Exhibition Prompt #33: How is current knowledge shaped by its historical development ?

Student SupportToK Exhibition
Written By Daniel Trump

The video version of this blogpost is linked here and below.

The historical development of knowledge.

To answer this prompt we must consider the various ways in which we can describe, or characterise, the historical development of knowledge. This term is not solely confined to AoK History, but applies equally to all Areas of Knowledge, current knowledge in all AoKs has a period of historical development.

A few of the different ways that we could describe the historical development of knowledge could include

  • periods of debate or contest.

  • periods of integration or increasing cohesion

  • periods of upheaval

  • periods of denial

  • periods of acceptance

  • periods of lapsed, suppressed or repressed knowledge.

  • periods of thesis, periods of antithesis, and periods of synthesis.

We could go on identifying different ways to describe the historical development of knowledge, this is not an absolute nor limited definition. I am going to use periods of evolution, revolution and synthesis as the descriptions of historical development for my ToK Exhibition of Prompt #33.

ToK Themes (Optional)

This prompt lends itself particularly well to the ToK Optional Themes (Knowledge & Technology, Knowledge & Language etc) - All of the themes are very much concerned with the question - "how is current knowledge shaped by what came before it ?". So, feel free to build your Exhibition around a theme, of course there is no requirement from IB to build a theme.

Choosing Objects - Developing Knowledge Arguments.

IB recommend that you find objects from which knowledge arguments will arise. For example I look at an object, and think “oh wow - this object demonstrates how current knowledge is shaped by its historical development !”. So, if this process works for you then feel free to look around your world, and find 3 objects in which ToK is manifest.

However, if you’re anything like me, and most of the students that I have taught you may find it a little difficult to see ToK manifest itself in the world around you. If you do find it difficult then I recommend that you write 3 distinct perspectives, or knowledge arguments (1 for each object). Once you have 3 distinct perspectives you can then find a specific object to demonstrate each perspective, or knowledge argument.

A note on specificity:

To get 5 or more marks in the ToK Exhibition you need to explain how each object makes a specific contribution to the Exhibition, this contribution has to be different to the contributions made by the other 2 objects. This means that not only does your object have to be highly specific rather than generic, but it also has to demonstrate a specific perspective, or knowledge argument.

So what makes an object specific, and what makes an object generic ? Let's take a pencil as an example, any pencil random plucked out of a box is a generic object - there are billions of pencils in the world, any other pencil could be swapped out for this pencil. However, if we selected the pencil that Martin Luther used to write his 95 Theses that led to the start of the Protestant Reformation in Wittenberg in 1517 the is no longer a generic pencil, but now a very specific pencil. Ideally we want to link that specificity to the knowledge arguments (see below).

We often hear that the objects have to be personal, this is an error. The objects have to be specific, not personal. Using personal objects is just an easy way of making them specific objects, but they don’t have to be personal. Consider the example of the pencil in the previous paragraph. The pencil was owned by Martin Luther in 1517, so it’s not personal to me, but it is very specific.

How do I justify the inclusion of objects in the Exhibition ?

If you look at the ToK Exhibition marking criteria, you will see that to score 5-10 marks you need to justify the inclusion of each object in the Exhibition. So, if we want to get high marks in the Exhibition we need to focus on this justification for the inclusion of each object. The ToK Subject Report from May 23 gives us some idea of what is meant by justification, it says

“ it is helpful for [students] to see the justification as following from the links. Links are successfully made when they clearly explain the connection between the object and the knowledge question in the prompt. The justification provides further elaboration of that connection by showing what it is about that specific object that is so interesting in making us think about the prompt.”

ToK Subject Report May 2023

Writing 3 perspectives, or knowledge arguments for Prompt #33.

Justification is a specific link that each object has to the prompt, it’s more than the original link. A useful, and relatively easy, way to identify a specific link for each object is to write 3 perspectives, or knowledge arguments, on the prompt. These perspectives can be thought of as 3 different ways to answer the prompt. This is obviously one perspective, or knowledge argument, per object. The three knowledge arguments that I’ve written for Prompt #33 are:

1. Current knowledge can be shaped by evolution in its historical development.

2. Current knowledge can be shaped by revolution in its historical development.

3. Current knowledge can be shaped by synthesis in its historical development.

You will see that I have used the words from the prompt in my knowledge arguments, this helps to maintain focus on the prompt. I will now go through each knowledge argument by identifying an object, and explaining the object’s link to the prompt using the knowledge argument.

Object 1: mRNA Vaccine Certificate (Thailand 2021)

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

 

My first object is my vaccine certificate for receiving an mRNA vaccine ( I am using this for the knowledge argument that current Knowledge can be shaped by evolution in its historical development). It’s specific real world context is that it is a certificate for an mRNA vaccine that I received in Thailand in June 2021

The link to the prompt is that our current knowledge of vaccines has enabled virologists to develop vaccines using Messenger Rna (MRNA). The historical development of knowledge regarding viruses, the human immune system and immunology has gone through processes of refinement that have culminated in the MRNA vaccine. At each stage of the historical development some knowledge has been selected for further development, whilst other knowledge has been discarded - ie a process of evolution in the historical development of our current knowledge of vaccines. For example in the 1960’s it was thought that the immune system responded more strongly to the strain of the virus first encountered rather than later strains included in subsequent vaccines. However, subsequent research showed that whilst the immune system does indeed exhibit a preference for responding to antigens it has encountered before, this does not necessarily hinder its ability to respond to new strains (Wikramaratna).

The justification for the inclusion of this object in the Exhibition is that it demonstrates that our current knowledge of vaccines is shaped by an evolutionary process in its historical development. This process is one in which functional and effective knowledge is retained for further development whilst ineffective knowledge is discarded, and therefore does not contribute to the next iteration of knowledge development. The intended and actual function of knowledge can shape its historical development in terms of an evolutionary process working towards ever more adaptive knowledge.

Object 2: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687, Cambridge UK).

Photo: (University of Sydney, 2020)

 

My second object is Newton’s first edition of his 1687 book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. There are only 4 copies of the first edition, this one contains Newton’s handwritten notes in the margin, and is held in the archives of University of Sydney. The link between this object and the historical development of knowledge is that Philosophia Principia Mathematica shows that the historical development of knowledge can sometimes be revolutionary. This object demonstrates that the historical development of some knowledge can be characterised as a fundamental, and significant, change from knowledge that has previously been developed in that field, or discipline. This fundamental and significant change I am characterising as a revolutionary historical development.

Prior to Philosophiae Principia Mathematica much of the reasoning in Physics was qualitative and observational. As such the knowledge of physics was generally more hypothetical and predicated upon the subjectivities of the observer. Newton's use of calculus in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica allowed for precise calculations of forces, orbits, and motions, shifting the methodology of science towards quantitative predictions. This work laid the groundwork for classical mechanics, marking a pivotal shift in the approach to scientific inquiry and mathematical application to the natural world. As such, this object represents a dramatic and fundamental change in how knowledge is produced and interpreted in Physics. As such, the object represents a revolution in the historical development of knowledge of physics(Temple & Tracy, 1992).

The justification for including this object in the Exhibition is that it demonstrates that revolutionary change in the historical development of knowledge appears to involve the discardment of much existing knowledge, principles and methods. However, whilst the new knowledge framework may appear very different from the pre-revolutionary framework there is still an interrelationship between the two which characterises the historical development of the knowledge . The new knowledge may not have been possible without the pre-revolutionary framework, and some elements of the antecedent knowledge may still be present in the new knowledge. This object demonstrates that the historical development of knowledge can be thought of as a mutually reciprocal process between the present and the past.

Object 3: Comment Article from The Chicago Maroon Newspaper (Jan 21st 2005)

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

My third object is the article “From “Way” to Grey: two decades of genre remixing” published in the Chicago Maroon Newspaper on 21st January 2005 (Steinman, 2005). The link between this article and the prompt is that the article looks at the various ways in which the historical development of knowledge can be characterised by the synthesis of knowledge from different genres, disciplines or Areas of Knowledge. Synthesis refers to taking various elements of knowledge from different genres and combining them to form new knowledge. As such, current knowledge can be shaped by the synthesis of various elements in its historical development.

The article “From “Way” to Grey” explores the synthesis of knowledge across different musical genres, focusing on the fusion of hip-hop and rock. It describes the collaborative remix of "Walk This Way" by Aerosmith and Run-DMC as a pioneering example, breaking down genre barriers and achieving both commercial success and critical acclaim. The article highlights how the synthesis of apparently contrasting knowledge can lead to the development of effective current knowledge. It discusses a further example of the synthesis of knowledge through "The Grey Album," which creatively mixed Jay-Z's "The Black Album" with The Beatles' "The White Album," representing a deeper cultural and racial blending. This object explores the idea that current knowledge is shaped by the blending, or synthesis, of apparently disparate elements of knowledge in its historical development.

The justification for the inclusion of this object in the exhibition is that it could be argued that all current knowledge is, to some degree, the product of synthesis in its historical development. This object specifically looks at current knowledge that is the product of synthesis of highly contrasting, and in some ways dissimilar, elements in their historical development. It could be argued that such synthesis can create highly effective, and significantly different, current knowledge. As such, this object demonstrates neither evolution, nor revolution but functional fusion in the production of knowledge.

That’s just an example of how this prompt could be approached. There are, of course, many many other valid ways to respond to this prompt. If you want a more detailed write up of ways to unpack this prompt, examples of knowledge arguments, and suggestions for objects can you can pick up a copy of ToK Exhibition Prompt #33 Explained at this link, or you can pick up explanations for all ToK Exhibition Prompts at this link.

 

References

Daniel Trump
Previous

Perspective, Power & Responsibility
Next

The Gains for Artists and Scientists of Adopting Each Other's Lens