May be true to some degree in the US but in the rest of the world, I'm not sure

I like how the author bridges social issue into a scientific quantity

Earwax is invisible both to our vision and to old European's scientific knowledge

What exactly is the other world? Is it the other consciousness?

Looking at the image, Lincoln holds the slave with left hand and points up with his right arm. Left hand is often associated with arrogance and impoliteness in many asian countries.

Hidden bias by the artist to show what type of people is more superior than the other. Similar situation happens in the world map. Majority of the printed atlas would have Europe as the center. Tracing histories, Europe was the early world mappers.

When it comes to art, after unit 2 readings, this word conveys a very negative connotation to me

I remember studying Theory of Knowledge in highschool where we learned that history isnt fact, history is what historians want you to know. How do we know which version of history we should pick?

This explains current information exchange across multiple social media platform. There will always be the authority that sees and has access to almost everything without being in the communication between individuals.

perfectly governed city to whose perspective? Most likely government because they want a city to operates as they want it to. However, would the people be happy under this intense surveillance and power penetrated to their life?

Somehow aligns with Berger that reproduced graphics can be put into situations where they don't belong just to satisfy the reproducers' purposes.

Is the later one more common in today's art?

what does 'hypothesis' really mean here?

They are saying that the shadow in the cave from Plato's allegory is more pleasing

This reminds me of something I studied in Theory of Knowledge class while I was in high school. The meaning of art can be articulated from at least three ways: 1) from our own interpretation 2) from what the maker authoritatively dictates us to know what the art means (I don't like this one because it breaks the freedom when we see art) 3) From public's interpretation.

There is something in Design called the perception effect (if im not mistaken) which states the exact same thing. We see objects collectively instead of its individually. And the order, the mapping of this collective objects affect the way we understand their functions.

Conventional reaction to people who have different opinions from public's perspective.

To me this depicts an image of people being attached, addicted to something that doesn't reflect truth because all they see is a shadow, which is an interpretation that includes bias. Its not the real image from the real, outside world.

Light would take approximately 8 minutes from the sun to reach Earth. Therefore, the use of 'instantaneously' is misleading. This implies the limit of our sight to understand something that moves extremely fast.

How? Black and white, when assigned with a magnitude of power and combined will only create the shades of grey

These sentences sound like wave superposition in Physics; constructive and destructive interference. Interesting how people at this age had the ability to imagine such thing.

Sentences supporting ocularcentrism, emphasizing the significance of eyes as a part of human body. If human beings were crafted without eyes, would we, through evolution, develop another way to perceive our surrounding?

emotions and sights; two different ways of knowing interconnected, showing that ways of knowing are not isolated. Had we only had eyes to see, without other ways of knowing -emotions, logic, faith, imagination-, can we still believe like we do now?

Indeed, our eyes can't see the wave outside the visible spectrum, but some devices can. Should seeing through something that is not a part of our body (not directly connected to our nerves and brain) present equivalent degree of 'believing'?