James Robson's Blog

Okay, so I'm going to go through the rest of my subjects like a did last time, and produce predictions for them.

Maths:
-Yeah, I did this last time; however, I have since done my calculator paper. Which was easy. This subject's pretty much an A* now, I'm fairly certain.

So, A* is my overrall prediction, if I also consider my prediction last time. This is exactly on target.

English Language
-First exam went okay- wrote quite a lot, and I think it was enough to get me the A*. Exam was fairly easy, just a bit of comprehension and then an explaining piece- went a bit OTT again, but it was okay. A* for this section, I think- maybe A.
-Second exam went slightly worse, not too much though- was a little unsure of my creative writing for this part as I feel I didn't perhaps focus properly. Did go fairly well though- prediction, A or A*- probably A.
-Coursework I think is an easy A* here- I got an A* in all of my coursework for language, I think. Almost definitely an A*.

So, rounding down, it's an A, rounding up, it's an A*- in total therefore, it's an A*/A, and that's my prediction.

History
-First exam went quite well- however I rushed teh last question and accordingly I feel I may have slipped marks here. Unfortunately, the mark scheme is brutal- ergo, this is pretty definitely an A.
-Second exam went better, but not all the way better, and I think I may have skipped in some of the facts todo with the Roaring Twenties. Accordingly, this is also probably an A.
-Coursework was an A.

It's fairly clear, therefore, that have gained an A in GCSE History. That's my prediction.

Chemistry
-In C1a and 1b, I got an A*. So, that's an A* for the first third of this. I know this already.
-In my ISA, I got an A* as well.
-The first of the two chemistry exams was hard- pretty tricky calculations and think I may have slipped up explaining some things. Still, the marks are normally pretty leniant- this could be an A, could be an A*- not sure.
-In C3, I'm fairly sure I got an A*- leniant exams coupled with a confidence in most of my answers mean I reckon I've done well.

Overall, therefore, probably an A*, maybe, MAYBE, an A. But probably an A*.

Physics
-Got full marks in P1a and P1b. SO an A* there.
-ISA I got an A- pretty good,certainly something to "bank".
-P3 I got an A, just below an A*- coupled with my excellent performane in P1 and I'm averaging A* for my exams.
-P2 went great- ansered all the questions fully and I think, well- EXCEPT< the last one, where I forgot to turn the page and missed half the question,I found out later. As I say, the amrkscheme is leniant- but I reckon I'll have got an A instead of an A* here.

Conclusion is reverse of Chemistry- A, maybe MAYBE and A*, depends how much else I got wrong on the Physics paper- but an A* is possible.

Round-up of predictions (from both posts):
Latin: A/A*
RE: A*/A
Maths: A*
English Literature: A
Biology: A*/A
English Language: A*/A
History: A
Chemistry: A*/A
Physics: A/A*

Now, that'd certainly be a nice lot of GCSE results indeed. Very much so. I'll have to wait and see!

Labels: biology, chemistry, english, english language, english literature, estimate, exams, grades, history, latin, literature, Maths, physics, RE, results, science

Posted by James Robson at 09:28 | Permalink | Comments

Pondering things today on my worldview, or distinct lack of a coherent one thereof.

For someone who ascribes to logic the utmost importance, I don't respect it much when it comes to thinking about gelling views together. An example:

I was talking the other day to Sean about his "nth-wave" philosophical idea. At it's core, more or less, it says that "Just because you can't think of any argument that refutes a claim at knowledge doesn't mean there isn't one." Now, I pretty much agree here. (An interesting aspect of this is that it in itself doubts itself.)

However, I was then talking about the way you have to ignore this for some things. Sean's recently been disillusioned by science, Physics in specifics, I suppose because of this basic problem of knowledge and proof. But I, regrettably, see no problem here. I see the two thing on completely separate levels: OK, yes, we can't prove anything. But let's pretend we can. What then? And so on.

I feel I have failed somewhat to fully set out my feelings here. Essentially, viewing the world in this way, layered, not caring about the implications of the foundations being non-existent and continuing to pretend as if they do exist, and are made of granite: it takes a certain detachment from the world. Is this healthy? I'm not sure... it's fun though!

I think the best metaphor I have for this way of thinking is like viewing the world as a toy. Like a Rubik's Cube, but every face is a different puzzle, and they're all fractal-shaped- you can get lost in the intricate details of one part while ignoring the rest of the whole- or, if you choose, you can regard the whole. Does it even exist? Can we prove it? No matter- the toy is fun anyway.

So yes... that's pretty much what I think. As you can see, it's a little incoherent. But then, that's how I began.

Labels: detachment, epistemology, foundations, incoherance, logic, nth wave, philosophy, physics, science, toy, world, world toy

Posted by James Robson at 18:48 | Permalink | Comments