Man or Woman? The Importance of Knowing (Post 1)

If you are a track and field fan, you followed the World Athletics Championships in Berlin, you'll be familiar with the controversy regarding the South African Women's 800 metres champion, Caster Semenya. There are allegations from her fellow athletes and others that the eighteen year old sportswoman is a man.

Here's an aptly entitled (and extremely interesting) blog article that discusses the subject: 'Man or Woman? The Importance of Knowing'. Compare this with a Guardian article on the aftermath of Semenya's Berlin victory.

The International Association of Athletes Fedederation (IAAF) sugggests a possible solution to the problem: Semenya must undergo 'gender verification tests' to establish her true gender status. What do you think these tests involve? Apparently the tests take a week to complete and involve a group of scientific specialists. They may reveal that Semenya has both male and female genitalia which is not an uncommon state of affairs.

Both of the above-mentioned articles point to cases which suggest that these issues are not new. Reflect on the tragic case of David Reimer (article 1) and on the very different case of a female tennis player (article 2) and consider if we have learned to see through the media hype surrounding these cases and to deal with them sensitively.

The issue not only raises questions regarding what it is to be human, but also about the nature of human sexuality. How do we define 'masculinity' and 'femininity'? How do these differ from or relate to our understanding of what it is to be a 'man' or 'woman'? And do these definitions change with the advance of scientific knowledge about the human body? On a more psychological level, we must question the motives of human beings in their social interactions: how far are these motives driven by fear, jealousy and greed? How far is it true to say that those accusing Semenya of cheating are motivated by a 'racist agenda'?

<

2. All We Are Saying is Give Truth a Chance

What is truth? This is an interesting but also difficult question to answer. It is possible to distinguish several different definitions or approaches of truth. Here are three of them.

Correspondence Theory of Truth: This theory states that a statement (a “proposition”) is true if it corresponds to (or reflects) reality. If somebody states “It is raining” (the proposition) then it is true only if it is really raining outside (reality). The interesting question is now: “What is reality”? We know that senses can deceive us. So how is reality really like? And of course we have to assume that something like reality really does exist and is not simply a product of our mind.

Coherence Theory of Truth: This theory states that a statement (a proposition) is true if it is consistent with other things that are considered true (and do not contradict it). Whether the statement reflects reality or not is not of primary importance. A proposition is true if it “fits into the system”. For example, I hear a pencil falling to the ground. A second person in the room also hears it, and the pencil that I just saw on my table a moment ago is now gone. Three observations fit together: me hearing it, a second person hearing it and the missing pencil. According to the coherence theory, the proposition “the pencil hit the ground” is true. But did the pencil really fall to the ground or can something else explain these observations? This is of course a different question.

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth: This theory states that something is true if it is useful. Whether or not it reflects reality is of minor importance. Somebody (person A) may, for example, believe that earning much money is the most important thing in one’s life. This belief is true for this person and it is indeed a very useful belief. The person’s actions will be guided by this belief. The statement “Earning much money is important” is true for this person. Person B has a different view. B thinks that money is of minor importance. B thinks that having many friends is the most important thing. And guess what! This belief too is very useful! It is true for person B. His or her actions will be guided by it.

Questions for Discussion:
1. Maybe you have realized that some theories assume that truth is absolute (such as the Correspondence theory), others see truth more from a relative or subjective viewpoint (Pragmatic Theory). What is your view on this issue? Are you more an “absolutist” or more a “relativist”?
2. Does the Coherence Theory view truth more from an absolute or more from a relative viewpoint?
3. How are the “theories” of truth similar or different from scientific theories? To give you a hint, are the “truth theories” experimentally falsifyable? Why are they called “theories”? Do you consider this an appropriate term? Could this be a language issue?
4. “Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.” (Andre Gide). What’s so good about seeking truth? What’s so bad about finding it? - An Ethics question!

Colbert Link

3. Beyond Reasonable Doubt

A conversation about the t.v series CSI got me thinking about the use of forensic evidence in particular DNA fingerprinting in a court of law.

. . .Upon arriving at the crime scene, a CSI finds a small piece of blood stained cloth on the ground two meters away from a murder victim. The cloth does not match the clothing the victim is wearing. The CSI picks up the cloth with a pair of forceps and places it in a bag labeled “biological evidence.” Several months later a DNA fingerprint of the blood will be presented in court.

There is no doubt that DNA fingerprinting has become a reliable source of evidence and since its introduction has been used not only a way of securing convictions but also to exclude suspects who might otherwise be falsely charged with and convicted of serious crimes. However, the results of DNA fingerprinting are not 100% certain and like most knowledge claims fall along a true-false continuum. Before we can consider how much we can trust this type of evidence we first need to consider some of the issues surrounding its reliability.

The term DNA fingerprint implies that, like a fingerprint, the pattern for a given person is completely unique to that person. Actually, a DNA fingerprint just presents a probability that the person in question is indeed the person to whom the pattern belongs. Typically, evidence in court is presented by way of a ‘match probability’, the probability that the defendant’s DNA profile matches that of the crime sample. Two of the methods of DNA fingerprinting are RFLP and PCR. The RFLP method gives a much higher probability of a match but analysis of a sample can take a couple of months, a larger amount of sample (thousands of cells) is needed and the cells have to be fresh. The match with PCR is less probable but requires a smaller sample of about 50 cells, analysis is can be done in a couple of days and the sample does not have to be fresh, it could be decades old. Both PCR and RFLP can only analyze nuclear DNA found in the nucleus of a cell. However bone, hair and teeth do not have cells with nuclei so another process involving the analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is used. In the investigation of murder cases that have gone unsolved for many years, where bone hair and teeth may be all that remain mtDNA will be used.

The actual process of creating a DNA fingerprint is time consuming and requires meticulous laboratory work and correct protocols to be followed otherwise the sample can become contaminated. Therefore the quality of the lab doing the analysis, its techniques and hygiene standards can affect the accuracy in the results. This is especially problematic in countries where there are no nationwide standards for the testing of DNA.

Crime scene evidence which has been altered, tampered with or destroyed is not admissible to court so the method with which DNA evidence is collected and transported is important. When crime scene investigators collect evidence they have a duty to make sure that the evidence is not compromised. The quality of the sample depends on the competence of these investigators because if the DNA sample is not in perfect condition it can affect the accuracy of the analysis. Extreme heat and other physical conditions at a crime site can also damage the sample making it hard to analyze.

So how much can we rely on the results of a DNA fingerprinting presented as evidence in court? Can it be relied upon beyond reasonable doubt? Thinking about this has lead me in to asking the following questions.

1. One definition of knowledge is a true belief based on strong evidence. Can DNA evidence be considered strong enough justification to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt?
2. A key factor that distinguishes acceptable from unacceptable justification is reliability. How can the reliability of DNA fingerprinting be established?
3. Evidence in criminal law is any item (e.g. weapon, document, clothing, artifact, DNA fingerprint) or testimony (e.g. oral or written statement) that assists in the proof of a prosecution or defense. Which type of evidence would be considered the most trustworthy in court and why?
4. Because DNA fingerprinting is a product of ‘science’ might there be a tendency for members of a jury to consider the results more reliable than other types of evidence. Could the prior beliefs of a jury be altered in light of results presented by DNA fingerprinting?
5. In court expert witnesses are called upon to provide an expert opinion like the interpretation of the results provided by DNA fingerprinting. How does the reliability of the evidence presented by a forensic scientist compare to that of eye witness testimony. What are the strengths and weaknesses of both forms of evidence?
6. DNA fingerprinting provides a probability that the person in question is the person to whom the pattern belongs. Consider the probability of two individuals having a match is 1 in 1000 with PCR and 1 in 100000 with RFLP. Would the PCR method be reliable enough to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt? What about the results from RFLP? Which probabilities would be acceptable alone to prove guilt?

What do you think?

4. Global Warming

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Heated Debate

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

5. Truth in Science

Please click on the following hyperlink to Forbes Magazine and read the article about truth and knowledge by Richard Dawkins The Hall of Mirrors

After reading the article please answer the following questions

6. Ten Myths about Science Activity

Science at School
William McComas, Associate Professor of Science Education at the University of South Carolina, decided to articulate the myths that are still current in the perception of science and subsequently still inform science education.

"Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know....,"

In his introduction McComas explains his intentions;

This article addresses and attempts to refute several of the most widespread and enduring misconceptions held by students regarding the enterprise of science. The ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories become laws, that hypotheses are best characterized as educated guesses, and that there is a commonly-applied scientific method. In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor. Finally, the myths that scientists are objective, that experiments are the sole route to scientific knowledge and that scientific conclusions are continually reviewed conclude this presentation. The paper ends with a plea that instruction in and opportunities to experience the nature of science are vital in preservice and inservice teacher education programs to help unseat the myths of science.

Aim of the Activity
This activity is designed to explore science while assisting you in developing your presentation skills on an issue of knowledge according to the TOK style of presentation.

Outcome
The activity requires you to explore a myth and give a presentation on your understanding of the myth and implications.

Activity Instructions
1. Form into ten groups and distribute a myth from the following table to each group.

2. Brainstorm where the myth might have come from, why the myth retains its validity, the implications of the myth for science, young scientists, and the teaching of science.

3. Develop the format of a quick presentation on the Myth to be presented to the rest of the class.

4. Develop your presentation

5. Refresh your understanding of what a TOK presentation is seeking to achieve.

6. Deliver the presentation in five minutes with visual support.

ToK Prescribed Titles (2010) Question 5

“What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” (Michael Shermer, www.edge.com). Critically evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge?

The essence of the Q: The focus is on 'science', but you have to compare the Natural and the Human Sciences, especially the method that scientists use to reach their conclusions. Once again, you'll need to grapple with the problem of induction; the idea of verification and falsification and the thought that science only presents its theories with a high degree of probability. What does it mean to say that scientific conclusions or theories are 'provisional'? Doesn't this idea undermine science and everything that is based on scientific knowledge? Doesn't the statement explode all the assumptions we make about science and harm the objectivity and certainty that it appears to give to us? What other 'activities' is Shermer thinking about here? And is he implying that there are certain intellectual activities or AoKs that provide more certain conclusions than science? Or is he implying that knowledge in the 21st Century is becoming relative: everybody is permitted to reach their own 'provisional' conclusions and we have to get along somehow.

Knowledge Issues: Are scientific conclusions purely rational? To what extent are scientific conclusions only 'provisional'? How far does mathematical knowledge give more certainty to scientific conclusions? Can science provide an objective view of the world? In what way do our assumptions drive our conclusions? Is all knowledge 'provisional'? Can the scientific method preserve us from relativism? Are 'provisional' conclusions necessarily subjective? Does the provisional nature of knowledge lead to national/cultural/personal conflict? How can knowledge help us to tolerate differences of opinion/conclusions?

Approaches: one of the main differences between the Natural and Human Sciences is the object of study: while the Natural Sciences observe and experiment on the world of nature, the Human Sciences focus more on human behaviour. Humans are, arguably, less predictable and stable than the natural world, so the conclusions about our behaviour should be more provisional than the conclusions reached, for example, about the atomic properties of hydrogen. However, if you take account of Quantum Theory, then even the conclusions about the physical world become highly provisional - reality is no longer deterministic and mechanistic and all our conclusions about this reality end up being provisional. Is this what Shermer is thinking about? Now take each of the other AoKs in turn and you find that all of them, except Mathematics, provide 'provisional' conclusions about their objects of study: the Arts provide only provisional judgements about music and art and these judgements are subject to change over time (can there ever be a tradition of great art?); History can only provide a provisional account of the past since we can never have all the relevant material about past events at any one time and surely the method of selecting what counts as history is highly subjective and shaped by our present cultural and national biases (can we change the past by manipulating the present?); Ethics, perhaps, presents the most provisional of all conclusions: although we have a global code of ethics (the UN-based Human Rights code), not every nation on the planet subscribes to it. When it comes to worldwide problems, such as tackling nuclear disarmament, nations reach conclusions based on their own agendas. When it comes to national problems, such as how to allocate funds to education and health, there is a suggestion that politicians make decisions based on their own political needs (ie. will the decision get me votes to stay in power?), rather than the needs of the populace. When it comes to the sphere of personal morality, such as in deciding if a poor person should steal medicine from pharmacy to help his ailing child, there will be mixed views again. Does this mean that every branch of knowledge ends up in relativism? That there are no right or wrong answers? Indeed, are there no answers at all except the ones I decide for myself - of course, you're allowed to decide your answers for yourself. Can we ever agree on the same conclusions in the fields of Art, History, Ethics and the Sciences? How?