Six hundred years ago western culture adopted the general scientific model as an unproven assumed perspective. The general scientific model developed as a phenomenon of knowledge that could be tested and replicated by all. The general scientific model presents a foundation of perception upon which theories, assumptions, and most beliefs are based off. Only confined by human limitations, the general scientific model is perceived to have endless possibilities of achievable knowledge. According to the general scientific model there are simply four basic assumptions that base the key to all knowledge: every event has a cause, causes can be known, humans can discover the causes of events, and ignorance of causes is due to improper tools (Portko, …show more content…
Similarly to the mechanistic and organismic views the contextual world view includes all living organisms, individuals and groups that make up a whole, however differing in that all organisms and their environments are perceived as changing continuously. The contextual world view is the broadest of the views, more integrated than the organismic world view by encompassing the ability for greater knowledge. Present situations of organisms are seen as being a result of the past and an effect of what is to come of the future (Portko, An Introduction to World Views). Within the contextual world view are six underlying assumptions, first being that all organism remain active and have the ability of control to initiate activity (Portko, An Introduction to World Views). Contrasting from the mechanistic and organismic world views in that the environment or the organism cause actions and reactions, the contextual world view assumes that both the environment and the organism actively cause activity. Activity is best described as a contribution from both the organism and the environment, and is no longer described as an action-reaction sequence (Portko, An Introduction to World Views). Organisms no longer work on a forward moving path as in previous theories but instead in a “spiral path” meaning multiple influences and outcomes are possible from one action (Portko, An Introduction to World Views). Being that organism’s activity can have multiple influences that result in multiple possible outcomes each aspect much be studied to determine as many possible factors. “The variables of time, place, culture, physical environment, individual organism 's characteristics etc. all play contributing roles to the behavior that emerges”
In examining the military history, one can easily find out that the main role of military leaders in the field is to decrease confusion and to guide units to achieve the desired end state. In accomplishing these tasks, Situational Understanding and Visualization have become necessary steps especially in today’s complex environment. This importance legitimates the question about their relationship between these two steps and the challenges facing leaders to achieve situational understanding and visualization. Commander’s visualization depends on Situational understanding. Leader’s success in these two phases remains conditioned by overcoming some challenges related to his bias, time and the efficiency of his staff.
This article is about children’s perspective and how to get valid meaningful information from the child’s perspective about their learning experiences. This paper focuses on a sociocultural perspective of children as learners in their own right and co-constructers of their own meaning of learning (Smith, Duncan, & Marshall, 2005). This article also looks at how children can contribute to and make meaning of their learning and how they express that. Children use meaning-making to make sense of their world through and by the experience of narratives (Wright, 2012, p. 26). By using a sociocultural view of children, they are seen in a positive light that sees them as competent confident learners who can contribute and have a voice. This is also
The worldview that I embrace in my everyday life is European worldview, although I am Mexican the European worldview over weights the worldview that people will assume I have. I embrace the European worldview because the aesthetics,epistemolgy,cosmology,ontology and axiology that deal with that worldview are all genuine beliefs of mine that constantly affect me in my everyday life. The African worldview is completely different, it is all for loving your peers and is more community based.
In order to answer this question, one needs to understand that every person comes from a different background and that everyone has a different way to perceive the world. Thus, the starting point for understanding what it means to be a human would be choosing a specific worldview approach. According to Paul Hiebert (an American missiologist) worldview is defined as “the fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative presuppositions a group of people make about the nature of things, and which they use to order their lives”. (quote here) In other words, the way one comprehends life and the world at large. This explanation is generally accepted by society. However, there is not a single definition completely agreed upon all. The main worldview approaches discussed in class are: naturalistic, postmodern, and theistic. I will base my answer on the theistic approach, for it has provided solid
In the short story "Through the tunnel", Doris Lessing describes the adventure of Jerry, a young English boy trying to swim through an underwater tunnel. Throughout the story, the author uses the third person omniscient point of view to describe the boy's surroundings and to show us both what he and the other characters are thinking and what is happening around them. By using this point of view, the author is able to describe the setting of the story, give a detailed description of the characters, and make the theme visible.
A significant function of science, and of everyday thinking, is to make sense of available information. Induction is the process of going from the specific to the general thereby reaching a conclusion about the complex nature of the universe from a , thus far, limited set of observations. A person uses a collection of evidence, gained through experience, and uses it to form a conclusion which is conceived to be conform with the given facts. This means the observations may be true, but because of the given limitation of observation the conclusion could still be proven false. David Hume has identified this problem of induction and deems it therefore as logically unjustifiable. It is, however, the primary form of reasoning in science and is used to attain inferences which the scientific community believes to be the most likely form of the observed phenomena in question within a current paradigm. Induction has established itself as an effective method in the natural sciences and is imperative for scientific advancement.
My personal worldview explains the way I view and live life through the assumptions and beliefs I hold in response to the world around me. I believe I was created for a specific reason and purpose.
However inconsistent or consistent every individual’s worldview is, we all have the zeal for one strongly held desire or another that keeps driving us in the midst of daily challenges, and keeps pushing us to do better in achieving this singular desire. One thing I am strongly passionate about is helping people in every way I can so that in the end God can be glorified.
After considering all the described points in this paper, it can be rightly said that there is a considerable difference between science and other types of knowledge.
Knowledge can be defined in a number of ways. According to the widely accepted definition, knowledge is “justified, true belief”. Many facts that we have learned have been discarded and replaced by new contradictory or more accurate information. Nowadays, in the era of rapid development of technology, the expansion of human knowledge and the revelation of new facts and misconceptions has become even more frequent. The world we live in is subject to constant change and our knowledge about it is often modified. New discoveries and theories are sometimes dramatically different from the current true belief, that it makes us uncertain whether any knowledge represents the absolute and unchangable truth. Therefore, we pose the questions: To what extent is all knowledge truly reliable and how can we be certain about its expiry date? And how do the Ways of Knowing (imagination, faith, emotion, reason) affect the lifespan of knowledge?
In order to understand both, the aspects and complexities regarding Situational Theory of Publics, one must first understand the theory in itself. Situational Theory considers a public as a, “section of the community having a particular interest or connection” (Oxford, 2016). This theory locates and identifies publics by a given genre, the genre being that particular interest or connection. Each public is a group or audience of people with the potential to recognize an organization and its current situation or goal(s). Additionally, Situational Theory helps to identify trends within various publics which allow for strategic communications practitioners to make predictions more accurately.
Humans have always been naturally curious. Why are we here? How did life start? What happened at the beginning of time? How does everything work? These are seminal questions that plagued our ancestors and currently plague us. Answering seemingly impossible questions is the role of science, specifically physics, in humanity. At the forefront of the quest to understand everything was Aristotelian physics. While in the future Aristotelian physics would turn out to be completely incorrect, his original ideas and theories were critical for developing modern science as we know it today. However, it was not until humanity accepted the flaws in Aristotelian physics that science made any progress toward finally understanding the universe. While Aristotelian physics was completely wrong in a multitude of ways, it was still needed to form a basis of the modern method of discovery. Furthermore, the majority of theories in the history of science are incorrect at first. Historically, this has been the method of progress in the sciences. From Newton’s theory of Gravitation and Statistical Mechanics to General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. This cycle of theorizing and rejecting is a necessity to the modern scientific method, a very successful error correcting system. Therefore, both Aristotelian physics and the divorce of Aristotelian physics from science were necessary for humanity to make progress in the sciences. Negative results are still results nonetheless.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
Every living being has its own perspective about the world, about how they understand the world. Jakob von Uexkull, a German biologist, developed a theory in which every organism has its own world, or as he call it, “umwelt”. There can be as many umwelts as there are life projects. In these umwelts the organism will give meaning to the things in it in relation to the use that the organism can give it. They tend to be personal to the organism that is living in it. An umwelt, then, will be determined by the learning, experiences and environment among other things that the organism has lived in.