My Piece Of Art...

Maori Settlers in N.Z...

The Maoris were not the first to settle in New Zealand. Carbon dating of rat bones found in Hawkes Bay on the east coast of North Island shows them to be at least two thousand years old. The oldest Maori settlement dates back to AD 800. Dr. Richard Holdaway, a Christchurch palaeontologist, says the rats must have arrived by human voyagers - in short, humans must have arrived 800 years before the Maoris. As Dr. Rau Kirikiri, a leading Maori academic, reflected, ‘This could lead Maoris to question their own history.’

From: http://www.1421.tv/extract.htm

Maoris were the first inhabitants of New Zealand, arriving on the islands in about 1000. Maori oral history maintains that the Maoris came to the island in seven canoes from other parts of Polynesia. In 1642, New Zealand was explored by Abel Tasman, a Dutch navigator. British captain James Cook made three voyages to the islands, beginning in 1769. Britain formally annexed the islands in 1840.

From: New Zealand: History, Geography, Government, and Culture — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107834.html#ixzz1U7QFJylj

The first argument is largely backed by physical evidence (rat bones found by palaeontologists) whereas the second argument doesn't include physical evidence, rather it assumes that its thesis is true because of prior research and oral history passed down within Maori culture. A lot of evidence claims it to be the rat bones that helped to determine the arrival of the first settlers in New Zealand which is extremely controversial because it assumes that evolution did not occur – rats did not evolve in N.Z, and it states that they were brought by people coming to our country by canoe and ship. I personally believe that the second argument is the strongest because of the fact that there is a larger body of evidence backing the theory that Maoris arrived in New Zealand in about 1000. It is conforming to the idea that the majority is right however because of all of the research and the seemingly unified thesis we as New Zealanders are taught from a very young age, I chose to believe the second statement. 

Validity, Operational Definition and Triangulation

1. Describe the issue/concept

2. What implication(s) does this have for knowledge gained in the human sciences (how does this issue or concept affect our ability to learn and know things via the human sciences?)

1. The most common definition of validity is epitomized by the question: are we measuring what we think we are measuring? Validity is the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure. In order for the results of an experiment or test to be published/ applied to human life, they must first be proven to be valid. It is crucial to remember that validity isn’t determined by a single statistic. Instead it is determined by a large collection of research that demonstrates the relationship between the test and the behaviour that it was designed to measure. There are many different types of validity including Internal, External, Conclusion, Construct, Criterion related, and Content validity. Each is with regard to a different way of collecting knowledge for example intelligence tests are one example of measuring instruments that should have construct validity i.e. they use means of statistical analysis of the internal structure of the test, to look at the relationships between different responses to test items. It is well known that the concept of scientific validity, focuses upon the nature of reality and therefore it is an epistemological and philosophical issue as well as a question of measurement. The use of the term ‘validity’ with regard to logic is narrower as it relates to the truth of inferences made from propositions upon which arguments are based and conclusions; drawn. When conducting research scientists draw conclusions from their findings. Often after researching these processes, foredawn conclusions create the basis of the results to arguments that scientists look to solve. As nearly all social research involves measurement or observation of some kind it is a common fact that when we measure or observe something, we are concerned with whether we are measuring truthfully what we are observing, or are demand characteristics causing us to ‘see’ something else. The implications had on our knowledge gained in the human sciences are based around the importance of validity with regard to conducting research. We know that experiments which are conducted within the social science field, desire to measure intangible things e.g. attitudes, behaviours, emotions, and personalities. These rely on processes such as interviewing, physiological analysis etc which in turn need to be valid before they can be publicized.

2. Operational Definition is a procedure agreed upon for the translation of a concept into a measurement of some kind. It expresses how to measure the item being defined using specific details and in its absence many problems can occur. A common example of the use of operational definition surrounds the argument as to how a passenger could decide whether their plane arrived on time? Is it judged by the time of landing which was stated as the arrival time, when the plane stops taxiing or when the first or last passenger leaves the plane? This is why operational definitions must be extremely precisely written to avoid possible variation in interpretations. E.g. to continue with the above example, at what stage could a passenger claim compensation for a ‘late’ flight – here the operational definition will tell us whether in fact the flight was late. Within the realm of human science, operational definition is the transformation of an abstract/ theoretical notion into something fixed, observable and measurable to scientists conducting a research experiment. Without it, data collected may be defective and therefore some things that are overlooked by researchers may be included by others. It is therefore important for scientists to universally share and acknowledge the same bounds created for research and the process of conducting it. Because these bounds are so crucial to the process of measurement they are often very controversial.

3. Triangulation is a technique that aids the validation of data through cross verification from two or more sources. It refers specifically to the application and combination of several research methods surrounding the same concept. Triangulation can be exercised in both quantitative (validation) and qualitative (inquiry) studies. It revolves around the founding of the credibility of qualitative analysis and is an alternate method to traditional criteria such as reliability and validity; making it the most highly favoured method in the social sciences. By including multiple observers, theories, methods, and empirical materials, researchers can hope to overcome the weakness or problems which arise when dealing with only one single method, single-observer or single-theory study. The process of triangulation impacts upon the human sciences, as the technique is most commonly used when researching, using more than two methods/theories/observers/empirical materials, so to be able to double (or triple) check results collected. This is process is called "cross examination” and it extremely important because without a doubt, people are more willing to believe “cross examined” theories/results.  With regard to researching, it can be seen that if an investigator uses only one method, he will naturally presume that his findings are accurate/true. If however, he uses two methods, the results may vary substantially. If he used three different methods he will hope that two out of three methods will produce similar answers. If all three methods produce completely different results/findings then he will know that he needs to reconsider his methods or initial question.   

Response to Human Behavior Experiment...

I was part of the group that was being observed however I only really caught onto the fact that we were part of an experiment, half way through! When I did realize, I felt quite uneasy and I didn't really know how I should act. Apparently I took on the leadership roll within the group which is something that I'm prone to doing, and I also laughed the most out of the members of the group. This laughter was awkward laughter as I didn't really know what was going on so I just laughed uneasily. The feelings that I felt may influence knowledge gained by a human scientist because they would know that once they were 'discovered' the 'guinea pigs' may behave differently because they feel like they are being scrutinized/pressured. I think this would fit into the category of demand characteristics however instead of for instance, verbally answering a question the way we assume the questioner wants us to respond, we are physically acting differently. Therefore a scientist would not be able to a) test our group again for 'accuracy. b) use the same group of assessors again because the would already have a preconceived notion of what 'should' happen. And c) state that their results were both reliable and draw accurate conclusions for larger groups of people from them because our behavior was not natural 100% of the time.

TOK video...

Here is the link to the TOK video that George, Hannah, William and I made...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BRTrEX9rcw

I found it interesting to see how mathematics has becme such an important concept influencing our everyday lives, yet we see it as only a boring school subject. Hopefully this video will open the eyes of the viewer, to a whole world filled with mathematics, in ways they never knew existed!

Inductive and Deductive logic...

Inductive logic: An example of inductive logic is that all animals I have seen are dangerous therefore all animals are dangerous.

Deductive logic: An example of deductive logic is is the statement that everything that goes up must come down. Therefore, if you kick the ball up, it must come down.

The difference between the two is that generally inductive reasoning moves from specific to general and deductive reasoning; the opposite.

All animals I have ever seen (specific) > All animals (general)

Everything that goes up must come down (general) > If you kick the ball up it must come down (specific)

What surprises me about the way science has progressed?

I think that science has progressed as technology has advanced. The advancement of science has lead to people finding cures for those things that were thought to be incurable many years ago, for example vaccinations and different forms of disease treatment. Science has gone from being something of mystery and confusion to something that we rely on every day. It is trusted by the world and universally the same in every language. Science is something that people believe in, they trust the facts and figures proven by experiments. Science is all about a hypothesis which is proven or dis-proven by evidence which makes people trust it and look to science for the future. It changes and modernises with our rapidly changing society which makes it something that is identifiable with all age groups. People are more likely to trust somebody who has done an experiment, for example, to prove that leaves only float on water than if somebody was to say that God told them that leaves only float on water. It is a vastly expanding 'religion.'