Average

=:The Average Presentation:=
-------------------------------------------

What is an average?

•An average refers to a measure of the “middle” of the data set.
•Average is also known as central tendency.
•The most common method of finding the average is using the arithmetic mean.
–Arithmetic mean is the some of all measurements divided by the number of observation in a data set.
Average = (Sum of all the terms) / Number of terms
---------------------------------------------

Oscar Chisini

•He was algebraic geometry researcher.
•Obtained a degree in mathematics in 1912.
•He was involved in original reconstruction of mathematical theories.
•Introduced ‘Chisini mean’ in 1929
–Chisini mean includes arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, etcetera.
•He taught mathematics at secondary school level. And that led him to reflect on the notion of mean, eventually giving an original definition .
-------------------------------------------------

What is average used for?

•The average is used to calculate what is the most common reading in a set of reading.

•In science,
–The average is calculated to minimize the margin of error in an experiment
•The higher the number of replicates, the more accurate the results
–Then it is used to plot a graph
~The graph is then used in report and conclusions.

•In other areas,
–Observations are compared against the average which is used as a standard.
~Conclusions can be then be drawn from the comparison.
---------------------------------------------------------

What was average initially used for?

•The original meaning of the word is “damage sustained at sea”

•This damage or general average, is borne by the owner of the damaged property
–The owner can claim a proportional contribution from all parties to the marine venture

•The type of calculation used in adjusting general average gives rise to today’s arithmetic mean.
------------------------------------------------------------

Evaluating average…

•The problems with arithmetic mean:
–Greatly influenced by outliers.

•Outliers are singular observation far from the rest of the data.

•Consider a set of data, (1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 9).
–The arithmetic mean is 3.17 but five out of six of the numbers are lower than that!

•In these cases, other measures of central tendency should be considered.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Can statistics be subjective?

•Consider a group of 12 people with varying amount of money.
In ascending order: 5,10,15,17,20,22,26,27,30,30,35,107

•Arithmetic Mean =(5+10+15+17+20+22+26+27+30+30+35+107) / 12
=$27.33

•Median=(26+27)/2
=$26.50

•Mode = $30.00

•Interquartile mean = (17+20+22+ 26+27+30)/6
= $20.67

•Midrange Mean = (5+107)/2
= $56.00

•Depending on the what the statistics is used for, the average used will also vary.
–If one going to give away the amount of money that is equal to the average, than lowest average found will be considered.
–If one is receiving money according to the average amount, than the highest average willl be taken.

•Each central tendency has its own value and brings across different findings when used.

•Certain values are omitted in calculation, for example interquartile mean.
–This can be seen as doctoring results or making the result more accurate.
•Therefore, can statistics truly be objective?
-------------------------------------------

Biblography.

•Teknomo, Kardi. Mean or Average. http:\\people.revoledu.com\kardi\ tutorial\BasicMath\Average•Weisstein, Eric W. "Mean." From Mathworld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/mean.html
•Luca La Rocca. Oscar Chisini. http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Chisini.html
Read also: How to lie with statistics, Darrell Huff

3. ‘There is nothing more objective than the laws of mathematics.’ Discuss. Making reference to the mathematical and at least one other mode of inquiry to illustrate your argument.


I would disagree that mathematical inquiry is objective but I would agree that it is more objective than other modes of inquiry.

Firstly, how does a “mode of inquiry” qualify as objective? Does it have to be void of emotions or biased opinions? I believe is such a guideline is applied then mathematics does not qualify as purely objective.

Take statistics for example. Statisticians use mathematics to calculate averages. Arithmetic mean, midrange mean, interquartile mean are some form of averages. All of them have different formulas and all of them lead to different results but all can be used to calculate the average. Depending on what kind of argument the statistician wants to bring across, a different average is used. Biasness over certain results is displayed and the desired result can be obtained. How can we say that statistics or mathematics is objective in this case?

But mathematics can be objective when it is used in calculations such as Newtonian Mechanics found by Sir Isaac Newton to determine something like the velocity of a celestial body, or its position in space.

Mathematics that we apply in everyday life has certain basis to it and it relies on a few axioms. Then there is pure mathematics or abstract mathematics that has nothing to do with everyday life. The law of pure mathematics holds through only in that persons mind until it can be applied in real life. It would be more accurate to call these laws subjective.

Ancient mathematicians found a “Golden Ratio”, denoted by phi. It is approximately 1.618. This ratio can be found in spiral objects ranging from sea shells, sunflowers and galaxies. Johannes Kepler once described phi as one of the “two great treasures of geometry” In nature, this ratio is nothing more than approximations, but it shows that there is something common in objects around us. This is one of the more objective results of mathematics.

Though it is not fully objective, I find it more objective than other modes of inquiry.

Let us consider scientific inquiry. One is required to construct hypothesis and observe an experiment to prove the hypothesis. If the results do not tally with the hypothesis, the hypothesis is revised to obtain a more accurate one. If the revised hypothesis does not suit the results, then it is discarded and a new one is form. Scientific inquiry is based on empiricism where experience plays a heavy role in it.

When something is based on experience, the conclusion is often open to interpretation. The same incident can mean radically different things to two different people. This is because these two have different upbringings, different opinions about things or may be just plain bias, therefore there can be alternate explanation for the same incident. But in mathematics, when the same set of number is used in the same equation by two different people, no matter how much they differ in thinking, biasness or upbringing, as long as their results are accurate, than the result will be the same.
Do not forget the whenever we use an instrument to measure something, we will somehow alter the observe results. One must remember Heisenburg’s Uncertainty Principle that state that we cannot determine something as it truly is. For example if we want to observe an electron, we have to fire some sort of “light” to see it. But this will excite the electron and promote it to a higher than expected energy level.

I do believe that mathematics will not be implicated by the Uncertainty Principle as nothing is disturbed in the calculation other than the medium perform the calculations. This holds true unless empirical measurements are made.

Other than science and mathematics, philosophy is also used to acquire knowledge.

Different philosophers have different views of obtaining knowledge. Some uses skepticism, where they believe that nothing is for certain. Others believe in pragmatism, where only the concept or theory that contributes the most good to the society is true. There are other forms such as idealism, rationalism, contextualism and etcetera.

The concept of good and evil is rather subjective. What is good for majority may be bad for the minority. And the concept of good and bad is used heavily in pragmatism. Two pragmatist that has different concept of good and evil will have different conclusions. This shows that pragmatism is subjective.

There is also the matter of upbringing of the philosopher, where he studied and his views on certain things. The same matter can mean different things to different philosophers just like how the same result can mean different things to different scientists. The conclusion that a philosopher draws is therefore relative and holds true only for the people that have the same thinking as the philosopher.

There are many epistemological approaches but some of them have conflicting views while some support one another. Take for example idealism and materialism. One believes in ideal forms while the other in material items. One may have to alter his philosophical findings to suit his school of thought or it may strengthen the opposition or destroy that school of thought entirely.

In conclusion, although mathematics is not absolutely an objective mode of inquiry, rather, it is the most objective as compare to philosophical inquiry and scientific inquiry. At this point in time, I do believe that nothing is absolute in being objective

6. ‘Aesthetics has no real value to societies’ Examine, with reference to the Aesthetics, how the concept of value applies to knowledge


The first thing aesthetics brings to mind is that it is nothing more than just an opinion. Though it is thought that mere opinions cannot contribute to obtaining knowledge, it is useful in filtering for the scientists and mathematicians to filter off “ugly” knowledge and to beautify what they have found. But how does the concept of value apply to knowledge?

Things can be valued with different criterions. An aesthetically valuable thing is something that is simple, ideal or pragmatic, depending on the scientist, mathematician and the observer. But let us consider only simplicity and ideals for this essay.

Firstly, take mathematics as an example. To a mathematician, a beautiful mathematical proof is one that uses a minimum of additional assumptions or previous results, unusually short, easy to generalize to solve a family of problems. Without aesthetics, no doubt that the mathematician can produce the same results with a lengthier proof, and justify many other mathematical beliefs, but this will involve too many calculations. It is due to aesthetics, the opinion, that mathematicians reduce their methods into short, simple ones. And in this case, it has refined the knowledge from “ugly”, over-elaborated ones to “beautiful”, simple ones.

As such, William Ockham and his “Occam’s razor” come to mind. Occam’s razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible and eliminating those assumptions that does not make a difference to the prediction. This suggests that the simplest explanations are usually the best. As quoted by Albert Einstein, “Things should be as simple as possible, but not any simpler.” This quote suggested that Einstein, the founder of Einstein Field Equations which is used in general relativity, used Occam’s razor to some extent.

In both cases, aesthetics has given support to the societies of the modern world. Even though it is just opinion, these aesthetically beautiful equations, explanations and etceteras have benefited the society. With the aid of these equations and explanations, we have been able to calculate when the next eclipse is, where a planet will be after a period of time and what aliment a patient is suffering from and such. It is unfair to say that aesthetics has no real value to societies.

Idealism, founded by Plato, suggested perfect forms. Perfect suggests a state of flawlessness and completeness. For example, a flawless precious gem is of a higher value than one that is flawed. Idealism can be used to evaluate objects or observations in the sense that when these things are compared to what is deemed as perfect, how close to the perfect form is it. Idealism is a valuable tool of epistemology. Considering if aesthetics have no real value to the societies, would this render idealism invalid too?

In the school of thought where ideals are considered first and simpler explanation and methods are preferred over others, aesthetics plays a major part in the construction of knowledge, either as a filter or an incentives to scientists and mathematicians that derive aesthetic pleasure from their work.

“Aesthetics has no real value to societies.” This is probably the motto of an opposing school of thought.

In terms of simplicity, a few people considered Occam’s razor too extreme or rash. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz also devised his own anti-razor that used the Principle of Plentitudes.

This principle asserts that anything that can happen will happen. Leibniz anti-razor gives rise to “infinite monkey theorem” that states that a monkey hitting keys on a typewriter at random for an infinite amount of time will almost surely create a particular text. But the chance of it happening is very low. Consider the word monkey. There is fifty keys on a typewriter, therefore the chances of hitting the letter “M” is one out of fifty. The chance of hitting the letter “O” is also one out of fifty. Since the event is independent, the chance of hitting an “O” after an “M” is one out of two hundred and fifty. Therefore to type out the word “banana”, it is a one out of fifty to the power of six chances.

Skeptics will ask, “Without aesthetics the societies will improve at similar rate?”, “How can simplified things be valued above the rest?”, “Could the simplification of mathematical equations reduce the amount of time calculating so significantly that the world can advance so quickly?”

In my opinion, the world is a better place due to the simplicity of knowledge. No doubt the world can reach the same stage of development without simplification and ideals but it will only reach the stage at a slower rate.

In conclusion, the aesthetically beautiful explanations and equations and the aesthetic concept of value, when applied to knowledge has aided the world in its advancement and that it has a value to the societies.

“No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience” Discuss the implication of the statement.

“No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience” Discuss the implication of the statement.

Experience, it is obtain when a person goes through a certain event. Therefore experience will give rise to empirical knowledge or a posterior knowledge. This is because knowledge that is obtained experience must first be observed through sense and perception first, then processed and justified. Knowledge, to set the context straight, would be justified truth. This means that true knowledge can only be obtained through truth and belief.

“No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience.” This statement implies that without experience, no one is able to obtain knowledge. An example of knowledge through experience would be knowing that a naked flame can burn and cause harm to yourself after observing the naked flame burn someone, or yourself.

It is a statement disregards the existence of a priori knowledge, which the knowledge is obtained to pure reasoning alone. After all, the knowledge is not obtained to experiencing it, but by reasoning it to be justified truth.

Infants tend to grab onto things that they can touch. What makes them do it? Is it because they feel safer, more secure, with something to hold onto? But this will imply that the infants believe that grabbing something will bring security. They have no prior knowledge that doing so will protect them, so why are they doing it? Could it be that we are born with innate knowledge? Or is the human body “wired” to do such things? If it can be proven that humans are born with knowledge, the statement will no longer hold true.

In science classes, students are made to conduct experiments after experiments, to record all their findings and to evaluate their results. Students are made to experience these experiments to gain the knowledge that mixing certain reagents will give that result or that higher the mass, the greater the velocity it will travel down a slope. Teachers make their students practice math questions so that they can get used to the questions, observe patterns, formulate ideas and hopefully do better in their examination. These teachers believe that through experiencing doing the question is more effective than just reading about them. And this belief would be gotten from past observations that students that practices do much better than those who do not. The statement will used as a dogma if it holds true and there students will be made to experience to gain their knowledge.

Another implication of the statement is that second-hand experiences and third-hand experiences will not build up one’s knowledge although it may alter his perceptions. Second-hand or third-hand experiences are ultimately not one’s own experience, but someone else experiences. But even in first-hand experience, the observation is subjected heavily to sense-perception errors and personal interpretation. With second-hand experience, it will complement the first-hand experiences with multiple points of view, improvements and so on. Second-hand experience will give rise to new knowledge. Would this be true if the statement is held as an absolute?

Classic condition or associative learning, as described by Aristotle, is when two things commonly occur simultaneously, the appearance of one will bring the other to mind. The statement where no man’s knowledge can go beyond his experience will explain this phenomenon. After one has experience the occurrence of two things at once, over and over again, he will associate the appearance of one with the other. This is a typical empirical observation that has become “knowledge” or just a belief to that one person alone. Ivan Pavlov has conducted experiments on classic conditioning and the results all agree with each other. A traumatic experience can also condition the mind in such a way that similar events will cause fear into the observer.

Edwin Hubble observed a peculiar event going on in the outer space. He observed that galaxies are actually moving away from each other and the velocity the galaxies are receding from one another is proportional to the distance they are from each other. Through his observations, Edwin Hubble came up with the equation, V=HD, where V is the velocity the galaxies are receding, H is a constant and D is the distance between the galaxies. Without Hubble’s observations, or experiences per se, this equation would not hold water anymore. This is empirical knowledge being formed. This knowledge is then used to support the Big Bang Theory by Georges Henri Lemaitre, a physicist and an astronomer.

Georges Henri Lemaitre, through reasoning and mathematics concluded that the universe started as a singularity. Reasoning and mathematics are typical forms of a priori knowledge. This is another example that would be disregarded if the statement holds through.

Therefore, “No man’s knowledge can go beyond his experience,” is a statement that cannot be held as an absolute although it has it basis in many things. It can be improved by saying that knowledge can also be obtained through reasoning alone.

That big bang idea - Fred Hoyle

That big bang idea - Fred Hoyle

The Father of the Big Bang Theory

• Father Georges-Henri Lemaître, 1984-1966 , proposed his theory in, 1927.
• Using Albert Einstein’s General Relativity, Lemaître derived equations and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae that the universe began with the “explosion” of the “primeval atom”.
• Fred Hoyle coined the name “Big Bang” by referring to Lemaître's theory as “this big bang idea”.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Foundations of Big Bang
• General Relativity
– The presence of matter bends space-time, and this curvature affects all free particles.

• Cosmological Principle
– A reasonable assumption or axiom that states:
• On larger scales, the universe is homogeneous and isotopic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Observations.
• In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that galaxies outside the Milky Way were systematically moving away from us with a speed proportional their distance from us. This phenomenon was observed as a cosmological redshift of a galaxy spectrum.

• Hubble’s Law of Expansion
– The further an object, the faster it is traveling.
– V = Recessional velocity of distant object.
– H0 = Hubble’s constant, measured to be (71+/- 5%)km/s/Mpc by WMAP probe recently.
– D = Distance of the object

• Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
– The Big Bang theory predicted that cosmic microwave background radiation had a near perfect blackbody spectrum and it anisotropies.
• In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation accidentally when they tried to find the source of interference on the SHF band microwave links.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Observations. So?
• This observations tells us a few things.
– Since the galaxies are moving apart today, they must have been closer in the past.
• This implies that very long ago, these galaxies would be at the same point.

• Big Bang Theory predicted the existence of background radiation.
– The existence of CMB is confirmed.
• Gives evidence that Big Bang is the start of the universe

The chim stuff...

====================================

The chim stuff...


Red-Shift
Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are red-shifted, meaning that the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This is seen by taking a frequency spectrum of the objects and then matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. From this analysis, a red-shift corresponding to a Doppler shift for the radiation can be measured which is explained by a recessional velocity. When the recessional velocities are plotted against the distances to the objects, a linear relationship, known as Hubble's law, is observed.

Doppler Effect
Named after Christian Andreas Doppler, is the apparent change in frequency and wavelength of a wave that is perceived by an observer moving relative to the source of the waves. 1st proposed in 1842.
This hypothesis was tested for sound waves by the Dutch scientist Christoph Hendrik Diederik Buys Ballot in 1845. He confirmed that the sound's pitch was higher as the sound source approached him, and lower as the sound source receded from him.
Hippolyte Fizeau discovered independently the same phenomenon on electromagnetic waves in 1848.
It is important to realize that the frequency of the sounds that the source emits does not actually change. To understand what happens, consider the following analogy. Someone throws one ball every second in a man's direction. Assume that balls travel with constant velocity. If the thrower is stationary, the man will receive one ball every second. However, if the thrower is moving towards the man, he will receive balls more frequently because the balls will be less spaced out. The converse is true if the thrower is moving away from the man. So it is actually the wavelength which is affected; as a consequence, the perceived frequency is also affected.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
Form of electromagnetic radiation discovered in 1965 that fills the entire universe. It has a thermal 2.725 kelvin black body spectrum which peaks in the microwave range at a frequency of 160.4 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm.
Black body radiation is the kind of radiation given off from an object which if cold would be perfectly black, that is would absorb radiation of all wavelengths equally well. When heated such a body emits radiations with a well defined distribution over wavelengths.



Big Bang’s Theory on CMBR
In the theory, the early universe was made up of hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons. The photons were constantly interacting with the plasma through Thomson scattering. As the universe expanded, the cosmological redshift caused the plasma to cool until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. At this point, the photons did not scatter off of the neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space. This process is called recombination or decoupling (referring to electrons combining with nuclei and to the decoupling of matter and radiation respectively).
The photons continued cooling until they reached their present 2.725 K temperature. Accordingly, the radiation from the sky we measure today comes from a spherical surface, called the surface of last scattering, from which the photons that decoupled from interaction with matter in the early universe, 13.7 billion years ago, are just now reaching observers on Earth. The big bang suggests that the cosmic microwave background fills all of observable space, and that most of the radiation energy in the universe is in the cosmic microwave background, which makes up a fraction of roughly 5×10-5 of the total density of the universe.

Thomson Scattering
In physics, Thomson scattering is the scattering of electromagnetic radiation by a charged particle. The electric and magnetic components of the incident wave accelerate the particle. As it accelerates, it in turn emits radiation and thus, the wave is scattered. Thomson scattering is an important phenomenon in plasma physics and was first explained by the physicist J.J. Thomson.

The good, the bad and the _______

The good, the bad and the _______...


What I am good and bad at?

Basically, I’m pretty good with playing games on the computer and the various gaming consoles and with my Chemistry. I wonder if my command of the English language should be included… I just love to play RPG games, I even set aside my weekends to play! Chemistry is my favorite subject and I will abandon all other subjects if I had to choose only one subject. Fantasy novels are my cup of tea and I’m usually seen reading one. So it seems that only things I like are the things I am good at.

I have a few things that I’m not so good at but not totally bad at… Things like swimming, playing the piano and such. I have to swim every Wednesdays so I have the practice, just like I have piano lessons on every Sundays. Though I have the practices, I do not excel in them because I do not have the same level of passion for them as the ones in the above paragraph!

I’m really bad with memorizing things. Just memorizing names of my own classmates is a feat itself! I am also bad with math. Though it is suppose to be very logical, I cannot grasp the concept of the chapter unless I have external help, be it from my tutor and friends, or by practicing, using examples that have already been solved. I also have the tendency to miss items that are coming my way. Footballs, Frisbees, soccer balls, basketballs… All the projectiles that I’m suppose to catch always seem to evade me. Hand-eye coordination problem?

Physically fit!

Physically fit!Physically, physically fit!

How did I pick up physical skills- Fine and gross motor skills?

Fine motor skills would be typing, using controllers, playing the piano, writing and such, which concerns only small amount of muscles. While gross motor skills are skills such as swimming, dancing, jumping, running, and etcetera, which involve a large portion of the body.

First of all, what fine motor skills have I acquired through my life? Over the course of sixteen years, I learned how to type, play video games, the piano and writing…

I picked up these fine motor skills by practicing. An example would be, in the beginning, when I first started to type on my keyboard, I could not type, as quickly, it was literally one sentence per minute! But ever since I have been chatting online almost every single day, I get more practice and it just seems that fingers know where each letters are and I am now able to type word after word in rapid succession without much mistakes. What an achievement! It’s the same doing anything. One will find using a skill difficult at first, but only with sufficient practice and guidance, then he will be very good at it.

For gross motor skills, I picked up my gross motor skills by mimicking my mentor, practicing the same action over and over again; fine-tuning the action with my mentor’s guidance and editing the action to suit me.

One may be able to learn by reading a guidebook. But take note that you will not be able execute the proper techniques without one to guide you as the same descriptions in a book can mean different things to different people. And remember, practice makes perfect, not reading.

Flower. Flower! ORCHID! So clever...

Flower. Flower! ORCHID! So clever...

How did we learn our languages?

I believe that we learn our languages by observing, associating, mimicking and integrating…

A baby is very curious and very impressionable. When his parent uses a word repeatedly, the child will try to use that word, or rather mimic that sound. And when that child makes these sounds, the parents will have various reactions. Though a child cannot understand these sounds, but he is able to feel the emotion that his parents are showing. And depending on these reactions, the child will come to know what sound to avoid and what to use.

The child will grow to understand that certain sounds are linked to certain objects with certain distinct features as time goes by. And by using these sounds, these objects will be brought to them. Like making the sound that resembles the word “Daddy” and pretty soon your father will come running to you. Depending on what the child wants and the limit of his vocabulary, the child will understand what sounds to make when he wants certain items.

Though at a young age, the maximum a child could say was a simple phrase, but as time goes by the child would have consciously or unconsciously picked up grammatical rules used in conversations, sentences used by radio deejays and even television commercials around them. The child begins by mimicking the sentence when he grasps the essence of the rule, he then experiments with the rule with his own words. Though a bit crude sounding in the beginning, through guidance, the child will then learn the proper way of speaking the language.

If the child can understand different languages and is confident with the grammatical rules of each language, chances are he may assimilate the different languages and make his own unique style of speaking. The rise of Singlish may be caused by the assimilation of the different languages used by the different groups of people living in Singapore.

For the youths and adults, the way of learning languages is fairly different, as they have already gotten comfortable with their languages, but it gives them an advantage to understand a foreign language with ease, as it can be translated into something they can understand for them.
When thrown into a community that only speaks a different kind of language, that person will have to learn the new language quickly. And usually, by directly translating the message from one language to another, constant practice, trial-and-error while using the language and listening to the language, that person gets the hang of the language very quickly.

Principle of Charity!

Why Do We Have to Consider the Principle of Charity?

We have to consider the principle of charity because some arguments may have insufficient or inappropriate premises to leading to the conclusion. People will not be able to understand, evaluate or make sense to such arguments. In such cases, we have to consider the Principle of Charity. By adding in your own premises into the argument, as the word charity suggests, it would help others to understand the argument better.

When is Principle of Charity most useful?

Principle of Charity is most useful when an argument makes utterly sense to the listener or reader at all. By invoking the principle, we fill in the blanks left in the argument. By doing this, we may or may not understand the argument a little more, but it does worth a try then not understand the argument totally.

Under what circumstances is Principle of Charity ignored?

Principle of Charity is ignored when the argument have conclusions that has premises which is sufficient in showing how the conclusion is arrived. In such circumstances, we are can fully understand and evaluate the argument. By applying Principle of Charity, we may widen the domain of the argument thus making the argument confusing or in other cases throw the whole argument off course.

Ranger Creed

How does the Ranger Creed apply to me as a KI student?
No… I can’t react with the Creed… I’m not a potassium iodide solution! That was off-topic, but you gotta admit that it’s funny…

Seriously… This is how the Ranger Creed applies to me, but I shall be called the Knowledge and Inquiry Creed since I changed some words, but I think the essence of the Ranger Creed is still there...

Recognizing the fact that I volunteered to take KI just like a ranger did. I am also fully aware that KI requires me to brave through loads of homework, research, brainstorming and thinking outside the vat, I mean box. Many of my friends believe that KI is a very difficult topic and only really good people can take it. Since I don’t want to disappoint them, I will uphold the prestige, honor and high esprit de corps of my KI Regiment!

Acknowledging the fact that a KI student is more than just an ordinary student and that everyone expects me to know more, think faster and fight harder in the examination hall a.k.a battlefield.

Never will I let down my KI comrades. Always mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight. I will do more than what I am supposed to do, whatever the task may be. I will put in more than just a hundred percent into KI!!!

Gallantly I will show the world that I am specially selected and well-trained KI student. My courtesy to superior beings, neatness of dress and care of equipment (computers, books and what-not) shall set the example for others to follow.

Energetically I will meet the enemies of my generation. Sloth, hubris and greed are going down like the pitiful flies they are for I shall defeat them for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a found in Yan Han’s or any KI students’ dictionary (I hope). I will never leave a fallen comrade to the hand of the enemies and there is no way I will ever embarrass my subject!

Readily I will display the fortitude required to fight on to the KI objective and complete the mission, even if it means by myself.
------------------------

The Knowledge and Inquire Creed, the reviewed version of Ranger Creed.

How does it apply to me?
Well... I have no idea whatsoever. I mean… Just look at it and whatever its up there is what I should be doing! Not that I haven’t done it yet…

I make it seem as if KI is some high and mighty subject and that all KI students are elites… But hey, in actually fact, I am just like anyone else, its’ just that I choose KI over GP! In any case, in KI is a new topic in Singapore and it seems that I’m in the pioneer batch! The responsibility of setting the benchmark is on my shoulders! *Gasps in horror*

Rangers Lead The Way! Only in this case, its 1989 KI students Lead The Way!

Sua Sponte. It’s a Latin phrase meaning of one accord. This means to act spontaneously without prompting from another party. Well… I think it doesn’t apply to just the KI students. Everyone should use “Sua Sponte” as their personal motto! Think about it. In Meridian Junior College, we are always told that we can initiate events, start our own CCAs and everything else. But if we don’t act on our own accord, we can’t do anything that hasn’t already been done!
But as a KI student I guess I got to start researching, and doing 101 things without the prompting of my teachers if I am to accomplice something as a KI student, right?