TOK rules

How do we know what we know?
Fundamentals are studied
Questions fundamental things
Looking at the "big picture"
Looking at topics from a birds eye view
Take multiple perspectives into account
Critical thinking skills
NO specific (narrow) topics
NO summaries
Second-order questions
Support theories with empirical evidence (studies)
Question reliability, accuracy, and definitions
Broad perspectives
Broad application of knowledge questions
Apply TOK to Real Life Situations
Abstract topics
Evaluate sources, evidence, arguments, etc
Areas of Knowledge & Ways of Knowing
Claims of causality (x causes y)
Truth claims

Problems in human sciences

Oxford Dictionaries defines human as "relating to or characteristic of humankind". Then, it defines humankind as "Human beings considered collectively". This is a nice illustration of the first and main issue with using science on humans, which is that the term "human" is still not clearly defined and still changes. Of course, you can define "human" in that they belong to the Homo Sapiens species, however, it should not be ignored that even this was not accepted a couple of centuries ago.
Closely related to this is the issue that we still aren't entirely clear on what makes up a human - the composition of a human. Biology and its several subgenres are trying to figure that out, the smaller parts being left to chemistry. However, there are always new discoveries in the field. One previously thought part of the human is crossed out, it's replaced by another one. And let us not forget of the grand frienemy of science: religion. Naturally, the parts of humans that cannot yet be explained are attributed to the One Above, or the Soul.

Another limit that science just can't quite overcome is perspective. As the phrase goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". Someone with middle-class income in one country might be considered wealthy in another or borderline under-privileged in a third. Death for the hunted means life for the hunter. 

As everyone knows, everyone is different and special and beautiful in their own way and whatnot, which creates yet another problem for science. Because the aim of science is to create laws applicable to everyone and everything (such as gravity, everyone has gravity), this is made harder by the special sunflowers of this world, who get offended if they have something in common with someone else, or by those who advocate the difference. Of course it must be recognized that it's true that people, groups of people, and cultures are different in one way or another, but it should also be highlighted that on a grand scale of things (if we look from far enough), the differences are really minor and we actually have much more in common (there was this small German guy with a funny voice and a strange moustache once, who really wanted to emphasize the difference his nation had with others).

The last main problem in human science I will mention now is ethics. Science uses experiments. Experiments hurt their participants. Ethics try to intervene at these points and not let people hurt other people. They created very strict guidelines. Then someone discovered that if we can't hurt people but we have to experiment, we could hurt animals. And this is the story of how animal experiments were created. Of course they also have their own guidelines, but they aren't that strict. And besides, the media doesn't give animals as much attention anyways. Consequently, not as many people care about animals. And therefore, animals are harmed much more in the experiments than humans. But luckily, we have animal rights groups now. They will help. Hopefully.

Status Quo Bias

People generally do not like change or prefer to do nothing.
This leads to decision that guarantee that things will remain the same or change as little as possible.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
At least subconsciously we assume that another choice is inferior or would make things worse.

Examples:

• We like to stick to routines, political parties, favorite meals in restaurants, etc
• US still does not have universal healthcare, although big majorities support the idea, and when the Obama Administration started to act in that direction, ca half of all Americans now disapprove of the idea
• When offered a cheaper insurance company people still chose there previous one
• Same happened with retirement plans (both were real-life experiments in Pennsylvania, 1190)

Knowledge Questions

Good country index:
How do we choose which aspects of ranking something to take into account?
To what extent can we rely on numerical data?
How can we distinguish an accurate definition of "good"?
To what extent are human decisions reliable?
How can we decide which data to include in results?
Click here for the website

Bad historian:
To what extent should a person's own cultural background be considered a flaw in their view of history?

Happiness:Purpose (Human Science Article):
To what extent can a mental state be measured?
How can we distinguish an accurate definition of "happy"?
To what extent are scientific instruments reliable?

Was the TED Talk with Philip Zimbardo good?

NO

• The slides had way too much text
• Because he was talking way too fast
• He did not explain the relevant studies thoroughly
• He did not make any pauses so that we can process the information
• He did not let the audience think when he paused questions
• He does not go into detail about the emotional scarring (the reason the experiment stopped)
• He gave too much raw data / unexplained information
• It lacks ecological validity:
• The participants knew they were taking part in an experiment
• The prisoners knew that the prison guards were also participants
• It was a relatively small sample (only a dozen per group)
• Only male participants
• Only from a particular area --› particular cultural background
• Only from a particular age group
• Participants were paid, so they had some incentive to stay

Ethical Dilemma of Recreational Drug Use

Guesses:

Deontologist:

It is bad because it is illegal in most countries

In a lot of cases, addiction causes human to abuse others, which is also illegal 

Utilitarian:

Some (soft) drugs should be legal, because they make the users happy when they are in a sad place

Soft drugs are similar to alcohol and cigarettes, which also calm people down thereby maximising happiness

However, their use should be strictly controlled, because they would otherwise harm others (or themselves)

Hard drugs should remain outlawed because it is relatively easy to OD

After research:

Deontologist:

• Drugs are bad and should, therefore, remain illegal
• What if everyone was doing it? e.g. doctor working under the influence of crystal meth
• We should work on creating an ideal environment for everyone
• Just because using drugs is convenient and would make you feel better it is not a good argument (Kant: "regulating our judgment upon a principle of convenience (i.e., on a system of eudaimonism), affords no ground of duty")
• Counterargument of same side: Every person has the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness

Utilitarian:

• Legalize!
• Police have more pressing issues to deal with
• More harmful drugs like nicotine and alcohol are legal for personal use
• It should be left up to the individual as a personal choice (they trust the person being knowledgeable and having good instinct in order to make good choices)
• Drugs such as marijuana have medical benefits
• In the case of marijuana: "Is it ethical to deny someone who has chronic pain a natural pain reliever with less harmful side effects? Most prescribed pain relievers contain acetaminophen, which can cause liver damage and failure. Then there are the other narcotics that are more susceptible to abuse and addiction."
• Lots of people get incarcerated for drug use nowadays, but this tears families apart (sometimes children are taken away) and ruins that person's chances at a better, happier future
• Money gained from taxing the use of drugs could be well spent by the government

Why I eat meat

• Protein is a necessary supplement for good health
• I do not find substitutes for meat tasty
• There is no strong evidence that avoiding meat is better for your health
• Just because you eat meat, does not mean that you advocate the abuse of animals
• Nowadays, most animals live in very good living conditions until they are butchered
• There are techniques nowadays with which minimal harm (damage) is inflicted on the animal before it is butchered
• Culturally and traditionally it is accepted to eat meat
• I am a gourmet and thereby I do not want to limit tasting good (at times exotic) food
• Biologically, humans were made to eat meat (their teeth were made that way)
• Finally, meat just tastes reeeaaaaaaally good