you?". These mathematic symbols only apply to maths. An advantage to maths is that it's universal. Meaning all over the world, if educated, we can understand the mathematical symbol system, no difference to what language we speak.


EMOTION
Does the way you describe something affect how you feel about it?
Al Gore's quote "Blocking your child's access to objectionable material on the Internet is not called censorship, it's called parenting", is a perfect example of how describing words change the way you feel. Using the word parenting instead of censorship changes the views of people who believe that children should have the freedom to explore the Internet. If it was seen as censorship on children, then they would object, but because it's called parenting, they can relate or understand that is apart of their job in keeping their child 'safe' from the dangers of the Internet. Another example of how changing words may change your opinion is through military terms like 'neutralize' instead of 'kill'. If there was a report on the TV that the army was going to neutralize the opposing side to settle the issues, most people would think of this as acceptable because they wouldn't understand what the reporters actually mean. If the reporter's said the army is going to kill the opposing side to settle the issues, there would be outrage among most. Therefore, the subjects feelings has been altered, due to the alteration of the descriptive word.