math vs history

Math is more logic and reasoning, and history is more of a memory thing.... But still, anything can apply.
We use reason in math to come up with answers that based on the rules, are completely "logical". We can use reason to come up with conclusions in history that are logical too, like "war causes death" and therefore we should support war. At the same time we use memory for math, we learn that 2+2=4... and we learn this because we've memorized it after years and years of hearing the same thing, and noticing the same pattern. In history we memorize dates, in order to somehow show that we know what we are talking about. So they mix with completely different aspects of knowledge, why should we compare them? They are both useful, you can live without acknowledging them but they will still be there... we hate math, and we hate history, but we love having them around!

Is mathematics discoered or invented?

Math... is invented and shifted in order to be able to apply it to our needs!      The earth did not naturaly think up numbers like 3.14 to determine how many times bigger did the circumpherence of a circle had to be in relationship to the diameter!     and how can we know if the square of the hypothenus is the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right angle triangle. The moment we decided we wanted to measure things, math was born. These things are not "discovered"... they have been found and figured out by mathematicians because they were looking for them! And I'm not saying that these findings are amazing, and yes, they have changed our world entirely. But we have shaped them in order to give reasons to things we can't grasp exactly and perfectly, because we always NEED to understand, we always NEED to know. That's what has gotten us this far out!

Response to history question a

i think the claim by Samuel Butler is closer to the truth because eventhough its biased it refers to the actual state of the situation. The fact that history is in the past makes just a unreliable as sciences. We cannot know exactly what happened in the past, the things we have to trust to know what happened are tales that other people claim that are true. But in reality, when are we able of being completely objective about something we lived? Whether its possitive or negative, the opinion of the person telling the facts will always be biased to one side or the other. Yes, history has facts, and numbers, and dates, but we know then because someone recorded all this, what if they got mixed up? what if they got then wrong? what if they tampered with the evidence?

so, in everysense historians can change history. Only a word can change how we undestand a complete statement. If we wanted to we could change our entire history. Just get a match and burn all of the paper. It's THAT easy playing history. now, how come only because its suposed to be "history" we believe it?

3 history KIs

1. To what extent should history be trusted based on the language used to express the facts?

2. To what extent is it possible to speak of history objectively?

3.

KI for Essay!

General: 2- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of reason as a way of knowing.

KI- To what extent is reason limited by our personal emotions?

MP-
1. Our capacity to reason about our choices is sometimes limited by our personal emotions.
     EX: So your boyfriend left you hanging to go out with his friends (yes, your a girl). You had been planning this date for days because it was your sixth month together. He didn't forget, he took you to lunch and gave huggs and kisses all over. But that's not enough for you, you want him all for yourself. Your now hurt and sad and depressed and PISSED. You call him up in the middle of the night, say you regret everything and you hate him, his an ass, and break up with him on the phone (lame). Three days later you're in much more pain than before because you miss him and want him back. Now, he is hurt and doesn't want you back because you're kinda crazy. At this point you were driven by you emotions and made a choice without thinking it through.
2. Our emotions can limit reason when dealing with others reasons AND emotions.
    EX: Imagine there is one person that you have never really liked, yet you can't avoid contact with that person and you normally have to work with him/her because karma thought it would be fun to make you suffer. So this one day, you have has a sucky morning (for any reason whatsoever) but you still have to unite forces with this other person and work on something together. You go look for Annoying (other person's name) so that you can get started and get it all over with, but Annoying is not feeling well either and tells you to wait. But you snap. You've been driven by your emotions and you perception Annoyng betrayed you.

my own chart-chart-chart

Good	Can you prove through emotion and sense perception the changes that chocolate has or doesn’t have in you?
Intermediate	Why should we trust scientific trust of chocolate helping bad mood?
Poor	Will chocolate help your bad mood?
Not a KI	Does chocolate taste good?
Real life Situation	Eating chocolate

:D I loooove chocolate, changes or not :)

Chart-chart-chart

Good	To what extent will reason support paranormal claims in order to prove them?	Based on history, is the exaggerated reaction of some people to this disease reasonable?	How will sense perception of this situation affect a boy's ability to reason without freaking out?
Intermediate	-------------------------------------	Can we trust swine flu to become an epidemic?	Should I be scared of Ms. Anne if I’ve done nothing wrong?
Poor	------------------------------------	------------------------------------	Why are kids so scared of Ms. Anne, while we are not?
Real-life Situation	A film on  haunting	News report on a new swine flu	An interview with Ms. Anne