ToK Exhibition: Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?
Get a copy of TOK Exhibition Prompts 1-5 Explained at this link.
Detailed explanations of each prompt, including suggestions for knowledge claims and objects that could be used in the Exhibition.
The May 2022 ToK subject report clearly explains that the most important factor separating ToK Exhibitions with adequate grades from exhibitions with high grades is the specificity of the objects, and the specificity of the knowledge discussions developed from those objects. The way to achieve the required specificity is to develop knowledge arguments for each object at the beginning of the exhibition.
A video overview of this commentary can be found here.
You can find out a lot more on the role of specificity in the ToK Exhibition at this link.
The three knowledge arguments that I have developed for this prompt are:
Knowledge Arguments:
Knowledge Argument 1: Contextually specific Knowledge is more useful than contextually general knowledge is more useful.
Knowledge Argument 2: Falsified knowledge (ie wrong answers) can be more useful than correct answers..
Knowledge Argument 3: All knowledge can be of equal use, its the interpretation of knowledge that matters.
As ever, I strongly recommend that you develop your three knowledge arguments before you pick your objects. the objects should arise from the knowledge arguments developed, this just makes it easier to write your exhibition commentary, and ensures greater specificity.
We will use the TokToday Exhibition Structure to help us to meet all parts of the Exhibition Assessment rubric ("Instrument").
Object 1: My copy of the book Walkabout by James Vance Marshall that I read when I was 11 yrs old.
Link the real world context of Object 1 to the Prompt.
Object one Is my copy of the book Walkabout by James Vance Marshall. In this book an indigenous Australian boy saves the lives of two city living non indigenous Australians when they get stranded in the outback the indigenous Australian boy achieves this feat by using indigenous knowledge. The indigenous knowledge concerns knowing how to survive in a wilderness environment. As such it constitutes context specific knowledge. When I read this book at 11 years old it was the first time that I realised that the usefulness of knowledge is based upon the context within which the knowledge is produced and applied.
Link Object 1 to Knowledge Argument 1.
Walkabout shows that knowledge can be highly contextual in both meaning and application. The book demonstrates that the context within which knowledge is made, the context of the knowledge producer, the context of the knower and the context of the application of knowledge can give knowledge a function. Out of context the same knowledge can lack function and meaning. This could be seen as a functionalist approach to knowledge, that is that knowledge only exists because it has function (or is ‘useful) in at least one context. This approach could suggest a mutually inclusive relationship between the production and application of knowledge. Context is a major factor in determining the usefulness of knowledge, and therefore the type of knowledge which will be useful is context appropriate knowledge.
Justify the inclusion of Object 1.
The book Walkabout demonstrates the contextual usefulness of knowledge by contrasting indigenous knowledge with "non-indigenous" knowledge. This is highly effective for young learners who are yet to uncouple personal experience from the experiences of others. To understand that knowledge which may seem less useful in your context may be useful in another context requires an understanding of different contexts. Young people are less likely to have this understanding than older people. Illustrating the role of context by contrasting indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge (as in the book Walkabout) makes the role of context clear for young people.
Object 1: 325 words.
Object 2: The Dominoes set that I used to play Dominoes with my Grandfather when I was a child.
Link the real world context of Object 2 to the Prompt.
As a child playing Dominoes with my Grandad I didn't understand why he would usually win. Then I realised that he was remembering which dominoes I wasn't able to match, and therefore he was ascertaining which dominoes I did (or didn't) have in my hidden hand.
This was the first time that I realised that definite false knowledge was more helpful to gain specific knowledge than positive confirmatory knowledge when a range of answers were possible.
Link Object 2 to Knowledge Argument 2.
The usefulness of knowledge may depend on the purpose of the knowledge, and the method of knowledge production, or acquisition, that is used. Seeking confirmed negatives in Dominoes is similar to testing the null hypothesis in the scientific method. This is akin to finding a black swan to confirm the null hypothesis that Ho: Not all swans are white, rather than counting endless white swans in order to prove the hypothesis that H: All swans are white.
The theory of falsification is that the only certain knowledge is that which has been falsified. This is in contrast to seeking confirmatory cases which may support a hypothesis, but do not provide the same level of certainty as disproving a hypothesis.
Deductive reasoning requires the development of specific knowledge from a set of general observations. This is easier to do if we know which observations may be "wrong". Therefore false knowledge may be more useful than confirmed knowledge.
Justify the inclusion of Object 2.
The usefulness of knowledge may depend on the breadth of the range of possible answers available. When playing dominoes I learned that by reducing the number of possible answers my grandfather was increasing his chances of getting the correct answer. Eliminating possibilities increases the probability of finding 'correct' answers.
The scientific method is based on this form of deductive reasoning. It leads to knowledge with a very high level of reliability. It is easily demonstrated to a child by playing dominoes.
Object 2: 331 words.
Object 3 : Dr Alexander Fleming’s petri dish of penicillium mould (1935)
Link the real world context of Object 3 to the Prompt.
Dr Fleming realised that the mould growing in the petri dish was "killing" the bacteria that he intended to grow in the dish.Before this discovery it could be argued that mould was seen as a useless, or even damaging, organism. In terms of types of knowledge, we could say that it was seen as being medically useless.This was a serendipitous discovery that required Dr Fleming to bring a different perspective to what he found in the petri dish. The penicillium mould was used to develop the widely used medicine Penicillin, which has been used to treat hundreds of millions of people over the last 80 yrs. As such, it is a 'useful' type of knowledge.
Link Object 3 to Knowledge Argument 3.
Fleming realised that the mould could be medically useful. The mould is usually thought of as a worthless byproduct. Fleming re-interpreted that knowledge to show that it could be useful. Therefore it was not the type of knowledge that determined the usefulness of the knowledge, but the interpretation of the knower that made the knowledge useful. As such, the discovery of the anti-bacterial properties of penicillin shows that all knowledge may be useful if it is interpreted in a way that fulfils need. It could be argued that it is not so much a matter of categorising types of knowledge, but more a process of looking at ways of interpreting need.
Justify the inclusion of Object 3.
When I learned about the discovery of penicillin by Dr Fleming I realised that knowledge is defined by its interpretation and meaning. Both interpretation and meaning are dynamic, relative and contingent. Penicillin is a strong example of how knowledge thought to be 'useless' can be re-interpreted as being useful. It also led me to reflect on how many other medical cures we are missing because we are not interpreting the world around us in such a way that reveals this potential. Further, it has made me rethink the role of interpretation in determining what we know.
Object 3: 324 words.
This is just an example of ways in which you can link knowledge arguments to objects. I tried to use the a clear structure to show you how to write the commentary in such a way that you meet all parts of the assessment rubric.
If you would like support with your ToK Exhibition, such as detailed feedback on your draft, or coaching with your exhibition, then please do not hesitate to get in touch with Daniel@ToKToday.com.
Other posts & videos that may be of interest to students doing their exhibition are at: