(no subject)
To make a claim is simply a generalization made about something, especially when open to question. A claim is usually made on the basis of supportive research; however, often claims are made simply based on one’s own perspective or personal experiences. This is often a result of confirmation bias, to notice only evidence that supports our beliefs (Lagemaat, 14), which can lead to false information. So if someone claims that the division of knowledge into disciplines and the division of the world into countries are artificial, what does it mean? Things do not simply come to us labeled as artificial or not, only humans are responsible for such claims, but how do we set the fine line between artificial and not artificial? (Between the areas of knowledge).
The definition of a term is an example of an everyday claim that almost everyone is guilty of. We use and depend on definitions everyday in attempt to create base agreements among a community usually based on common human activity and familiarities. Therefore, the following definition of “artificial” shall remain open to any relative adjustments or additions. Artificial can considered as a description of something not of original (natural) form or created by nature. Artificial is more than often used in describing man-made objects. When we divide things it is most always in attempt to simplify. For example the world and knowledge, the world was divided up into countries in thought that several smaller sectors would be easier to manage than the massive land mass of the entire world. Same with knowledge, the area itself is so broad, so the division of it into several disciplines made it easier for humans to observe and manage. The idea of these divisions was based on the fact that humans tend to like classification and structure. If someone claims that the divisions of the world and knowledge are artificial, it should be accepted as true since the resulting countries and different areas of knowledge were not created by nature, but man. The borders and boundaries that lie in each field are not intended to be permanent; however the requirement that is necessary for change is not always obtainable by just anyone, power. Power is frequently defined as the ability or official capability to control or act effectively. (I do not have this power…) The main form of power, in attempt to alter the divisions of the world is war. Power is also necessary with the creation of the knowledge disciplines, but not in the form of war, more of an official power agreement. Still, both war and official agreements are managed by humans, which goes back to the definition of artificial.
These artificial borders of the world are constantly changing. Some example of this are the division of Germany into East and West Germany, the division of Korea into North and South Korea, and the division of Vietnam into North and South Vietnam. Another way of changing the artificial borders is by creating an entire new sector, an example of this is the creation of Israel. The division of Germany into two Germanys in 1945 was a result of war. (add more detail) The new artificial borders that were created in 1945 were once again reunited as one Germany in 1990. Going to prove just how flexible the artificial divisions of the world can be. When the country of Israel was created in , the land was simply carved out of the surrounding countries and labeled Israel, (elaborate)
Examples of the discussed artificial divisions are the “artificial” borders between Pensacola High School (PHS) and the International Baccalaureate program (IB) within the physical boundaries of PHS. For the past four years I have had hand on experience with these boundaries having attended the IB program at PHS for the past four years. The key difference between the two education programs is that PHS is a United States public education system and IB is international. The difference in the teaching curriculums is very specific towards the areas of knowledge. The subjects emphasized the most in PHS are strictly governed by national guidelines. The education emphasizes all of the areas of knowledge equally, showing how they all overlap and replies to only international education affairs. However, state powers try to manipulate the IB education techniques by requiring all IB coordinators to also respond to the state. With the introduction of the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test (FCAT), a state-wide test required of all grade school students (grades 3-11); the ideal education technique of IB was heavily handicapped. The FCAT emphasized only three of the areas of knowledge (math, science and language), considering them to be more significant than the other areas of knowledge (history, arts, and ethics). FCAT has affected the open-minded teaching methods of IB. (30 minute HRs) (but GP kids still don’t know their basic maths, sciences and language skills). Being an IB student myself for the past four years, I cannot offer 100% original opinion on this topic; it is very possible that my view is slightly biased.
Having presented one side to this argument, I see it necessary to address the other. While the ideal education techniques of IB may seem like a great way of treating all of the areas of knowledge of equal importance, the necessary education for every student may not be achieved through this new creative way of teaching. It is likely that the divisions of the areas of knowledge into more critical and less critical and strict statewide test such as FCAT are necessary to achieve a proper education for all students of all different learning capabilities. For example, let’s consider that the PHS and IB student population represent the entire grade-school population of all of the state of Florida. If it were between these two education techniques, it probably would be more beneficial to follow the strict area of knowledge importance pyramid than the IB technique of teaching all areas of knowledge equally and showing how they are all interchangeable. This would be because the general PHS population has an obvious majority, and (IB stuff too hard for GP kids, and IB kids could adjust to the new teaching methods).
Today the artificial borders that have been drawn unintentionally between the different teaching styles of IB and PHS, and can sometimes be very obvious in their existence. The artificial borders between the areas of knowledge are drawn differently within these two education methods. In PHS general education draws fine lines between all of the areas of knowledge in attempt to make them all separate areas of focus; whereas IB education attempts to erase these artificial lines between the areas of knowledge and show how they are all interchangeable and of equal importance. Apart from the artificial divisions of knowledge, other unintended boundaries have been created within PHS and IB that can also be referred to as artificial. Some of these boundaries are physical and some are simply mentally placed. Examples of the physical boundaries present within the PHS campus are the classes and the classrooms. Certain classes are only offered to the general public students at PHS. This physical separation extremely regulates who students become friends with. I can honestly say that I have very few friends at PHS that are not in IB, most of them being in IB. This is a result of the divisions of our classes. Other artificial boundaries exist between general PHS courses and IB courses, but are not quite as imaginary. A general PHS student probably could not easily transfer to IB courses, due to the difficulty, lack of prior required courses, or the social and work routines of the average IB student. Similarly an IB student would run into such barriers switching to general PHS courses. The main difficulty for an IB student transferring into PHS classes would probably be the extreme change in social atmosphere.
Such artificial boundaries present in schools greatly affects the ways of knowing, primarily language. As humans we adapt to people differently, including the way we speak to them, our language. When crossing the borders between general PHS and IB the way I might speak to someone would probably be entirely different than the way I would usually talk to my friends in IB, whom have been my school mates for the past four years. Same with teachers, every student talks to their friends differently from how they talk to their teachers, even though it may not be obvious. These artificial boundaries of language are more of comfort zones, of which we must be careful once no longer in. This sense of a comfort zone is an emotion, one of the ways of knowing, which is also restricted by these artificial boundaries. We are usually limited to what we say to certain people based on how well we know them and how comfortable we may be around them. The artificial division of knowledge and of PHS students and IB students are capable of reaching out and restricting the ways of knowing.
Similar to the ‘artificial’ divisions of knowledge are the ‘artificial’ divisions of the world. It may be accurate to say that the world is made up of smaller countries, which are further divided into smaller cities and towns, but all of the countries, cities and towns derived from the same one world. For common specific information about oneself, people tend to include, “I am from….” And then name a country or city or some kind of location name. We may think that we all are native to different lands (places), when really these different lands can only be seen on paper (a map); there are no actual lines tracing the borders of each country to differ it from all others.
When the borders were first drawn on a map, they were not intended to be definite or to be considered completely different lands in any way other than the names. Over the following years the influence of power began to take over man as well as the artificial division of the world. It can be seen in many areas such as politics and economic styles of the different countries, how they are all slowly growing apart, one of the many results of the influence of power. As the countries and their constantly changing policies began to differ more and more, the ways of knowing began to be affected. With the creation of division barriers came an increasing language barrier issue. For example when the power control of a country decides on a language that will be spoken throughout the country and another country does the same but with a different language, the two languages begin to develop and soon become the only language spoken in that country. There a language barrier is created, causing the two countries to grow even further apart. The artificial divisions, with the help of the influence of power, also can affect peoples’ emotions and perceptions. With a history of war between countries, different persepectives and views (ideas) can erouse; sometimes due to propaganda within the country or one’s dedication to their “home country”. Different views in such areas as what caused the war, who shot the first fire, who killed who? Although these differing perspectives can sometimes cause further issues, it should be accepted to an extent that different cultures may have diiferent views of the areas and/or problems of knowledge, (such as word definitions and meanings). Emotional bias can also arise. For example a man who’s grandfather was a victim of the holocaust in the (?1940s?) and because he knew and loved his grandfather, he might generalize based on his emotions that all Germans are Nazis and so he hates all Germans. Of course all of these negative results of the division of the world were never intended, but they are still in existence today, and at times the countries seem to grow even further apart. These country borders still only exist on paper. I cannot stress enough how important it is for us to always remember that no matter how the world is divided into these artificial sectors known as countries nor how many, there will always be only one world.
The previous statement makes a very important point in that there is and always will be only one world, and the creation of the countries was originally only in attempt for simplification. The creation of countries should not be misunderstood for the creation of new worlds. Same with the division of knowledge into disciplines, they simply are a fraction of the original, knowledge. However, these ideas may seem ideal and simple, but sometimes the assertion can be too broad and too idealistic when it comes to considering the past and present issues of dividing the world into countries and knowledge into areas of discipline. We do need to remember that the world and the division of knowledge are (?physically?) artificial. We cannot however, rely entirely on the claim that they are artificial and sit back and watch the rest simply unfold. Instead, we must accept that there are divisions (?due to the current status of the world and the area of knowledge?), consider new ideas and new ways of managing the two, if only in order to prevent oneself from becoming too narrow minded. If no one ever questioned the current status of the world and the broad area of knowledge, there would never be any change and no ideal status would ever be reached (?achieved?). But once again we must never let go of the true original form of the one world and the one (?discipline of?) knowledge and its true nature.
The definition of a term is an example of an everyday claim that almost everyone is guilty of. We use and depend on definitions everyday in attempt to create base agreements among a community usually based on common human activity and familiarities. Therefore, the following definition of “artificial” shall remain open to any relative adjustments or additions. Artificial can considered as a description of something not of original (natural) form or created by nature. Artificial is more than often used in describing man-made objects. When we divide things it is most always in attempt to simplify. For example the world and knowledge, the world was divided up into countries in thought that several smaller sectors would be easier to manage than the massive land mass of the entire world. Same with knowledge, the area itself is so broad, so the division of it into several disciplines made it easier for humans to observe and manage. The idea of these divisions was based on the fact that humans tend to like classification and structure. If someone claims that the divisions of the world and knowledge are artificial, it should be accepted as true since the resulting countries and different areas of knowledge were not created by nature, but man. The borders and boundaries that lie in each field are not intended to be permanent; however the requirement that is necessary for change is not always obtainable by just anyone, power. Power is frequently defined as the ability or official capability to control or act effectively. (I do not have this power…) The main form of power, in attempt to alter the divisions of the world is war. Power is also necessary with the creation of the knowledge disciplines, but not in the form of war, more of an official power agreement. Still, both war and official agreements are managed by humans, which goes back to the definition of artificial.
These artificial borders of the world are constantly changing. Some example of this are the division of Germany into East and West Germany, the division of Korea into North and South Korea, and the division of Vietnam into North and South Vietnam. Another way of changing the artificial borders is by creating an entire new sector, an example of this is the creation of Israel. The division of Germany into two Germanys in 1945 was a result of war. (add more detail) The new artificial borders that were created in 1945 were once again reunited as one Germany in 1990. Going to prove just how flexible the artificial divisions of the world can be. When the country of Israel was created in , the land was simply carved out of the surrounding countries and labeled Israel, (elaborate)
Examples of the discussed artificial divisions are the “artificial” borders between Pensacola High School (PHS) and the International Baccalaureate program (IB) within the physical boundaries of PHS. For the past four years I have had hand on experience with these boundaries having attended the IB program at PHS for the past four years. The key difference between the two education programs is that PHS is a United States public education system and IB is international. The difference in the teaching curriculums is very specific towards the areas of knowledge. The subjects emphasized the most in PHS are strictly governed by national guidelines. The education emphasizes all of the areas of knowledge equally, showing how they all overlap and replies to only international education affairs. However, state powers try to manipulate the IB education techniques by requiring all IB coordinators to also respond to the state. With the introduction of the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test (FCAT), a state-wide test required of all grade school students (grades 3-11); the ideal education technique of IB was heavily handicapped. The FCAT emphasized only three of the areas of knowledge (math, science and language), considering them to be more significant than the other areas of knowledge (history, arts, and ethics). FCAT has affected the open-minded teaching methods of IB. (30 minute HRs) (but GP kids still don’t know their basic maths, sciences and language skills). Being an IB student myself for the past four years, I cannot offer 100% original opinion on this topic; it is very possible that my view is slightly biased.
Having presented one side to this argument, I see it necessary to address the other. While the ideal education techniques of IB may seem like a great way of treating all of the areas of knowledge of equal importance, the necessary education for every student may not be achieved through this new creative way of teaching. It is likely that the divisions of the areas of knowledge into more critical and less critical and strict statewide test such as FCAT are necessary to achieve a proper education for all students of all different learning capabilities. For example, let’s consider that the PHS and IB student population represent the entire grade-school population of all of the state of Florida. If it were between these two education techniques, it probably would be more beneficial to follow the strict area of knowledge importance pyramid than the IB technique of teaching all areas of knowledge equally and showing how they are all interchangeable. This would be because the general PHS population has an obvious majority, and (IB stuff too hard for GP kids, and IB kids could adjust to the new teaching methods).
Today the artificial borders that have been drawn unintentionally between the different teaching styles of IB and PHS, and can sometimes be very obvious in their existence. The artificial borders between the areas of knowledge are drawn differently within these two education methods. In PHS general education draws fine lines between all of the areas of knowledge in attempt to make them all separate areas of focus; whereas IB education attempts to erase these artificial lines between the areas of knowledge and show how they are all interchangeable and of equal importance. Apart from the artificial divisions of knowledge, other unintended boundaries have been created within PHS and IB that can also be referred to as artificial. Some of these boundaries are physical and some are simply mentally placed. Examples of the physical boundaries present within the PHS campus are the classes and the classrooms. Certain classes are only offered to the general public students at PHS. This physical separation extremely regulates who students become friends with. I can honestly say that I have very few friends at PHS that are not in IB, most of them being in IB. This is a result of the divisions of our classes. Other artificial boundaries exist between general PHS courses and IB courses, but are not quite as imaginary. A general PHS student probably could not easily transfer to IB courses, due to the difficulty, lack of prior required courses, or the social and work routines of the average IB student. Similarly an IB student would run into such barriers switching to general PHS courses. The main difficulty for an IB student transferring into PHS classes would probably be the extreme change in social atmosphere.
Such artificial boundaries present in schools greatly affects the ways of knowing, primarily language. As humans we adapt to people differently, including the way we speak to them, our language. When crossing the borders between general PHS and IB the way I might speak to someone would probably be entirely different than the way I would usually talk to my friends in IB, whom have been my school mates for the past four years. Same with teachers, every student talks to their friends differently from how they talk to their teachers, even though it may not be obvious. These artificial boundaries of language are more of comfort zones, of which we must be careful once no longer in. This sense of a comfort zone is an emotion, one of the ways of knowing, which is also restricted by these artificial boundaries. We are usually limited to what we say to certain people based on how well we know them and how comfortable we may be around them. The artificial division of knowledge and of PHS students and IB students are capable of reaching out and restricting the ways of knowing.
Similar to the ‘artificial’ divisions of knowledge are the ‘artificial’ divisions of the world. It may be accurate to say that the world is made up of smaller countries, which are further divided into smaller cities and towns, but all of the countries, cities and towns derived from the same one world. For common specific information about oneself, people tend to include, “I am from….” And then name a country or city or some kind of location name. We may think that we all are native to different lands (places), when really these different lands can only be seen on paper (a map); there are no actual lines tracing the borders of each country to differ it from all others.
When the borders were first drawn on a map, they were not intended to be definite or to be considered completely different lands in any way other than the names. Over the following years the influence of power began to take over man as well as the artificial division of the world. It can be seen in many areas such as politics and economic styles of the different countries, how they are all slowly growing apart, one of the many results of the influence of power. As the countries and their constantly changing policies began to differ more and more, the ways of knowing began to be affected. With the creation of division barriers came an increasing language barrier issue. For example when the power control of a country decides on a language that will be spoken throughout the country and another country does the same but with a different language, the two languages begin to develop and soon become the only language spoken in that country. There a language barrier is created, causing the two countries to grow even further apart. The artificial divisions, with the help of the influence of power, also can affect peoples’ emotions and perceptions. With a history of war between countries, different persepectives and views (ideas) can erouse; sometimes due to propaganda within the country or one’s dedication to their “home country”. Different views in such areas as what caused the war, who shot the first fire, who killed who? Although these differing perspectives can sometimes cause further issues, it should be accepted to an extent that different cultures may have diiferent views of the areas and/or problems of knowledge, (such as word definitions and meanings). Emotional bias can also arise. For example a man who’s grandfather was a victim of the holocaust in the (?1940s?) and because he knew and loved his grandfather, he might generalize based on his emotions that all Germans are Nazis and so he hates all Germans. Of course all of these negative results of the division of the world were never intended, but they are still in existence today, and at times the countries seem to grow even further apart. These country borders still only exist on paper. I cannot stress enough how important it is for us to always remember that no matter how the world is divided into these artificial sectors known as countries nor how many, there will always be only one world.
The previous statement makes a very important point in that there is and always will be only one world, and the creation of the countries was originally only in attempt for simplification. The creation of countries should not be misunderstood for the creation of new worlds. Same with the division of knowledge into disciplines, they simply are a fraction of the original, knowledge. However, these ideas may seem ideal and simple, but sometimes the assertion can be too broad and too idealistic when it comes to considering the past and present issues of dividing the world into countries and knowledge into areas of discipline. We do need to remember that the world and the division of knowledge are (?physically?) artificial. We cannot however, rely entirely on the claim that they are artificial and sit back and watch the rest simply unfold. Instead, we must accept that there are divisions (?due to the current status of the world and the area of knowledge?), consider new ideas and new ways of managing the two, if only in order to prevent oneself from becoming too narrow minded. If no one ever questioned the current status of the world and the broad area of knowledge, there would never be any change and no ideal status would ever be reached (?achieved?). But once again we must never let go of the true original form of the one world and the one (?discipline of?) knowledge and its true nature.