IB Survival Update Coming Soon
On Saturday April 21st, IB Survival will be momentarily inaccessible while we upgrade the forums. A lot of new features, better search, and loads more. Sorry for any inconvenience!
I took SL Biology, and it was okay I guess.. Not too much content (okay, a lot, but still manageable). But, my Bio book also had the HL section in it as well, and the HL section in itself was practically the same thickness as the SL section, with information saturated into each of the pages. I don't know how I'd survive memorising all that stuff.. I guess the other sciences aren't too bad compared to Bio HL - they're more of understanding concepts and memorising formulas (the amount of which is nothing compared to what Bio HL kids have to memorise)
ashleigh7 replied to mablibsking's topic in Theory of KnowledgeYou could also try to think about how 'knowledge' can change and be discarded, because we are never sure about the complete validity of our theories and claims. For example, in the Natural Sciences - we have all these scientific laws and theories which are considered correct. Note that these theories are all based on interpreting patterns, and it is also in some more interpretation of patterns that these theories can be 'proven' and hence the validity also proven. However, we never really know if our theory is completely valid or not - since we cannot observe ALL phenomena in relation to it. For example, if person A saw only white swans in his neighbourhood, then his theory that "All swans are white" could be considered valid to him and the people around him, since there are no white swans around, but we know that this isn't the case - that although his theory isn't necessarily disproved in his area, it is somewhere else, with the existence of black swans. And, all that you need to discard this theory is just one occurrence of something that doesn't fit in with the pattern. And for history: history can, and is oftentimes, recorded in such a way that the events are not portrayed exactly. For example, how do we know that the way the reporter of an event perceives the event doesn't alter the way he tells it? You can discuss about 'Ways of Knowing' here, particularly emotion and language. Emotion as a way of knowing can give us a biased view of circumstances, and these individuals will then use their bias and turn it into a report of events which has biased language. Thus, the 'history' being given to future generations is flawed and doesn't portray the real circumstances. Thus, sometimes improvements need to be made, and views considered acceptable can be discarded so that history can be improved.