Date: 22/9/2016

In today's lesson of ToK, we discussed the Theory of Knowledge and what it means to us. We were given a list of statements and presented with 3 questions, starting by asking if the statements have the same process of knowing. They do not have the same process of knowing since each statement was based on a different way of knowing (belief, faith, logic, observation, etc). These cannot be answered by the same criteria. The second question was if these are just language differences or if the go deeper. I think that the difference of these statements goes much deeper, since they all are pretty different comprehensible constructs. 2 + 2 = 4 is an easy construct to grasp but something as emotionally complex of love is different to measure or know for certain. I think these statements are not equally verifiable since you can in no way prove that god loves you, while knowing how to ride a bike is based off of personal experience and understanding. Verifiability matters a lot, in order to determine what actually is knowledge. Allowing something to be considered knowledge while it has no evidence seems pretty foolish. This was my reaction and interpretation for the questions provided and i believe i have regarded them skeptically