Hi Everyone,
Remember my post on 1st April (HEY, LISTEN: 1ST APRIL!!!) that invited you to view a video at:
K:\Staff_To_Students\IB Subjects\Core\TOK
Well, there are two possibilities:
(a) you went and looked and it was so boring that you decided not to comment, or
(b) you didn't go there
On the expectation that at least some of you didn't go there (it's still there, so you can still bother!), this was a famous April Fools' joke from 1957 on the BBC in the UK. Is the April Fools' idea culturally specific? I can imagine there might be problems with the Ethiopian calendar, for example - please put me right, guys (or Ribika). From what I can gather, the origin of this practice might have something to do with the changeover in much of Europe from the Julian calendar (not my responsibility - no jokes about IB deadlines please!) to the Gregorian calendar in 1582 (Christian Era), but I haven't got a firm grasp of the reasons. Can anyone help?
Anyway, in 1957 this was a very convincing "phoney" news story (of course in 2009 it might not work so well, or...? - if not, why not?). Try the following for more information:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2819000/2819261.stm
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/
What I wanted us to discuss was the ways in which our Ways of Knowing, as characterized in the TOK course, function (independently and in concert) in order to help or hinder us in recognizing the truth. This would simply be a trigger for a wider discussion on the connections between Ways of Knowing - think about sense perception and reason in particular, but not exclusively...
Friday, April 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Comments
8 comments:
Well, to help out with the origin of the April Fools' Day, here is links to fairly satiating articles on it from the ever faithful Wikipedia and Wilstar.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day
http://wilstar.com/holidays/aprilfool.htm
Oh. I almost forgot. I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding what exactly it is you want us to discuss so I would be grateful if kindly elaborated a little bit more on it. Thanks.
Well, the ways of knowing are interesting if we regard them as tools for understanding the world. For example, a magician's tricks, apprehended by sense perception, become less convincing as increasing amounts of experience are brought to bear (through the use of reason?) as we grow up. But in the 1950s, most British people had not travelled in Europe and would therefore be unlikely to have had experiences of Switzerland on which to draw. And pasta was still an exotic and rare foodstuff.
There is also the issue of authority - back in the 1950s (maybe even today), an item broadcast by the BBC (maybe especially in Britain) carried a great deal of gravitas and it was hard for people to identify a joke like this (in fact it seems that some people were angry when they found out the truth - this was not what the country's premier broadcaster was supposed to be doing!).
The language register and dominant accent used by BBC reporters in those days reeked of paternalist authority (listen to the newsreaders and reporters on Ghana TV and ask yourself if you have ever heard anyone talk that way in "real life" - why do they talk that way on TV?).
There may also have been an emotional attachment to trusted sources of information such as the BBC, which had guided the very same people not so long before through the privations of World War II.
So, with regard to April Fools' tricks in general (or perhaps the whole art of lying effectively), what makes a fake story convincing? What sort of thing would fool you? In what ways would it have to deceive your various ways of knowing in order to succeed?
Thanks so much. I understand the question pretty clearly now. From what you've said so far, i think the most successful fake story would be one that plays on all the ways of knowing. It would have to be one that is extremely logical and realistic, without a trace of anomalies, to put our reasoning to the test. Also, it would have to possess elements that can touch our emotions deeply enough to make "the fool" react to the story in the intended manner. As you earlier stated, the language used in the fake story would be very essential. The language should be authoritative and convincing, possibly using a lot of rhetoric. Finally, if the fake story involves a some form of sensory image such as a video or a picture, this image would have to appeal to our senses such that its face value would possibly be enough to fool "the fool".
Oh.....For the record, I did watch the video, but I didn't comment becuase I was scared it was....well....an April Fool joke because I didn't quite get the purpose of the video.
Yeah, i agree with hMensa, i also saw the video, but i didn't quite understand it, it was a bit absurd so i was wondering what the relevance was.
I think for a trick to be good, it also has to work with things that we can't quite explain, things that are still somewhat of a mystery to us. on the other hand, it could also play on things that we actually do know, but present it in such a way that it seems logical and plausible when it is fact not. hMensa's point about authority is also very valid. If you are an authority or speak with authority, you are sure to sway some people with what you present.
About the video, well, it would fool anyone who doesn't know how spaghetti is actually made. As we should all know, spaghetti is made from pasta (made from a dough of flour, water and eggs) and water. However, without this piece of information, you would be fooled by the video's message that spaghetti is grown on trees.
Therefore, I would also add that a successful fake story would have to present issues that are coherent with the fool's previous knowledge.....that is if he/she has any previous knowledge on the issue at all.
Prez says the video was a bit absurd. That's interesting. It wasn't absurd to British people in 1957. Why the difference?
Do you think this tells us anything more profound about knowledge and progress? I can't help thinking here about preformation theories in biology, in which it was believed that each of us simply grew from a tiny human body (homunculus). There was a colossal argument between biologists as to whether the homunculus resided in the egg or in the sperm, and of course there was the spectre of an infinite regress - if the "little man" was in the sperm, the he must have "little men" inside his sperm, and they... You get the picture.
Now this is patently absurd to us today. Why? Because we now have better microscopes that show us truer images of things, and we understand biological processes at a much deeper level. We know about differentiation.
Maybe then the discussion here is not really about ways of knowing so much (for they haven't really changed since the 18th century, have they?), but the way we employ background beliefs and assumptions in interpreting things.
I think it's not true that spaghetti grows on trees. But maybe just occasionally what appears absurd to us does turn out to be true. Any examples?
Julian H. Kitching :"Prez says the video was a bit absurd. That's interesting. It wasn't absurd to British people in 1957. Why the difference?"
I think apart from the fact that things are generally better understood, as a result of technological advances (like better microscopes), the spread, or more like the rate of spread of knowledge in general is much faster than it used to be. For example changes in the IB syllabus don't have to be duplicated by printing and then transporting them around the world via the various means of transport (I am using this as a hypothetical example, I really don't know how changes in the syllabus were communicated back in the day), but can now be emailed, or simply made available on a website on the internet.
The only problem with that now is that, you may be accessing information which is false and only helps you make bad conclusions.
I'm still thinking about an example of something absurd which is actually true.... maybe spontaneous regeneration in starfish? I don''t have concrete details on that, so I guess like the terminator,"I'll be back!"
Post a Comment