“When the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems begin to resemble nails” (Abraham Maslow).

Humans are incredibly narrow-minded. Part of this comes from the slow process of developing knowledge in the specific areas of knowing, and later trying to agree on it as a group. Most humans are individually specified in only one of the areas of knowledge. Meaning they spend decades of studying, research and hard work to develop strong skills in only one of the AoK. After that specific strength is developed, it becomes the most common lens in which the human can perceive the world with. This example is visible amongst mathematicians versus other other people. Mathematicians believe everything in the world is mathematical, yet they fail to recognize that it is this way because humans have created mathematical rules. In other words, the world seems related to math from every aspect because we have manipulated the rules to work in a way that apply to the all the elements around us. An evidence for this statement is the fact that we change our laws or theorems if they do not apply to our surroundings, or come up with the concept of “exceptions” if we fail to apply our rules to a particular scenario. These narrow-minded arguments can also be seen amongst the people that are specified in the same AoK. For instance, biologists, chemists, and physicists are all specialized in natural sciences, but because they have developed strength in only one of those areas (or approached each area differently) they fail to see all three areas working collectively and most times try to convince others what is considered the most important area in science. These examples apply to the quote where the “hammer” is the area of strength a person develops and the “nails” are the different aspects in he world around us. This shows us how the different WoK we use to develop our strength in an area of knowledge effects how we perceive all AoK. We all perceive the world through the lens that is most familiar or understandable to us, bringing us back to the idea that we see the world and its problems the way that we want to see it.

“There are only two ways in which humankind can produce knowledge: through passive observation or through active experiment.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

The most direct way of answering this question would be Yes, this statement is strongly agreeable. This is because producing new knowledge requires a person to use one or more of the Ways of Knowing, and the Ways of Knowing include: Language, Sense Perception, Reason, Emotion, Imagination, Memory, Intuition, and Faith. Analyzing each individual WoK, it is possible to group it as a “Passive observation,” an “Active Experiment,” or sometimes both. For instance, emotion is a strong example for one that falls under passive observation only, since it is not something you can control, or would intentionally experiment with most times.  Language is a WoK which can identified as both, since you can experience language through other peoples’ conversations making the experience a Passive observation. You can also alter the way you communicate your ideas to see people's reactions making it an active experiment. 

But, when looking closely at how the question is structured, we realize it states “[either] through passive observation or through active experiment.” These two overlap significantly, and if the things we look closely at what we take under an active experiment, we realize the knowledge initiated by a passive observation. An active experiment would be manipulating different factors to reach a concluding result. Almost always, what you are curious about exploring is either something you have been exposed to, or in some ways dealt with what you had experienced previously making active experiments a type of passive observation. The action of carrying out an experiment takes you through an experience where you observe the different factors, meaning the duration of an experiment also involves a passive observation. This is because the person does not have a very significant role after manipulating his/her desired factors, and becomes an observer. 

So, the initial curiosity and the duration of an active experiment are both a type of passive observation. Many might argue a passive observation, you have no intention or control and your only an observer, whereas in an active experiment you consciously go through an experience that you have control over. However, the truth is whether or not we humans intentionally set up an experiment, we will always be an observer and even if we manipulate the factors to get the results we want, those factors are previously set in the world we live in. The only difference between a passive observation and an active experiment would than be the way we, as individuals, pay attention to our surroundings….which is just changing the quality of us as an observer.

To what extent does culture influence ethical decision making? Does ethics fall more in the domain of shared knowledge or personal knowledge?

Culture heavily influences the ethical decision makings of an individual. Culture involves a wide range of different aspects within the life course of a person, such as the religion, tradition, heritage, etc. Every single aspect of culture impacts the individual’s perspective and depicts what is known as “right” or “wrong” to that specific person. For example, different religions have different opinions about after life. This differentiation causes a wide spectrum of different ethical decision-makings when it comes to topics involving death (because people believe different things will happen after death based on the religion they have). The tradition someone grows up with, including the environment within the family also influences the way a person makes ethical decisions. Marriage is a topic that is significantly varies from tradition to tradition (or even from family to family). Therefore, deciding what is “right” or ‘wrong” is hugely dependent on what guidelines a person grows up with. Family is also a huge factor when it comes to what moral concerns an individual develops over his or her life time, because each family reacts differently topics discussed. The majority of ethics also involves emotion, which is again influences by the tradition and family one grows up with, since different families have different levels or standards of emotional intelligence. Although culture is a great influence of the ethical decision making of a person, ethics falls more in the domain or personal knowledge. This is because no two individuals experience the same exact discussions, relations, events, thoughts, or etc. leading to each person having a different perspective on moral concerns, and emotions. This different perspective is what causes ethics to be more of a personal knowledge.

Pick three ways of knowing. How would each approach the "university as public/private good" debate?

The three ways of knowing I choose are: emotion, memory, and reason. Analyzing whether universities should be public or private, each way of knowing results in different answers.

When answering such question from an emotional aspect the answer is yes, universities should be public. This is because most humans agree that it is an unfair disadvantage for people who have the capability and desire to continue their education through higher institutions, but they reside because of their financial boundaries. Approaching this question emotionally may also lead some people to think that education is a human right and therefore should be publically provided for everyone.

Even when using memory to approach this question, it is it logical for humans to think that universities should be a public good due to the benefits it would provide. Using memory and looking back upon history, countries with more educated societies showed to be more successful and prosperous. Having everyone to pay taxes for universities to become public is also justified by memory. Social security is a well-known example for using taxes in order to invest in the future and prevent economical issues. Similarly, if we approach this question by memory it is logical to believe that we should use every citizen’s money to invest in the future.

On the other hand, if we approach this question by reason universities should not be publicly available. This is because making universities public requires everyone to pay taxes for that higher education, this is unfair since only a certain group of people are going to use it. Another cause to not make universities public is due to the fact that there will be a huge gap in the academic and materialistic qualities present in public and private universities making each type of institution less diverse.