Greg Craven's argument

Craven's argument outlines the possible outcomes of global warming and looks at the correlation between preventative measures taken, not, and the probability of global warming being a real phenomenon or not. 

He discusses his theory of "the worst thing which could happen" in what in biology class would be called a punnet grid, which illustrates all the possible outsomes when considering 4 aspects such as in this example.

I think his argument is a valid one as he regards each and every consequence that could happen, making his theory unbiased. 

Consequently, he comes to a realisation that if nothing is done about a grave problem such as global warming then "the worst" could actually happen. His video is emotional and an eye-opener for many, even though I had been exposed to the theory of global warming before. The reality and the urgency of the situation was highlighted and I felt like something must be done in order to restore faith in the global population. 

Is seeing believing?

Let us firstly define the diction, "believe".
To believe is to "feel certain", "think possible", or "have opinion", according to the Oxford dictionary.
Now, let us define the diction, "see"
To see is "to become aware of something using your eyes", "to have or use the power of sight", "to experience", or "to witness".
Beliefs and sight clearly have no defined and superficial correlation between them... or do they?
I believe that seeing is believing up to a certain extent, however, there are some conspicuous counterarguments which will and must be discussed regarding the topic of this post.
First of all, when we see something repetitively, and through experience we feel certain what the outcome is going to be, that becomes our empirical knowledge. In this case, seeing is believing, but it is possible that other senses may be involved in the process. 
For example, a simple act like playing an instrument can be called empirical knowledge. By pressing a certain piano key, somebody who has been playing the piano for a while will know what that key is going to sound like, which could potentially explain how professional piano players can play the piano with their eyes closed; their sense of touch and hearing have developed to such an extent that they no longer have the necessity of using their sense of sight. But of course when somebody is just beginning to learn how to play the piano, more often than not, they tend to observe their fingers as they play and rely on their eyes to aid them. 
Also, when something grand happens, people tend to say, "you have to believe me, I saw it with my own eyes!", thus implying that seeing is believing as well. 

On the contrary, there are times when people see things differently from one another, which was the case in the 1978, when Muybridge's photographs of a galloping horse were used to justify whether all four feet of a galloping horse are ever off the ground at the same time. 


The painting above illustrates how Jean Louis Theodore Gericault pictured the galloping horses. However, Muybridge's photographs (below) showed that the legs actually faced inwards and gathered together as they were off the ground, proving Gericault's belief wrong. 

This calls our sight into question. 

Furthermore, when scientists are carrying out an experiment for the very first time, their hypothesis may be proven wrong after conducting the laboratory practice.

This calls our beliefs into question. 

As redundant and illogical I may sound, what we believe in does not necessarily have to be logical or real. Every person is entitled to their own opinion and therefore even if a person thinks that a piano is supposed to sound a certain way, and finds a piano with a different tune to what they thought they knew, that does not imply that they are wrong. 
Belief is something which is not constant and can be influenced by its surroundings, and sight is just as vulnerable and prone to change as belief is. So you may see a flower and believe it's a daisy, but somebody else might look at it and  believe it's a dandelion. Unless scientific experiments are conducted to find out the species of the particular flower, it will be unknown to both of them, although they might stick to their respective speculations about the flower type. 
What I am trying to say is that neither belief or sight should be trusted as neither of those elements are uninfluenced by our surroundings. This idea can be seen in the following quote:

If you put a Cheeto on a big white plate in a formal restaurant and serve it with chopsticks and say something like “It is a cornmeal quenelle, extruded at a high speed, and so the extrusion heats the cornmeal ‘polenta’ and flash-cooks it, trapping air and giving it a crispy texture with a striking lightness. It is then dusted with an ‘umami powder’ glutamate and evaporated-dairy-solids blend.” People would go just nuts for that.

— Jeb Boniakowksi

It can therefore be said that "seeing is believing" is a superficial and vague saying- or at least, that's how I see it. I don't know about what your belief is though, because clearly, there are different ways to look at it... 

1984- George Orwell

Why is the ruthless totalitarian regime, described in Orwell’s novel purging Oldspeak and imposing Newspeak? What assumptions are being made about the relationship between language and thought?

The extract from the novel depicts two men, one of whom is a "philologist, a specialist in Newspeak." The entire concept of Newspeak is to simplify and "destroy" words, that is, discard the diction which are thought to be unnecessary. It's aim is to ultimately narrow down the range of vocabulary as well as the depth of knowledge, because according to their beliefs, as long as there are no words to describe one's state or mind, situation etc, the inexplicable situation would be nonexistent and surreal. 

DP subjects

"To know is not to be wise. To know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom." -Charles Spurgeon 

Theory of knowledge is one of the core requirements in the IB diploma programme, and it obligates us to not respond to our environment passively, but actively. During our 2 year course, we will be answering the question, "How do we know what we know?" thereby investigating and examining the deeper implications of countless aspects of our daily lives. 

Now, the DP course consists of the learner profile, the core requirements, and last but not in any way the least, the subjects. The six groups which make up the DP subjects ensure that we, as pupils as well as leaders of tomorrow's nation, learn to become all-rounded and extremely capable human beings. Personally, I have never excelled at one particular subject more than any other, which put me in a difficult situation when it was time to choose my DP subjects. Having passed my Cambridge IGCSE exams with grades which were more than sufficient to put me in the DP course, I was conflicted. Which subjects do I need the most? What is it that I want to do anyways?
After days of pondering, I finally came up with my final decision: English Literature, French, Biology and geography for my HL subjects, in addition to maths and chemistry as my SL subjects. Although I thoroughly understand that the IBO wants us to be multi-capable, I am still failing to see where these subject choices are going to take me in the future. To make things worse, I don't even know what I want to do in the future, nor where I want to go after I graduate high school. So for now I guess I will just have to do my best at each and every one of these subjects.
Whether I will be able to excel in everything that I do is another question. Obviously we must all strive to be the best we could ever be, however, we live in a world where there is no such thing as "perfection". After all, what really makes a "perfect" student? Or rather, what makes the "perfect" subject combination? More importantly, can the answers to my previous questions be justified in some way?
Or maybe I am over-thinking this entire process. Even though it has only been a week since school started, I am getting a rough idea on where my subjects lie in terms of my liking. Surprisingly enough, I am actually enjoying my chemistry lessons now, even though I was about to drop it during my second year of IGCSEs. In contrast, French used to be my favourite subject, (mostly because I found it to be extremely easy) but now I am not entirely in love with it. Whereas geography, like always, remains at the very top on my educational ladder. I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everything is what it seems. My mind and my opinions are constantly going to be influenced by others thus changing throughout the following two years, but it will be my duty to stay on the right track, no matter what happens, and be my own biggest supporter.
The main aim of this post was to rank my six subjects in order of favourism, but I basically ended up bombarding my blog with a piece of my mind. Oh well, organisation skills are something DP students acquire during the 2 year course anyways! I'm just getting started...
 

I am...

-My life in a nutshell- 

My name is Ingrid Saito Maciel and I just recently turned 16 years old, meaning I am a fresh DP1 student. My mother and my father are from Paraguay and Japan, respectively. I have lived in the USA, Japan, Paraguay, Panama, Bolivia, Sri Lanka (refer to the photograph on the left) and I am currently living in the capital city of Uganda, the pearl of Africa.

This will be my TOK blog, where I will be posting what I am TOKing about in school and outside of school. 

Thank you for stopping by and be sure to check out my CAS blog too :)
peace xx