TOK Blog

            This may be the last entry I will be submitting in. And, to finish, I would like not only to make a short summary plus an interpretation of the knowledge I’ve gained through TOK but also of a term that was the most revealing fact that I learned: the word proof.

            The TOK class was never a class with high expectative, to be honest. I acknowledged the fact that it would be a hard class since it pushed us to overcome our thinking limits and as Ms. Leiva would call it “think outside the box”.  Since the first day we’ve been challenging a new way of thinking marked by the realization of the human subjectivity toward the acquisition of daily knowledge to build an individual reality. The study of the Ways of Knowing was a core topic, which I got used to and finished liking it. Some doubts arise still when dealing with senses, or language. For example, I do believe that senses are an actual way of knowing, whereas I doubt of the reliability language has concerning its ways of knowing. Rather, I would call it a way of expressing the ways of knowing, without any implication that language may be superior therefore than the other WoKs. When I really think about it, the term “ways of knowing” implies that through such factor, filter, amongst others, we acquire and store outside knowledge. Through language, however, humans only get to express their individual acquired information. There is not an actual form (or at least one that I can think of) in which language can grant knowledge to the human being. Language may be a source, but it is up to the senses to interpret this information. For example, in the short story The Allegory of the Cave that we read in TOK class, an imagined cave with primitives in it was described. Though their only source of knowledge was language in the form of gesture being perpetuated through the effect of fire and darkness, it was up to sight and hearing to gain such knowledge. Hence, the role of language was to express certain knowledge and the senses to acquire such information. For this reason is that the unexplainable denomination of language as a “way of knowing” comes to my mind. Following with the topics studied in TOK, we moved on to the wide and fascinating Areas of Knowledge. From all the Areas of Knowledge, I personally liked more math and science. My perception as truly safe and completely objective in relation to reality made these the best AoKs. Soon (Actually it was a few weeks ago since we studied sciences so the past tense may be changed) I acknowledge minimal flaws in my conception of these AoKs yet flaws that accounted for the insecurity these areas provided concerning an objective reality. Not to go too much into sciences since I will later discuss the value of proof, I came up with a question: Is math a science or sciences derive from math? To answer this question, I had to take a look into their respective origins. Math was not invented, it has been used and accounts for the history of the entire universe. Whereas sciences also existed since the beginning of the universe in the form of natural phenomena and scientific events that can now be tested. To reach my proposed answer that there is a mutual relationship I considered the fact that any aspect of life surrounds the basic premises of math and that some sciences, such as biology, do not include math as physics or chemistry into their main topics. The fascination I naturally acquired for these tow AoK made me wonder about the importance of TOK into our daily lives, certainly a highly influential test to our limited yet knowledgeable minds.

            Without the space and complete memories to discuss the entire learning material we have been taught in TOK, I think this class opens our eyes to a world humans have not yet seen, nor heard, nor tasted, nor known about. The acquaintance with such material and the former discussion of the human subjectivity along with its ways of knowing and its areas of knowledge, personally I have learned that the world is not finished. Many inventions, alongside with their corresponding analysis and personal interpretations, are yet to be founded, and thus the world development is up to humans. The knowledge and comprehension of the human subjectivity with several filters to acquire and interpret knowledge plus the areas of knowledge discovered by men and women have made me think of one question that may be slightly different than the initial question of TOK: In what ways and on what bases have humans established their comprehensible knowledge?

            The word proof has been a major topic of discussion in TOK. And is no exception in the discussion of this entry.

The utilization of the word proof has been greatly controversial. A five-letter word transformed the scientific nature and method to address natural phenomena. However, I would to question the fact that in sciences this word does not exist. What I realized is that the word prove cannot be used since it gives an insight that what was proven is totally certain. That, in my opinion, is changing the meaning of the word itself. You may prove something to yourself; after all, we build up our individual realities. However, if proven means total certainty and should not be used, then what does disprove, the opposite word, may mean when it can be used? Would that mean that disprove stands for total uncertainty? Disproving something is showing substantial evidence of a scientific event that contradicts any previous theory (ies) established. Therefore, is you can actually disprove but not prove?

According to the given interpretation in our class, these two contrasting words represent then the polarity of knowledge. You can either prove, or guarantee with total certainty and with unassailable truth, or you may disprove, or the opposite of proving, in other words, the opposite extreme of absolute truth. The variation of the language emerges as we humans use these words as our daily bases to show personal results. The fact that these two words have a dis- differentiating them indicates that they are opposite, of course.  But, going deeper, if the word prove does not exist, then disprove may also not exist. That is why I insist that rather than just considering the word proof a unbearable word, it should be present in any scientific dictionary since proving something in science means that it may be proven for you, bout uncertain for others. As well, in my personal opinion, I think prove should not be associated or linked with absolute truth, a common fallacy perhaps I did not realize. Of course there are counterclaims, like the fact that something proven to you would constitute an absolute individual truth, something that does not exist. Thus the word cannot be used given its consistency with the existence of an absolute truth.

To sum up my point, I personally think the word proof does exist at a subjective level and should not be associated with the founding of total certainty whereas disprove will exist at both the subjective and objective level.

            The interTOK was indeed open for many comments, questions, critiques, and more importantly, interpretations. The concept of the universe along with the Big Bang theory and its supportive physics was shown in what was a detailed yet extended presentation. Ideas come to my mind right after understanding the enigmatic universe such as: if the universe is expanding then eventually will planets separate even more from one another, thus isolating the earth alongside many other spherical masses? How and why  does quantum physics takes an important role in the entire process? Why does this has to do with TOK?

            I’ve been constantly thinking about the first two questions, and came up with an idea. I do think the universe is still expanding, but what I find more interesting is the supporting evidence that exists for it. As Andy Fletcher pointed out in the post presentation at Lincoln, the only evidence that exists is mathematical theories. First, I’ll expand this. From the simple question if the universe is still expanding came the idea if there was actually nay evidence supporting it. Mathematical formulas or postulates support the premise that the universe is escalating in size. However, we just studied math in the TOK class. The common belief that math is completely sure was eradicated by the revealing assertions stated in a presentation regarding the safety of math. I believe math is symbols gathered to form a logic pattern.  Moreover, the dictionary defines math as the science that studies numeric and spatial magnitudes and the relations established between them. It is important to highlight the fact that math is a science that studies, not deals or interprets. The definition in this book lets the reader know that since it studies and is our most reliable AoK then the word studies stand for a objective view of numeric and spatial magnitudes. What I’ve learnt about math in the past days is that it is completely subjective given that it is based on axioms which at the same time are based on human observations. Therefore, math is based on the unassailable human subjectivity. Going back to the first motion stated the universe has substantial evidence: math. However, this AoK is subjective and I do not think it may be evidence as a whole. Mathematics explaining the unexplored and unexplainable yet seems not logical. There may be a formula backing the dark energy decomposition process, but it is only a theory or simply evidence once it demonstrates the required observations. To solve this, because of course I would not argue against the math geniuses that call it evidence, I will simply call it a hypothesis, a backup logical framework that may support the thoughts and ideas concerning the topic. From the other point of view, mathematicians (not all, I would be making a generalization) may call it evidence since it has happened before: Einstein developed a formula which tried to explain the universal gravitation and only once they tested the universal gravitation did scientist knew the formula was indeed brilliant, accurate and right. For that reason, mathematicians would say that mathematic formulas are evidence to a proposed theory. What I’m saying is that instead of calling evidence guiding to a theory call it a hypothesis, a suggested mathematical explanation for unknowledgeable events in the enormous universe. For that reason, I would not confirm that the universe is still undergoing an expansion and if it is experiencing it is at a very low level since there is no evidence that the earth is separating from the sun or from Mars, amongst others. Of course, this is a personal opinion, as many documentaries in History Channel conclude that the universe at some point is going to collapse due to its expanding trait.

            The second questions that rose up in my head was why would quantum physics would be included in this whole process. As some expert, whose name I do not remember at this precise instant, said “give me the position and velocity of every particle in the universe and I’ll tell you the history of the universe”(it was something like that, the point is that I do not want to plagiarize). I think this quote triggered the inclusion of quantum physics not only into the whole concept of the universe but also into the TOK nature (When I say the TOK nature, I mean, just question everything and there you got it, the TOK basic mind thinking) The remote probabilities of minuscule yet decisive particles as this person said, can alter the whole history of the universe. Now, on the superficial level, this seems perhaps logical since one may know the reasons behind the location and composition of every particle. In depth, this quote implies that we can know the history of the universe for sure just by knowing the speed and position of every particle. Personally, I find two major mistakes in such premise. First, the word know. Can we really know step by step the history of the universe, or can we create a evidence-based approach of what may have happened? Furthermore, can we actually make such approach if the bases of quantum physics state that probabilities determine the undeterminable events in the universe? Since the universe is not determined, what scientists are establishing, again, are personal explanations or suggestion for a particular event, i.e, a hypothesis. Secondly, the word history. Another AoK is mentioned in the whole universe creation process, and a quite controversial AoK. History is subjective, as we studied in the TOK class. So, this quote is implying that the history of the universe is actually acknowledgeable by knowing the speed and position of a particle. Wishing not to contradict that because since it was mentioned by an expert I do not wish to fully contradict it (Appeal to Authority Fallacy!), I would expand this to the point that the possible thing to do is to create an interpretation of a formulated history for the universe. Quantum physics relates so much with the history of the universe since it deals with the human limits that allow or limit the human being of expanding its acquired knowledge from the universe. It deals with the formulation of a history, the knowledge of every particle, the remote probabilities of an action happening, the possibilities that life emerged and created the subjective and strange human being that up till now has been able to acquire knowledge using their own abilities.

            The last question is not a question to answer, I figured out, since I already answered it throughout this entry. TOK relates with the objective and the subjective, with the knowledge and unknown, with the explainable and the enigmatic, with concrete answers and proposed answers guiding to an idea. Is the human capacity to acquire knowledge and compose a logical life full of emotions and senses that TOK deals with, and the universe, in my opinion, was the perfect example to such premise. The dark hemispheres of the universe represented to me the unexplained features of life that the human is still trying to reach an answer to.

            Overall, the interTOK was not only an opportunity to acquire too much knowledge in short periods of time, I think, but also to explore certain aspects that unveil the human experiences and difficulties trying to gain knowledge from a hypothetical and enigmatic point of view.

Female Leaders Information

Bob, Joaquin and Clement

1. Name: Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (1947)
   1. Marital status: married (to Bill Clinton).
   2. Nicknames: “Senator Hillary Clinton”, “Hill Billy”
   3. Clothing: suit and shirt, suit, short hair. Not always black colors.
   4. Voice:
   5. Political career: First lady (1993), Senator from New York (2001), candidate for presidency (up to party elections 2008), secretary of state (2009).
   6. Miscellaneous: her husband (Bill Clinton) “cheated” on her by being involved in a sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky in 1998.

-Husband supports the wife, as according to the lecture.

-On the other hand, husband “cheated” on her.

-Husband was “thrown away” due to the Lewinsky case, making Hillary the “leader”.

-People undermined Bill, giving more support to Hillary.

-Did not manage to become president due to harsher competition from other male candidates (Obama, McCain, etc)

-oldest of the 3 examples

-considered as following her husbands career (just like Kirchner)

1. Name: Christina Fernandez de Kirchner (1953)
   1. Marital Status: married (Nestor Kirchner)
   2. Nicknames: “Queen Cristina”, “La senora”
   3. Clothing: more “feminine”, uses more dresses than suits. Often vivid colors.
   4. Voice: Passive and confident, respectful. “Palabra de mujer”.
   5. Political Career: Deputy for Santa Cruz (1997), Senator of Argentina for Santa Cruz (1995 & 2001), First Lady of Argentina (2003), Senator of Argentina for Buenos Aires (2005), President of Argentina (2007).
   6. Miscellaneous: Media refers to her as “Kirchner” (her husband’s name).

-          Married to ex-president

-          Did manage to become current president

-          More “feminine” attitudes (in comparison to other cases)

-          “passive” voice, but not submissive

-          Considered as “following her husband’s political policies/career”

-          Refered to as Kirchner, her husband’s name

-          Inherits many of the political problems Kirchner created

1. Name: Angela Merkel (Former “Dorothea Kasner”, 1954)
   1. Marital Status: married (Joachim Sauer), divorced from Ulrich Merkel.
   2. Nicknames: “Angie”, “Mrs. Merkel”, “Adolpha”
   3. Clothing: masculine clothing and appearance, short hair.
   4. Voice: Slightly deeper, “broken voice” (sort of rough)
   5. Political Career: Women and Youth Minister (1991), Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Minister (1994), Chancellor of Germany (2005)
   6. Miscellaneous: Fits with the lecture as she has married and divorced, yet she has not been candidate for high placed political careers as senate or candidate for presidency.

-Did not manage to get high places such as our other examples.

-married and divorced; remarried

- compared to Adolph Hitler

-more “masculine” than other women

-husbands were not in presidency

                This entry will be dedicated to logic and its relation with science. My family and I were discussing what the difference between a hypothesis and a deduction was. After all, isn’t a hypothesis of the scientific method both a deduction and a prediction? To reach a hypothesis the human being must at least reach a logically justified argument that can be tested. Nevertheless, a hypothesis must also predict something, that is, it must state an expected event that would eventually occur due to the experiment. So, what is this duality? Are these traits (deduction, prediction) contrasting ones? Or are these complementing traits or traits that can be simplistically attributed to anything without any implication? My discussion here would take both, and develop them through the example my family and I were discussion.

                The discussion emerged as I was presenting my logical perception on what the foreign policy of Guatemala may state about the FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia). I was discussing this topic because it is my committee’s topic in LMUN. My logical procedure goes as follows:

            1. Guatemala is a big ally of the U.S as well as great supporter of its foreign policies (This clearly is a generalization, but Guatemala has advocated many of the U.S foreign policies in Latin America because a government representing the U.S economic interests was inserted in Guatemala during Jacobo Arbenz’s presidency)

            2. U.S’s foreign policy states that the FARC should be handled by military means or by peace-zones conferences.

            3. Therefore, Guatemala’s policy regarding the FARC should be the same as the U.S

First of all, the 1^st premise is a generalization, so the conclusion is also one

(Although they may be generalizations, I am going to use this argument as a valid one for purposes of explanation). The presentation of these premises and a conclusion imply that the 3^rd point, or the conclusion, is a logical deduction. However, my family argued that the conclusion is actually a hypothesis. The opinion of my family left me with the enigma whether every hypothesis is a deduction or every deduction is a hypothesis. For the first one, I am going to use biology, and for the latter, I am going to use math. During biology, we were supposed to predict or create a hypothesis whether the insertion of more enzymes would produce a bigger concentration of the product. My hypothesis was “As the enzymatic level increase, the concentration degree of the product will decrease, because too many enzymes will eventually block the active site (that is, where the reactants are placed so the product is then produced) because it will hinder the induced fit of the reactants into this site. I started to think about this hypothesis which I had to make for an enzymes lab.  Surprisingly, I found out that this hypothesis is a deduction as well. I only reached this hypothesis through a series of premises: the fact that the active site was blocked and the induced fit being obstructed. Thus the last statement; my hypothesis, was a conclusion or simply a deduction. Although one experiment is not enough to conclude that every hypothesis is a conclusion, the enzyme lab and its implications showed me that my hypothesis was also a deduction, which leads me to think every hypothesis is also a deduction. On the other hand, while performing the simplest exercise in math 1+1 I discovered that also a deduction is a hypothesis. My reason tells me 1 object plus 1 object will be most of the cases, 2 objects. However, this logical procedure that I did in my head was a hypothesis, because, as Lissy showed me, the sum of 1 + 1 may not be always 2 e.g. two drops of water added. I needed to know what type of object I was adding. So the 1+1=2 is a hypothesis and also a deduction because when this sum is applied to rocks, for instance, they sum up to two. Math, then, demonstrated how also one of my simplest deductions is also a hypothetical statement.

            Returning to the primary argument presented in this entry, the difference between a hypothesis and a deduction, in my opinion is not much of a debatable point because they are complementing characteristics associated to a concluding statement. Humans tend to see hypothesis as an educated guess, or many dictionaries would indicate that. However, I dare to go deeper; I think a hypothesis is an educated deduction and guess. Not a huge change, but a significant change to the bases of the scientific method. This new definition implies that the scientific method, in its early stages, becomes more of a logical argument than a researching plus guessing process. Besides, this definition implies that humans in fact are already deducing something before even experimenting, but as I discussed, deductions also need an experimenting. For this reason, logic, however certain may it look, must always be tested, although humans unconsciously test basic logical things such as 1 +1. My conclusion in the argument was then both a hypothesis and a deduction. The first day I took a TOK class regarding the topic of science, I was sure science is the most reliable source to gather information and that logic was over everything, including emotions. Now I rectify that this is not valid, instead, science may not be as reliable as it may seem, because science, an Area of Knowing that involves logic, must be tested regardless the simplicity or the certainty of it, and not once, but unlimited times. That is mainly the reason why the word “proof” does not exist, because all scientific attempts to gather or discover knowledge have to be carried out as an experiment, which may not always be certain because it depends upon many things, for instance, the drop plus drop depends on the objects utilized. I must admit, finally, that TOK has made me change my extremist opinion regarding science and logic, to the extent that not only I balance science with more subjective AoKs and logic with emotion, for example, but also I balance between scientific hypothesis and logical conclusions.

Religion is a word. Science is one as well. Both have often been related to be complete opposites, extremes found in a range where logic stands in one extreme and faith in the other or belief in general. Recently we read an article called “Darwin’s God”, where I formulated much of my opinions regarding this illogical tendency for science to find out a scientific reason for religion’s evolution through history, regardless whatever religion it talks about. In my opinion, both are in fact extremes that should be preserved as they are when both are trying to explain each other.

            Science does not need to explain the scientific basis of religion. Perhaps it is a human tendency to look out or gather information, through an investigation, of everything in our surroundings. But in this case religion and science should be seen as extremes that do not have to correlate. The act of believing exists, so do I interpret it, and I do not think or give a reason why science should try to research this act. Their investigation not only shows limited resources, but also suggests a range of different impacts if their results are found. If they can find a result whether religion has adapted or was a byproduct, this may throw into light intriguing effects upon the world’s believes (I repeat, believers of any religion). As mentioned by a classmate, the results (if they ever reach one) about the hard-wire characteristic of religion can strengthen the moral beliefs of people, it can provide them support. However, this may also lay foundations for a worldwide questioning of what religion is in general and its purpose in society. Because if it is due to an adaptive feature, it carries some questions like “To what conditions did religion ad to adapt? Why? And, in my opinion, the, most arguable one, “If there was an adaptive change of religion, what was the previous nature of religion, that is, what were the previous conditions before their adaptation? These answers, although impossible to answer by me, I think it may carry several implications, because if the “nature” of religion was another, a completely different one that went against the moral supports this religion, whatever it is, then it may produce a sense of worldwide questioning about the “morality” or “benevolence” of this religion. Of course the whole scheme I am presenting is hypothetical. If I need to choose an option from the two possibilities: adaptation or byproduct, I probably would choose adaptation because it seems to me the best option to explain the sudden changes in religion, let say, from medieval times to contemporary times.

            Talking from another perspective, religion may also throw out why science started, considering religion has provided some explanation to the basis of human existence. But, overall, I do think both should not be interrelated in the approach to describe the foundations of each other, and its advancement through history, therefore, kept as extremes in this particulate case. Why should they try to explain each other or one another in its evolutionary phase or basis of existence when the results of these explanations can destroy as well as strengthen many of the bases or supports for their development?

(I finish with this question to leave this journal entry as open as I can if anyone wants to discuss it)

            This entry will focus on language. I thought language was a surprising Wok, especially for those who thought language was just our common way of expression. Certainly, it is, however it involves much more than expected. In this entry I not only want to expose the subjectivity of language, but also its relation with culture, I think and experiences.

            While I was in recess, I heard one term that I may frequently hear but never question. The term was pizza. This entry would focus on the pronunciation rather than the spelling of it. This word is pronounced differently according to the location one is in, and some associations can be made out of these pronunciations. In Costa Rica and Guatemala (at least the two places I’ve heard it) pizza is pronounced like pit-za, where the double z stands for a t and a z. Also, I’ve heard the pronunciation of pic-za, where the double z stands for a c and a z. From this information, I know that many people consider the second pronunciation one of an uneducated person, a popularly called “cholo” (stands for a person whose manners, actions are impolite or vague). As well, I have heard that this pronunciation is related with low-class people, by creating a goofing tone when saying this word. These associations have to do with experiences or culture. Perhaps the people making fun of it have always lived in a different way of life than the people who actually say pic-za. This way of life gap, therefore, comes to be the factor that makes these people focus on their differences with the “cholos” rather than on their similarities. After all, people will tend to always look or focus on differences from other people rather on their similarities with them. Here, the ways of lives were differentiated due to the existing gap among them. Also, they (the people who don’t say pic-za) may have related this term with the low-class way of life perhaps because their experiences have guided them to conclude the “cholos” are the ones who mention it only. On the other side, the pronunciation pit-za is not in its whole sense, correct. I asked a classmate why there was a t if this word this not included a t and he answered “There may be no t, but let’s leave like that”. His answer not only showed to me a conformity regarding language, but also the fact that they are so used (or have so many experiences) dealing with these kind of pronunciations that they just accept it regardless the verbal mistake. The terms I have heard in recess only demonstrates me that language may have several other implications than a different pronunciation.

            In South America, however, I did hear another type of pronunciation, where pizza was pronounced piz-za, where the double z stands for a long z sound. Although it sounds “correct”, it is not. Pizza is originally an Italian word, therefore, the Spanish pronunciation does not exist, and people just give a linguistic approach to say it. Then, the term pizza where the Zs are pronounced “correctly” is just an adaptation, in my opinion, South Americans (not all of them, it would be a generalization) granted to say this word, however it does not ensure the right and original pronunciation of the word. When I went to Chile, I said pit-za, like I’ve heard it before, but my family rejected my pronunciation arguing that the word pizza does not have a t in it. Experiences guided me, and culture made my family react to my pronunciation.

            All in all, the neutrality of language is not only due to the different perceptions we may carry of the same word, but characteristics like its pronunciation or spelling are debatable and subjective according to many other factors, such as experiences or culture.

We moved to the AoKs in this semester. I was very interested about entering the whole themes AoKs could cover, and we started with ethics. Ethics, defined as the part of the philosophy that deals with moral actions, their fundaments and how they relate to the human behavior can be traced to almost every action a human makes during his/her daily routine. But the part I am going to focus on is photojournalism, which we studied in detail a few weeks ago. As a class we determined if photojournalism, and everything it implies, is ethical applied to certain circumstances. My discussion starts from this point.

            I do consider photojournalism ethical when it shows inoffensive or unaggressive messages, for example, the photography of the guy standing in front of the tanks. This has a pure message of rebellion, which, in such circumstances, cannot hurt anyone. Another characteristic of photojournalism that I would like to mention is the ability to appeal to some people. Intriguing photographs showing a limited but purposeful reality can appeal to many people that seek a story behind the picture. The problem arises when photojournalism mixes the ability of appealing with the ethical part of this practice. Of course a photograph will appeal a hundred more times than a written article, but it does not cover the fact that this photograph then can express whatever it likes to express.  For example, we were using the earthquake example that just occurred here in Costa Rica. We took two photographs: one showing a house damaged and destroyed almost, and a photograph showing two dead children lying on the floor. First, I want to analyze both photographs. Both have a message, the message of suffering or the impact of this earthquake. Perhaps both show the context in which this photograph was taken, that is, the ruined town, the doubtful scheme that his earthquake has left, among others. Now, in the class discussion, the opinion was made that the two dead children photograph should be put in the newspaper or another informative media to announce the impact and consequences of the earthquake. I disagree. The only purpose of putting the photo of the children instead of the house-photograph is to appeal to more people. And what happened with the ethical part? Do we just ignore it? The answer is no. I think in both photographs a great sense of suffering can be felt, regardless the fact that one shows people and the other one shows material belongings. People just prefer to see people because it creates a bigger impact on them. But can people just ignore the fact that the two children photograph is unethical maybe because some familiar relative is just watching the photograph and dislikes it? Or it creates an inhuman impact on an incapacitated person? The wide range of possible outcomes of this photograph clearly supports the fact that to post his photo is unethical. Just because it strikes us where the advertisers or the people that published it want doe not hide the fact it is unethical to post that photo. It is not incorrect to take that picture, perhaps it works as historical evidence in some nearby future, but the act of posting it because it appeals more to people seems to me unjustifiable.

            I would post the photograph of the damaged house, because, although it may have another impact, it is less harmful and unethical than to put two dead children lying on a dusty floor. The feeling of suffering and sorrow can be equally expressed through both photographs, although people claim these effects can only be obtained by the children-photo.

            Overall, I think the purpose of photojournalism is to present a history behind the picture; however, it must be ethical, unaggressive and inoffensive.

Brumbrella(noun) A device, with spikes that used to protect from rain.

/ from the American for Umbrella/

Flavaercious(adjective) prone to falling

/Flava(latin for fall)+ prefix(ious)/

Glate (verb) expose a senseless argument against  one or many TOK Teachers at a time  

Noun: Glate, Adj:gladder.

/from Russian for santi/

Chalhaviscuous(noun) Structure found in the X5 vertebrae of a whadehell. It is in charge of performing multiple functions such as saliva production and uncontrolled limb growth.

/Slovakian for chalhavy/

Whadehell(noun) specie related to snails, and long cousin of Godzilla.

/tico for, weird animal/

Horphing(verb): method used by Sacagawea to find THE PATH. Currently used only by the freezing nomads of Siberia and the Saharan devil. It consists in tasting the ground via bodily fluids.

/originated in the 1600’s by the Native Americans in the U.S and A/

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHING(verb): action of screaming for help. Creates the familiar sound of (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!)

/universal phonetic for pain (not used by yoda; he uses unga!)/

 Bacanclot(noun): Gore machine by USSR scientists, which intended to turn everyone into a clot beverage.

/Jamaican meaning to convert/

Cleoteriks(noun): the study of NEO, the all time savior of the kong race.

/cleo; the one……teriks; the study of/

Bubarik(adj): to be a shrimp thinker.Originated by the famous character, Bubba, this adj derives from the basic thought of shrimp thinking. Those who are Bubarik suffer from the Bubarik disease, which claims their shrimp life, and turns their minds to SHRIMP, reason why all they think about is eating plankton.

/BUBA; Forrest Gump    RIK; latin for shrimp/

Skittle(verb): to insult a TOK god or goddess with unproved arguments and fallacies.

/skittle; from the American product: skittles ©/

Cotato(noun): underworld fruit grown in the underworld, being a fruit and at the same time, a vegetable, and a nut. It is frequently grown in the areas near the sea of shame and madness, as fertilizers arise from such area.

/COT: a place in Cartago/underworld       Ato; from the word potato/

1.       What was the purpose of this task?

a.       The purpose of this task was to demonstrate the intangibility of language and words.  Every word is invented by someone; therefore the individual connotations can vary.  Every word, in some way, has a connection with previous components, such as phonetics and morphology. However, each word is somewhat created from scratch. Language, being a conjunction of words is even more ambiguous, as the rules that are created can be invented.