We hear everyday of accidents occurring, but usually the cause is limited to rash driving or the driver loosing control of his vehicle. However when I went to get my drivers license from the Regional Transport Office, I learnt that it is less of the driver and more of the officials looking after those who are authorized to give license to new drivers who are responsible for these accidents.

Very few people undergo formal training of driving before officially becoming a lerned driver. During the theoretical testing process, there were people who were cheating and getting the correct answers. The test was only of road signs but without knowing the signs a person cannot be expected to drive properly. There were officials who were conducting the test but they did not do any thing about the cheating that was going on. This enraged me but I still could not do anything as no one would listen to me.

Everyday there are new breakthroughs in road safety but no one realizes that maximum road safety can be achieved by training new drivers first and then concentrating on unforeseen situation in which there are chances of accidents.

Car simulators can be used to give experience and improve ones driving skill. There are games for doctors who can perform a surgery in a virtual environment to have some understanding in real time situations. The newly developed chaos theory has applications in these games to prepare the doctors for every situation as with every virtual stitch or cut made to the virtual patient the equation of the game changes. These simulators can be of excellent use to test new learners.

Driving cars is like an art, even though there may set theories or rules, things can change at any instant. Due to this reason the officials need to know who is capable enough to not only keep himself safe but also keep others around him safe. Improvements need to be made in the system of the Regional Transport Office in the selection process of individuals.

In conclusion I would like to say a counter argument can be that even though I may think that the process is faulty, I got my license through a private coach and I do not know the governmental procedures but till where I have seen, I feel the process is still inadequate.

Movie Appreciation- Saw 1

How far can a man go to save his or his families life? The movie saw explores this argument. A man terminally from cancer devices a plan and kidnaps two people (known as the Jigsaw Killer). He chains their legs up to a pipe and keeps them in a room with a dead body. One of them is a surgeon and the other is a person who takes pictures of rich men to show their true self. Both of them do not know how or why have they got there.

The surgeon had presence of mind. He did not let his emotions take over his sense of judgment. On the other hand the photographer was in a state of panic and his rationality was impaired. The surgeon knew the only way both of them could get out was if the talked and worked together. Later they found a saw with which was not sharp enough to cut through their chains, the capturer wanted them to cut though their feet. The photographer had thought for a moment that this was all a part of realty television. In another scene another person, Zep, is taking the surgeon’s wife and daughter as hostage. The Jigsaw Killer had told the surgeon that if he killed the photographer before six o clock he could save his family. The surgeon had to choose between murdering a man he does not know and being the cause of murder of his family. The surgeon had an intuition that the Jigsaw Killer was one of his cancer patients.

The viewer feels that Zep was actually working for the Jigsaw Killer, however by the end of the film, the viewer gets to know that the killer had injected a slow acting poison in him and he had to murder a wife and a child (the surgeons family) in order to get an antidote from the killer. Zep faced an ethical dilemma but chose to save himself.

Later in the movie, the surgeon had found a mobile with which he was receiving calls from his captured family. However when the time was up he could hear gun shots being fired. He thought his family was being shot at but an ex- detective was shooting Zep. Getting frustrated at this he sawed off his foot and shot the photographer with a gun to save his family.

The Jigsaw killer wanted to explore human nature. He would capture people and play such gruesome games of life and death. He wanted to show people the gift of life. The captives usually had to choose between saving themselves and saving other people. The killer wanted to see how far a person would go to save himself- would he gouge his eyes out or cut a living mans stomach to get a key. There is always a clash of reason versus emotion and for most emotion overpowers reason. The captives would not communicate and sort out a plan so that their chances of survival would increase. Each one of them would think that only one of them could survive but that was not the case. They had to help each other to survive.

The traps set by the Jigsaw Killer were like art. Each trap was unique though horrifying, in its own way. In order for a person to escape a trap, he had to follow the rules, there was no other way of escaping, the killer had thought of every possible reaction of the captives. Even though the Jigsaw Killer was portrayed as a sadist, those that survived his traps gained a new respect for life and some did become his apprentice. The killer was teaching the captives not through words but by forcing them to survive the traps. A drug addict quit consuming drugs after surviving the trap but also became one of the apprentices of the killer.

In conclusion I would say that seeing this movie through the perspective of theory of knowledge has made me see more than I would have other wise seen. Seeing the reason behind the sadism of the Jigsaw Killer and the emotions faced by his captives and noticing things that I would not have noticed without knowing that words are not the only thing that comprises of language was a great experience. The movie explores the will, selfishness and desperation for people to survive. There was a captive who had a suicidal tendency but when he was given a choice to go through a webs of barb wire or to die in the room he was in before the exit shuts, he chose to live and go through the barb wire.

Knowledge at Work.

India gained its independence on August 15^th 1947. However at the same time the Dominion of Pakistan was formed too. There are several causes for the formation of Pakistan but the man mainly responsible for it is Jinnah (from article). Was there a need for the formation of Pakistan, I do not think so. Today people from all different religions reside in India without any conflict. Why then should Jinnah want to create a new country by splitting not only the country on bases of geography but also splitting the people on bases of who are Hindus and Muslims? This rift developed in the 1940’s has caused countless terrorist attacks in both countries by fanatics.

The article is biased towards Hindus but also gives evidences to prove its bias. The author at the beginning of the article has said that following the speech on July 19, 1946 there was a great massacre of Hindus in Calcutta. This clearly influences the reader’s perception by attacking his or her emotions.

There is no reason given in the article of why Jinnah wanted the partition but it is clearly shown that he was an extremist and wanted it at any cost. He was responsible for the ‘great Calcutta killings’ in 1946. He aroused his fellow Muslims but did not even know how to speak Urdu. Jinnah was not a true Muslim. He was more of a Catholic than a Muslim. “He changed his birthday from 20 October to Christmas Day. As a student at Lincoln's Inn, he anglicized his name from Jinnahbhai to Jinnah.” Jinnah is portrayed as a selfish leader who can resort to any sort of violence to get his way.

The article gives the only the point of view of the different Hindu leaders and subtly criticizes Jinnah’s actions while praising the RSS. Syama Prasad Mookerjee was the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. He plays around with words and uses it effectively to target the people’s emotion to trigger anti- Muslim sentiments- “Jinnah is out to destroy the very soul of India.” This statement encourages people to become patriotic as well as pro-Hindu. He reasons out that a partition is not the answer for India, and not just propagate it-

“Hindus regard this country as their sacred and holy land. Irrespective of provincial barriers or the diversity in faiths and languages there exists a remarkable economic and cultural unity and inter-dependence which cannot be destroyed at the will of persons and parties who think it beneath their dignity to regard India as their motherland. We must live and die for India and her liberty.”

This article is a subtle propaganda for the RSS. The author is artfully telling the reader that he is associated with the RSS and feels that the change in the views of the Bharatiya Janata Party is wrong. He feels that the RSS is right in its views about being an extremist pro-Hindu party.

The author has spoken about Hindu leaders who I have not heard of and glorified them, he has on the other hand he has given Gandhi, a person every Indian has heard of less prominence. Gandhi was a pacifist and the extremists did not agree upon his methods.

I feel the partition was just an excuse for Jinnah to gain some importance and make sure he is remembered for a long time. I feel that there was no logical need for a partition to occur. Why should there be any kind of war between people living in the same country when a third party (the British) can be root cause of it and also take advantage.

Religion Abhinav Todi

Today religion is something, which everybody follows; it does not have to be related to God. It can range from music to football. However during the time when people were not very open about new ideas, religion was only related with God. To me religion is just a way of saying “I believe in God”. But I ask if there really is a “God” why do so many people pray to different “Gods and Goddesses” Take Hinduism for example, there are so many Gods that the followers pray to that I do not even know some of their names. I feel some people use blind followers to make money. The Hindu ‘pundit’ may be uttering something that even he does not know what it means while performing a ‘pooja’ and the layman himself does not know whether the ‘pundit’ is really a ‘pundit’.

When a person follows a particular religion, he believes in something. He tries to find something, which may or may not have an answer to. I believe praying to pictures and photos, which has been conjured, up by an artist is irrational. Nonetheless I do believe in an entity. I do not believe that following a particular religion is the way to give respect to that entity. Why would a ‘God’ give something to a person who prays everyday wealth and another who also prays everyday nothing at all?

When a person sees a ‘miracle’ occur, he believes it to be of supernatural origin without examining the situation. During this time of awe a cunning person can begin preaching that it is the work of ‘God’. In certain villages, people dig the earth and place a statue of a ‘God’ and cover it up. But before placing the statue in the ground, place seeds underneath the statue. Then when the seeds get soaked with water from the rain, they expand and push the statue out of the ground and claim it is the work of ‘God’ and trick people into donating money in the name of religion. Fear also makes a person believe in religion. By giving hopes that people who follow a particular religion will create a path for them to go to heaven. Just before the European renaissance occurred, no one questioned the church when it preached something, when the church condemned someone everybody around did the same. The church imposed its will upon the people. People lived in fear of the church. I can relate religion to an analogy of putting some monkeys in a deep pit such that they cannot get out of it. Every week a new monkey is put into the pit. When several generations pass the later generation will not even question why they cannot get out of the pit. Getting out the pit will become ‘forbidden’.

Religion might give a person psychological satisfaction. It might give him or her hope or a wall to lean on when a rainy day occurs. Followers believe that by praying and sacrificing they will get what they want. However one cannot get anything without trying himself.

Changing ones stance on a particular religion is very tough. I would need a lot of evidence that I have to follow Hinduism in order for me to go to heaven. It is not easy for a person who has a faith in someone or something to change it.

People use a lot of biases when it comes to religion. Interpretation of certain texts is a major fallacy when the question of what ‘God’ wants particular followers to do occurs. There can be many meanings to a simple statement like ‘as he ran the earth shook’- for the person running the earth will look as if it is shaking or during the time he was running, an earthquake occurred. People use this misinterpretation and blame their actions on the religion. The fanatic Islam followers have bombed an terrorized Hindus and other religion in the name of God. Why would God want such acts of crime to occur?

As the years pass more number of people question the ultimate truth of the existence of ‘God’. Science has taken over the minds of people and a sense of rational thinking has set in. Having faith in something is not a goo thing, not having faith in anything is worse as the person has nothing to support him. However blindly doing something is a irrational approach to life. Without faith life has no meaning.

Order in chaos? How can this be? I was reading a book chaos from which I was enlightened with the knowledge of seeing order in chaos. Something as random as the fluctuation of the economy of a country could be looked as a chaotic field and hence through a certain mistake found by Edward Lorenz that dynamic systems are dependent on the initial conditions of the system. This was an eye opener to me as its application was finding out the future conditions of the economy was made possible.

I had not known anything about theory of relativity. I knew it had something to do with relative motion of objects but after coming to school I learnt that it has to do with particle moving with speeds near to the speed of light. I learnt that when objects move fast time slows down for them to an observer in rest. This was a revelation to me. The formulas and theories used made a lot of sense once I read and understood the chapter. I was excited to know that I could understand such a phenomenon without external aid.

Another thing that was an eye opener to me was that I learned that physics that I learned earlier was shattered by the development of quantum physics. Particle without mass had momentum. Not only that but the very nature of particle and waves interchanged which could not be defined by classical physics.

The media source claims the Iran is engaged in the creation of nuclear weapons and the USA wants answers. This article is completely biased towards the USA. The author of the article subtly shows his contempt for Iran. I feel that the article does not look at Iran’s point of view and makes accusations against the country.

The author also makes a generalization on how the Iran has always ‘defended its right to continue its nuclear program’ supporting this statement with only one instance. This bias can be looked at from the author’s point of view by saying that USA and Iran have ha certain issues in the past since the Iranian Revolution. However this does not give the author the right to only talk about the Iran’s failure to address the nuclear issue. This article is like propaganda to turn its readers against Iran. The author has only used confirmation bias to support his accusation on Iran.

However through evidence in the article, I can say that Iran is using vague language to delay or evade the talk about the nuclear deal. Due to this Hillary Clinton seems to show some agitation and frustration and wants a ‘head on’ answer from Tehran. Iran is clearly evading the question put forth by the USA on the nuclear deal by saying that it wants to discuss about certain issues but does not mention about the nuclear deal. The USA has taken up this issue with the United Nations so that they get an answer but at the same time telling the world to be scared of Iran. I feel the USA is trying to divide the world just like it did in the Cold War. But doing this however there is a lot of potential for another outbreak for war and could be known as World War 3.

Nuclear energy should be used for creation of power and not war. It was the USA who had originally built the destructive weapon and used it on Japan. From that time on, countries have been stock piling such weapons as if preparing for another world war. The issue for accumulation of weapons has been a major cause for countries. War does not only kill people and damage property but also cause economic decline in the countries. This issue is a very important and is it rational and ethical to stockpile such weapons. Is there really need for armies to protect us? Such matters need to be discussed to earth as whole and not with certain countries. Science has turned from being used to advance mankind into a one-way ticket for mankind to be bombed back to the stoneage.

the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history

No one knows where is Hitler after he fled. However we do know the atrocities he committed against the Jews, against mankind. The amount of damage and destruction both mental and physical because of the wars is unaccountable. Mankind has learned that nothing good comes out from war. There is no one right or wrong in war. There is no one right or wring in history. History is the view of different people complied into a document. G.W.F. Hegel’s saying ‘ the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history’ applies to some things concerning history but not all.

We learn a lot from history, whether it is something as big as the discovery of an atom or something as small as a method of recycling of paper, we learn a lot from history. History teaches us the existences of different tribes, their culture and hence their origin. We can learn where we came from through historical evidences of different tribes. It is not allowed for women to get up from their bed for forty days after they have given birth to a child in Hinduism. This is not related to the religion it self but history. Since the woman is still healing she was not allowed to get up from her bed in the past. This was slowly modified into the religion it self, and even though the new generation may not know it, they still follow it. We are incorporating history into our daily lives an are constantly learning from it. Gunpowder was used by the Japanese in the early 5^th century and is still used now in fire works. Today’s scientists look back into history to make progress in fields like medicine and mathematics. The Vedic science of medicine and mathematics are more effective than this era’s counting and medicines.

However history itself it not reliable as there are different viewpoints each historian gives. Like in theory of relativity when two events occur at an instant of time, a person may see them occur at the same time but another person will not see it occur at the same instant of time. Neither of them are wrong but there is no right answer. Lack of methods of preserving local dialects and cultures have eroded evidences of tribes existing and left scientists to assume many events occurring in tribes. We cannot learn from what does not exist. Interpretation of certain texts is a lot of work. Even the slightest errors in translation can result in a completely wrong interpretation of the text.

One cannot always look at history to learn something. There is a clear distinction between what is half true and what is completely false. It is up to the one reading that particular historical evidence to decide whether it is true or not. One cannot sleep overnight and reason out history as mathematics.

Right to Life

The media source claims that CIA interrogators used illegal means to get information out of an al Qaeda prisoner. The report from the executive director of the ACLU stated that these means used were reprehensible and illegal As claimed by the author there have been several other cases in which the CIA have tries to scare prisoners into spilling out information by firing gun shots in a near by room to show that the other was being fired upon. The article also states that several cases of such misconduct have been taken up by the Department of Justice of which only one person was prosecuted. The point the article is trying to make is whether it is justified to use methods like scaring prisoners with guns and drills to get information out of them or is it necessary to do so.

I feel it is justified to perform such acts of people to get information, provided they have been convicted with evidence. Ethical and moral rights do not play a role here. If the interrogators would not create an atmosphere of fear into such prisoners, they would think that they are untouchable. The al Qaeda is a terrorist group, which has terrorized the world with their bombs and mass murder. I feel it is justified that they themselves face what the general public have faced when someone they know have been killed or injured because of the al Qaeda. The media clearly shows that it does not like the behavior of the CIA towards its prisoners, but it is also not looking at who the prisoner is. If the prisoner was falsely accused and the CIA guards were just getting pleasure out of someone else’s misery, then the CIA is wrong. However there is evidence that the prisoner who is being accused is from the al Qaeda. The al Qaeda are trained not to leak information otherwise all those who had been captured would have leaked out information, therefore the CIA were trying another tactic to get information- if words do not work, use fear.

The higher authority in the CIA was angry as hell when information of such acts reached them. They were thinking on the basis of logic rather than letting their emotions get in the way. However I feel that the higher people who got ‘angry’ were merely doing it to prevent humanitarians from protesting against them, since the information was leaking on the news.

This leak of information about the CIA will cause havoc in the department. The media themselves are not the ‘good people’. This article is biased towards the faction that claims the interrogation method to be unjustified. Had the media not intervened in the CIA’s private prisons, havoc might not be caused in the department. The media take a lot of matters into its hand without thinking about the consequences. Not only that but also they influence those who read their articles to think in a certain way. This shows the fact that if the media feel someone in the situation is wrong; they are wrong only giving selective evidence to support its claim.

I feel those who commit crime for the wrong reasons and are free to roam about and do the same thing again should not be dealt with ease. It is only through instilling fear in the world of terrorist that they in the future that they may think many times before they bomb another city. The information leaked by the media is a world wide phenomena that even the terrorist are looking at. They know now that such acts of scaring their captured people is just a show and they will never be killed in prison. The media have prevented the CIA from getting information out of the prisoner. However this will also affect future prisoners, as they will know what to expect in the prisons of the CIA.

In conclusion I would like to say that if the CIA are in fact treating all of its prisoners in such a manner, I will not support its behavior. The term every human should have human rights can be looked at in two different ways here. If the CIA give the prisoner his human rights, they would be taking it away from those people who will be bombed by the al Qaeda in the future. However if they take his human rights away they, would be saving millions of people human right. No one can make the right decision here because both are correct. However a better decision can be made from the two. I feel it is the latter one.

http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=3&contentid=2009062420090624012102651a019ba28&sectxslt=&pageno=1

Red Bull – one of indias finest energy drinks, favored by a many across India, is on the verge of being banned completely from India. Because of not following regulations of the maximum amount of caffeine per drink which is two hundred parts per million the Food and Drug Administration has confiscated Red Bull cans worth more than six crore rupees. This does not look good for those who cherish this drink and they must be very angry at the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration has sent a batch of the cans for testing for taking legal action against the concerned parties.

Should Red Bull really be banned from the country? People who do not want to drink it should not drink it but they should not prevent others from drinking it. That is unfair to those who want to drink it but are prevented by doing so because of others. It is stated by researchers that in the long run, high consumption of such energy drinks damages the bones and leads to osteoporosis and arthritis. Research has also cited that there are remote links between such energy drinks and cancer. However how much of this is fact and how much fiction. Each ones body has a different anatomy and their reaction to substances is different. Researchers cannot generalize that Red Bull is bad for everyone and everyone is likely to get osteoporosis by consuming Red Bull. Even though Red Bull may in reality affect the health of all those who drink it in the long run there are so many other drinks in the market that do not follow regulations and are even worse than Red Bull. However the FDA does not catch them. People drink Red Bull not only for pleasure but also for energy. Late at night when I need to study during my exams a can of the drink is very helpful for me. It gives me the required boost to study some more. This article is not taking into account the fact that there are people who need the drink in order to do well their daily lives.
the article is bias towards banning the selling and distribution of Red bull in the indian market. from this i asume that there is corruption somewhere since Red Bull does control a lot of the markets consumption. there should be further investigation involved in this issue-"The limit set forth by the PFA Act applies only to carbonated waters and not to energy drinks containing functional ingredients such as caffeine up to 320mg/L, taurine, glucuronolactone and B group vitamins,” said Vikaas Saxena, director, marketing, Red Bull India."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html

abortion

abortion is the termination of pregnancy but after 28 weeks of pregnancy abortion is considered illegal. this doctor was performing late pregnancy abortions and because of that people protested against him. he was shot dead at a church. there were many protests against held against him but he stilled continued his practice. he was even shot earlier. the people saw his practice as illegal and unethical.

Should the doctor who was shot be responsible for this or the women who come for the abortion be responsible. The women were the ones who got the abortion done, the doctor was earning a living by doing that. In retrospect the people acted because of rage, they should not have shot the doctor but tried him in a court of law. The women who had come in for the abortion should have thought about it before having intercourse. However the complete responsibility of the doctors death does not fall completely on the women but also himself.

is abortion ethical? how can another person decide whether a child or fetus lives or not. however on the other side is that that fetus does not even know it is alive. almost all governments around the world have made abortion of a fetus over 28 weeks illegal. this has come forth through public opinion. In USA abortion of the fetus below the age of 28 was legalized in 1970. However the abortion does not only depend of the age of the fetus but also the health of it. if the fetus may grow into a unhealthy baby abortion beyond 28 weeks can be considered legal but is still in debate for its ethnicity. Can the baby survive when it is born, this can only be known in the later stage of pregnancy, if not should it face the harsh world or should it be killed. Both ways are correct because the baby may have the will power to do it but if not, then one would be doing it a favor by killing before it is born. Abortion depends from person to person, one may not think of the fetus as a living thing but another may think of it a soul. Abortion is not a false dilemma where it is completey right or completely wrong. There are other factors determining the ethnicity of abortion.

Another question that arises is that even though there are so many campaigns held that try and teach the public about family planning and ways how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, the public does not seem to be learning anything. Is the government wasting away its resources when it can spend in other ways? Abortion is not just limited to the debate of whether a fetus can be killed or not, abortion is something that man has been doing for ages and can cause a lot of unwanted desire like the selling of the unwanted child, abandoning it or making him or her do labour work. Abortion is a big concept which requires one to not only have a medical background but also a psychological background to understand it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOegnahAFcEgwJZ4WKGkVz9Dgq5wD98PT6000

On May 31^st Air France flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris crashed in the location known as the Bermuda Triangle. The plane was said to be ripped apart in mid air and the crash land in the Amazon Jungle. No passengers had survived and for some time it was a mystery why the plane had an accident. There were some theories involving the crash. Investigators have focused on the possibility that external speed monitors — called Pitot tubes — iced over and gave false readings to the plane's computers. The other possibility is the belief of some supernatural activity that had been occurring in the Bermuda Triangle zone. Here several plane and ships had mysteriously disappeared without and idea of how or why.

The Bermuda Triangle, is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean in which a number of aircraft and ships are alleged to have disappeared in mysterious circumstances which fall beyond the boundaries of human causes like piracy or mechanical failure. These circumstances are said to be of supernatural or extraterrestrial causes. Even though this may think to be one of the causes of the crash of the plane there is still no physical evidence of these forces. There have been radio signals, which were transmitted just before the plane had crashed. These signals point out a fault of the rudder limiter a mechanism that limits how far the plane's rudder can move. The speculation is that if the rudder moved out too much while the plane was travelling at a high velocity the air resistive force could rip off the rudder sending the plane to plummet to the ground. However a industry official, said the error message pertaining to the limiter didn't indicate it malfunctioned, but rather that it had locked itself in place because of the conflicting speed readings.

The reason for the planes crash is not yet clearly known. There are several possibilities responsible for the plane to have an accident. It is necessary to know the reason for such types of crashes as then aircraft manufacturers can build better and safer plane in the future  

little prince

The Little Prince Chapter 2

The Little Prince even though written by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was intended for children, is a novel, which has a hidden deeper meaning to it. By reading the book I found that it was very interesting and subtly brings out human nature and characteristics through various characters from the book the little prince meets.

This chapter appealed to me the most as it created a sense of questioning and awe in me. I was filled with these emotions as I could see that the Little Prince could connect with the author’s drawing while the adults could not. When the author drew the picture of a boa eating an elephant, no adult could say what it really was. All they could see was a hat. This shows how our minds are conditioned to think like the way we think. It is rare to find people who can think out of the box. Our perception is something unique to all of us. The author has tried to bring out a point through his drawing of the boa eating the elephant that a person does not see something even when it is in front of him, he looks at the picture as a whole and not through details. I feel that the author is showing that people in today’s time have prioritized things which are of consequences but do not look at something as important as their own child.

As the chapter moves on, the author eventually draws three different figures of sheep. The little prince ha asked him to draw sheep but the author’s reason to not draw a perfect sheep was because he had never drawn a sheep before. I felt that the little prince was pestering the author to do something he had never done was perhaps because the little prince knew the authors potential and the author did not know it himself. This is relevant as one always thinks he cannot do something because he has never done it before, what one does not understand is that he is not going to lose anything by trying something new. One cannot be certain that he is going to a new task wrong. If he does go wrong in the new task, he learns a way that he should not use to complete that task. The author by the fourth attempt to draw a perfect sheep used lateral thinking. He drew a box in which he said was the sheep the little prince wanted. This was a clever thinking on the part of the author, as he knew he could not draw exactly what the prince wanted but knew the prince knew exactly what he wanted. The box symbolized the mind of the prince since the prince knew exactly what the sheep wanted to do at any point of time.

When the author was asked to draw a sheep while he was asleep, his immediate reaction was surprise as he was in the middle of a desert when he heard the voice. The author was also astonished to find that the prince could understand that drawing of the boa eating the elephant. On the first drawing of the sheep the prince said it was sickly, on the second one he smiled and simply rejected the third one. The little prince wanted the picture of a sheep but the author wanted to fix his plane. There were contradicting sets of emotions in the conversation in the chapter. This is also directed at the fact that in today’s time people have no time to look at new things, they are usually impatient and disregard the feelings of others. The author was at first complaining about the adults but now he has become what the adults were to him, to the prince.

Even though the prince claims to have come from another planet, he knows how to speak the same language as the author. The author knowing this befriends the prince. I feel the author is trying to show that however different we are, we can always live together. The author has also stereotyped adults as those who would not listen to him. However even after concluding that no one might get what his picture of the boa eating the elephant is, the prince broke his stereotype of the people around him. The author knew he could connect with prince, as the prince knew what the authors drawing was. The author had called what we think is a box, a box in which there is a sheep. Both the author and the prince knew what the author meant. I feel the author does not like conventions like calling a box, a box. He wanted to say that that is a box which coul have a sheep in it.

 

emotion reflection

When used without reason, emotion can create a world where everything a person says or thinks is based on what the person feels. He loses his sense of judging both the sides of a situation. His decision, without being reasoned out may not do him well in the future. This powerful emotion, which leads one to make a decision, creates a cycle, which in the end will enforce his emotion from the beginning. The person chooses to ignore everything other than what he wants to see or feel.

An example can be taken from the animal kingdom. Many snakes are poisonous and have the potential to kill its prey. There have been many incidences that snakes have attacked and killed humans, however studies show that snakes do not hunt down humans, they attack only when they feel they are threatened. A person who has a phobia of snakes will have a biased perception that all snakes are poisonous and kill everything in their path, not looking at the fact that snakes only attack when they are threatened or are looking for food. He makes a generalization that all snakes attack humans in order to kill them. In the end he concludes that he is right in fearing snakes because he reasoned out that they kill humans.

This is the cycle one follows when one does not question his emotion and does not reason out his decisions. One can only get out of this cycle by questioning his emotions.

emotion v/s reason

Choosing to live in a world without emotion or to live in a world without reason. This may seem like a simple choice to make but in reality it is not. For a person to choose either reason or emotion above the other is a foolish choice to do. In my view one should live a balanced life in which one should know when his reason should be driving him or his emotion. Using emotions may be a more common way of living life. A person does not question what his actions have caused until he has done it. For example if my parents do not allow me to go out on a Friday night, I will get angry and start breaking things to show my disapproval of their decision. However while I am performing the action of destroying things, I do not think for 1 bit that breaking things is not the right answer since my parents will still not let me go out. It is only after that I have broken several things that I say to my self I should never have done that. Here my anger has taken control over my body. Had I reasoned out before why my parents have not allowed me to go out I would have had a better chance of going out that night. Another example is on seeing a spider in the house one does get afraid and kill it. What that person does not think is that that spider is the cause there are not other insects in my house. The spider is the natural predator of the housefly and other insects. Had the person not killed the spider, there would have been less flies around the house.  However looking at emotion and reason from a different angle, I can say that many of the scientific discoveries are due to the fact that the scientists were inspired or frustrated that they could not get the correct theory or answer. Emotion was the driving factor that caused them to stay up day and night to get the correct theory. Gregor Mendel was inspired to study variation in plants. This inspiration caused him to study plants and inheritance. Due to him today we know much of genetic inheritance. Hence we need both emotion and reason in our daily lives and not just either one.  

knowledge at work 5

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4313978.stm

 

The words ‘snake’ and ‘alligator’ bring a sense of fear into the minds of many people. These two reptiles are one of the most successful predators of our time and before. People fear these two reptiles because of their diet, which consists of animals ranging from rats to crocodiles to bulls. Each of these predators has different styles of hunting down their prey. Even though snakes and alligators are carnivores, those who fear them misunderstand them. Attacks on humans caused by snakes and alligators are usually because of provocation or invasion of their territories. In response to human interaction with them, these reptiles launch an attack on humans to show that they are angry or feel threatened. These attacks result in injuries or death.

However when one thinks of a snake and an alligator, the last thing on his mind is a match between them. In Florida’s swamps however, a match had occurred between them. A 13-foot python and a 6-foot alligator went head to head in a match. In the end both the predators had died. When rangers saw the animals bodies, they were shocked to see that the python’s body had an alligators tail sticking out of it and the python it self did not have a head.

This is a rare occurrence. The battle between them must have been intense. They are one of the deadliest creatures in the world and are equally matched. Pythons kill by coiling around its prey and constricting it with its powerful muscles until the prey’s lungs are too compressed to get in air.. The python’s method of killing its prey is a very effective way and has no weak points. Once the python traps the prey the only thing it can do is wait until it has breathed it last breath. Alligators kill their prey by dragging them under water and drowning them. This too is an effective way, as land animal will inevitably die in the water, where the alligator is in its prime.

On seeing the site of the picture of the two animals, I think that the python thought he had killed the alligator and was devouring it but the alligator must have still been alive even when but was n the pythons stomach and it started moving which made the pythons body burst open. Earlier in the past these two predators have fought usually resulting in the death of the python or a draw between the two.

This is very important footage as it shows us the extent an animal can go to protect it self or defend is territory. The alligator was a cunning opponent for the python as it waited for the python to devour it whole. However it too died in the end. Animals can show intelligent behavior and do not always rely on their instincts for their survival. The encounter between these 2 predators has made me conclude this.

 

emotion v/s reason

Choosing to live in a world without emotion or to live in a world without reason. This may seem like a simple choice to make but in reality it is not. For a person to choose either reason or emotion above the other is a foolish choice to do. In my view one should live a balanced life in which one should know when his reason should be driving him or his emotion. Using emotions may be a more common way of living life. A person does not question what his actions have caused until he has done it. For example if my parents do not allow me to go out on a Friday night, I will get angry and start breaking things to show my disapproval of their decision. However while I am performing the action of destroying things, I do not think for 1 bit that breaking things is not the right answer since my parents will still not let me go out. It is only after that I have broken several things that I say to my self I should never have done that. Here my anger has taken control over my body. Had I reasoned out before why my parents have not allowed me to go out I would have had a better chance of going out that night. Another example is on seeing a spider in the house one does get afraid and kill it. What that person does not think is that that spider is the cause there are not other insects in my house. The spider is the natural predator of the housefly and other insects. Had the person not killed the spider, there would have been less flies around the house.  However looking at emotion and reason from a different angle, I can say that many of the scientific discoveries are due to the fact that the scientists were inspired or frustrated that they could not get the correct theory or answer. Emotion was the driving factor that caused them to stay up day and night to get the correct theory. Gregor Mendel was inspired to study variation in plants. This inspiration caused him to study plants and inheritance. Due to him today we know much of genetic inheritance. Hence we need both emotion and reason in our daily lives and not just either one.  

Choosing to live in a world without emotion or to live in a world without reason. This may seem like a simple choice to make but in reality it is not. For a person to choose either reason or emotion above the other is a foolish choice to do. In my view one should live a balanced life in which one should know when his reason should be driving him or his emotion. Using emotions may be a more common way of living life. A person does not question what his actions have caused until he has done it. For example if my parents do not allow me to go out on a Friday night, I will get angry and start breaking things to show my disapproval of their decision. However while I am performing the action of destroying things, I do not think for 1 bit that breaking things is not the right answer since my parents will still not let me go out. It is only after that I have broken several things that I say to my self I should never have done that. Here my anger has taken control over my body. Had I reasoned out before why my parents have not allowed me to go out I would have had a better chance of going out that night. Another example is on seeing a spider in the house one does get afraid and kill it. What that person does not think is that that spider is the cause there are not other insects in my house. The spider is the natural predator of the housefly and other insects. Had the person not killed the spider, there would have been less flies around the house.  However looking at emotion and reason from a different angle, I can say that many of the scientific discoveries are due to the fact that the scientists were inspired or frustrated that they could not get the correct theory or answer. Emotion was the driving factor that caused them to stay up day and night to get the correct theory. Gregor Mendel was inspired to study variation in plants. This inspiration caused him to study plants and inheritance. Due to him today we know much of genetic inheritance. Hence we need both emotion and reason in our daily lives and not just either one.  

james lang theory- reflection

The James Lang states that we emote through physical changes that occur in our body. I do not completely agree with this theory. In my view this theory like all theories in science need some exceptions. For example Newton’s laws of motions only hold true only if the mass of the object is constant and the object doe not reach the speed of light. It may be possible for us to force ourselves to feel happy or sad when we want to feel that way. An example to support the statement would be that if one sees a snake in his or her home, he or she would get scared only because he will run away. The act of running away is the physical change occurring and the emotion produced is fear. However I can say in contrast to this statement that he had seen a snake eating another animal therefore he was afraid of being eaten and to prevent that from happening he ran away. These two examples comprise of both the act of running away and having the fear of emotion. However which comes first is the question. This theory may hold true for some situations but may not hold true for others. A person may want to smile in a dull situation but from inside he still is feeling sad. The outer smile he puts up does not make the inner sadness go away. 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/chaos_theory.aspx

Unpredictability.

The word chaos in simple terms means disorder, uncontrollable actions caused by any phenomena in the world. In physics chaos means measuring these uncertainties, unpredictability and randomness of nature. One may think that a simple flap of a butterfly’s wing causes no changes in the conditions of temperature, the butterfly being so tiny that it can have no affect on any wind patterns. However in reality a simple flap of a butterfly’s wings could be the cause of a tornado some 100 kilometers away. It is surprising. The science of physics in its way tries to calculate how and why such a phenomenon can occur by something so insignificant.

In a dynamic system small changes in the initial behavior of an object can cause large changes in its outcome. This unlike a linear function of a system can alter the behavior of a system tremendously. Mathematics and physics can calculate predict the changes of the system. Although chaos theory is a new concept, it is very important in fields like economics and weather forecasting. In economics chaos theory can be used to measure the rise and fall of the stock market. Stock markets are non-linear dynamic systems which means changes in the initial conditions can have adverse effects later on, however even markets show patterns. In the short run of a market economy, one cannot predict the outcome of an economy however in the long run using chaos theory can be used to predict the situation of the market. In weather forecasting chaos theory can be used to predict weathers of any number of days ahead. However this being a very complex equation because variables like temperature, air pressure, wind speed and humidity have to be taken into account. Upon entering these values in a super computer the weather forecast for second can be predicted, entering those values again can predict the weather one second ahead of that. Repeating this the weather can be predicted but even if there is a small calculation error like a miscalculation of 0.0000000001 units, can completely alter the forecast.   

However every system has a drawback. Chaos theory cannot predict accurately the outcomes of systems. The more number of variables in a system the less accurate a prediction is. The inputs of variables in a system have to be chosen with precision and accuracy otherwise the theoretical answer will be wrong.

Since the time science came into existence one has always tried to calculate and hypothesis things. However most of those calculations were of linear equations without taking into consideration different variables. With the advent of Einstein mathematical and physical equations reached a new level with his theories of relativity. Trying to predict the outcome of systems with variability is something, which cannot be done easily. The term ‘Chaos Theory’ came into existence in the late twentieth century and has helped scientists to get better understandings of dynamic systems and its behaviors. Chaos theory is applicable to any situation in ones life.   

 

 

today in my TOK class we discussed about reason. what is reason and whether is it logic or rationalism. in my opinion reason is more of rationalism than logic. there are 2 types of reasoning- inductive and deductive reasoning. both are used in our daily lives but neither are certain or too informative. inductive reasoning is when one infers from performing an experiment or perceiving something. deductive reasoning is what one does after many experiments and then generalizes on that topic. but do we really do reason out in our daily lives? or do we just act according to our first impulse? i feel in reality we do not always reason out what is happening but act on our first impulse. it is after acting that we reason out what our actions were and what we should have done.