Tok Statements

Andres R.
TOK Statements
1.1 Introduction to cells
There is a difference between the living and the non-living environment. How are we able
to know the difference?
Living and non-living environments have quite a lot of differences. These can be differ
by simply identifying certain aspects. Whether there are living organisms near, which
have certain characteristics such as being able to grow, reproduce, to move, have
stimulus, etc. These living organisms are what make a living environment, such as an
ecosystem, and these same living organisms are made up of cells. A non-living
environment consist of non-living characteristics, such as matter that isnt made up of
cells but of atoms. For example, a factory or a store. On the other hand, a living
environment would be places like a forest or a city.
1.2
Ultrastructure of cells
The world that we inhabit is limited by the world that we see. Is there any distinction to
be drawn between knowledge claims dependent upon observations made by sense
perception and knowledge claims dependent upon observations assisted by technology?
There are many distinctions when it comes to this topic. Without technology, neither of
the sciences would be in the state and advancement that they are today. Neither Biology,
Chemistry, or any of the other sciences would be in this state without technology. This
tool helps us see what we cant see. We wouldnt be able to discover the atom or bacteria,
maybe not even microorganisms. If science were based on human perception, there
would be a completely different atmosphere to what we know today. Many ideas would
probably be wrong, and the society would not be able to discover any of the major
discoveries that have taken place over history.
1.3
Membrane structure
The explanation of the structure of the plasma membrane has changed over the years as
new evidence and ways of analysis have come to light. Under what circumstances is it
important to learn about theories that were later discredited?
It is really important to take into consideration these theories. For they help society shape
the image and what we know about a certain topic. This way society can learn from its
mistakes and also have a deeper perspective on what we dont know. For example, in this
case it is about the plasma membrane structure, which has changed over the years
because there is new evidence. It is through this that scientists and keep researching to
verify if their knowledge is true or not. Whether what society already knows is true or
not, and what we know and dont know.
1.5
The origin of cells
Biology is the study of life, yet life is an emergent property. Under what circumstances is
a systems approach productive in biology and under what circumstances is a reductionist
approach more appropriate? How do scientists decide between competing approaches?
Biology sure does involve many different approaches and perspectives from which
scientists can analyze on. But, a systems approach would be finding connections amongst
any topic of Biology, such as ecosystems or finding connections between organisms and
species. That is a good way to approach this field of science. But theres also a
reductionist approach. Which is looking to reduce one theory or phenomenon to another
theory or phenomenon. This basically explains how something, or some topic can be
simplified. I believe that a systems approach is much better in this field of science,
because finding connections amongst different topics is what actually helps scientists
discover new research every day.
1.6
Cell division
A number of scientific discoveries are claimed to be incidental or serendipitous. To what
extent might some of these scientific discoveries be the result of intuition rather than
luck?
Many scientific discoveries can be a result of intuition. This is like a way to risk doing
something to see if a result changes. For example, a scientist might be running trials on
plants that are growing, and his/her intuition believes that a certain brand or dose of the
chemicals placed in a plant, could definitely cause them to grow much faster. It all
depends on ones hypothesis and experiment. Without intuition and risking over
something we dont know, scientific discoveries such as Newtons Law, wouldnt have
happened. Isaac Newtons discovery was based on an apple that had fell of a tree. This
was solely based on chance and luck of him being there. Which lead to a significant
discovery not only in the field of science, but also in the whole world.

Tok Statements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tok Statements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tok Statements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Andres R.

not, and what we know and dont know.

You might also like