Turner and ToK

What can the artist JMW Turner teach us about the Theory of Knowledge ?

Turner's life and work, rich with philosophical undercurrents, offers us a canvas to explore the depths of knowledge itself. We can look at the meeting point between art and the development of knowledge, examining how Turner’s revolutionary brushstrokes redefined the way we perceive and acquire knowledge.

If you go to the Tate Gallery in London to see Turner's collective works you will not merely be observing a collection of amazing landscapes and portraits; you’ll also be witnessing a significant epistemological evolution.

Born in the cusp of the 18th century, Joseph Mallord William Turner emerged as a prodigious talent, his work evolving rapidly from precise topographical documentation to sublime expressions of light and colour. It's in this transition that we unearth our first epistemological theme: the breaking of conventional methods in the production of knowledge.

Transforming conventional methods in the production of knowledge

Turner's early adherence to the detailed and the delineated reflected the empirical epistemology of his time — knowledge through observation. However, his later divergence, characterised by energetic brushwork and atmospheric turbulence, suggests a radical shift. In works such as 'Rain, Steam, and Speed - The Great Western Railway', we observe a world in motion, where details succumb to the overall sensory experience. Turner shows us that knowledge is not static; it is dynamic, just as our perception of reality.

Here, Turner challenges the epistemological value placed on clarity and precision. By obscuring forms, he proposes that understanding is not merely the accumulation of clear-cut facts but also the intuitive grasp of the ambiguous and the ineffable.

The evolution of knowledge

In 'The Fighting Temeraire', the old warship being towed away for scrap, Turner juxtaposes the obsolete with the modern, the fading with the emergent. In terms of ToK, this embodies the tension between traditional and innovative methods of understanding. The ship, a repository of bygone tales and knowledge, contrasts with the tugboat — a symbol of the new industrial era’s epistemic shifts.

The interpolation of knowledge

Turner's seascapes, where light and shadow dance upon the waters, offer us a metaphor for the evolutionary nature of knowledge. Just as the sun’s rays pierce through clouds, illuminating and obscuring in turns, our cognitive landscapes are shaped by the ever-changing interplay of known and unknown, certainty and mystery.

In 'The Slave Ship', Turner’s visceral depiction of the sea’s cruelty serves not only as a moral outcry but also as an epistemological assertion. The painting's tumultuous waters invite contemplation on the nature of knowledge derived from suffering and emotional experience, revealing that ToK is not confined to rational discourse alone.

The synthesis of knowledge

Turner’s revolutionary approach also mirrors the idea of knowledge synthesis. In combining the tangible with the transcendent, the material with the spiritual, he pre-empts the interdisciplinarity that now enriches contemporary ToK and epistemology. His canvases teach us that knowledge production is not a linear path but a confluence of myriad streams.

While his contemporaries favoured a more restrained depiction of nature, Turner's revolutionary ideas and content propelled him to harness both evolution and revolution in his artistic journey. His legacy compels us to question: How do our interpretations and values shape our understanding of knowledge?

Knowledge as an existential question.

Finally, in 'Light and Colour', Turner explores Goethe's colour theory, aligning with the polymath's own epistemological explorations. This alignment of art with science and philosophy is perhaps Turner’s most profound contribution to ToK: an affirmation that knowledge is an interwoven tapestry of disparate threads, a spectrum as diverse and blended as the hues upon his canvas.

"\As we stand before Turner’s legacy, we are reminded that knowledge is not just a mirror of reality but also a lens through which we interpret the world. Turner's life and work implore us to consider the evolving nature of knowledge — to embrace the flux, the complex, and the nuanced. For in the swirling mists of his paintings, we find not just beauty, but the profound quest for understanding that defines our very being.

Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 23

Some knowledge belong to particular communities? (ToK Exh prompt #14)

ToK Exhibition prompt #14 ("Does some knowledge belong to particular communities of knowers ?") is a very popular prompt, I see lots of student exhibition commentaries from around the world who have written this prompt. I frequently see the same couple of problems, or anomalies, in student's responses to this prompt. The key point is the question: Does knowledge belong to communities ?

We will cover:

1. Problems / anomalies that are specific to this prompt.

2. Ways of avoiding / dealing with these problems.

3. Wider approaches to answering this question.

Problems / anomalies that are specific to this prompt.

Problem part 1: defining communities of knowers.

The first part of the problem comes from the idea of defining communities of knowers.  Often students will define this as an ethnic, religious or linguistic group, for example the community of Asian Americans, or Protestant Christians, or speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. These are all examples of communities of knowers, but they’re very large communities of knowers. There’s a lot of diversity of knowledge in large groups of communities of knowers such as ethnic, religious, linguistic or national groups. As such it becomes harder to talk about knowledge which may be specific to those groups.

Recommendation #1:

Therefore I recommend that we use more specific communities of knowers, you can define a community of knowers down to much smaller groupings, for example the students in your year group at school, the students in your ToK class, or even just the students who sit at the same table as you in ToK. These are far more specific communities of knowers. They allow you to develop far more specific claims about knowledge. Once you start to be more specific you tend to gain a better score in the ToK Exhibition.

Problem part #2: misinterpreting the prompt.

However, the second part of the problem is that this prompt isn’t really about the communities of knowers, the prompt is about the whether some knowledge belongs to those groups. There needs to be far more focus on the word belongs than on the communities of knowers. Far too often I see commentaries in which students have rewritten the prompt in their head as “describe knowledge that belongs to particular communities of knowers”, and their commentary is along the lines of: here’s a something that belongs to this religious group, and here’s a something that belongs to this linguistic group, and here’s a something that belongs to this national group. Of course, that is not answering the question does some knowledge belong to particular communities of knowers, as such those commentaries get fairly low scores.

Recommendation #2:

We need to focus on the main question of whether knowledge belongs to a particular community. The most obvious and straightforward way is to argue that Yes it does for one object, No it doesn’t for a second object, and maybe / sometimes for the third object. 

It is best to have 3 different knowledge arguments, one for each object. The knowledge argument is what in the marking scheme is termed the ‘justification’ for the inclusion of the object in the Exhibition. Having a different justification (or knowledge argument) for each object will place you in the marking bands above 5 marks for that criterion.

Some of the wider ways of answering this prompt.

focus on 'belong'

The whole prompt revolves around your definition of ‘belong’. It doesn’t really matter whether you argue that knowledge does or does not belong to a particular community, and it doesn’t really matter what that knowledge is, what matters is how you define ‘ belong’. Let’s quickly have a look at some of the ways in which we could define belong:

A suggestion for developing 3 knowledge arguments for the prompt relating to belong

Firstly we could define Belong as meaning that the knowledge was initially produced by that community. Therefore we can argue that the knowledge of the Cuban song Los Barbudos belongs to the knowledge community of the original Cuban socialist revolutionaries because they produced that knowledge.

Secondly we could define the concept of belong as when the meaning of knowledge is defined by a particular community of knowers. As such we could argue that knowledge of hip hop music does not belong to hip hop writers and artist as they do not define the meaning of the genre, but it does belong to the community of the mass media and music marketing companies who define the meaning of the music for other knowers.

Finally we could define the concept of belong as representing a community of knowers or assumptions. For example we could argue that knowledge of Hollywood belongs to the community of knowers of artists, writers and producers who work in the film and tv industry in the United States. They may not actually work in Hollywood, nor have access to knowledge of Hollywood, but knowledge of Hollywood represents the knowledge that they do have.

If you would like help to develop this ToK Exhibition prompt, or any of the other prompts in a lot more detail, you can pick up any of the ToK Today guides  - every ToK Exhibition prompt explained. The link to the ebook explaining prompt 14 is here, and the link to the book explaining every prompt is here.

The link to all of the ToKToday Exhibition resources is here.

Finally, the link to all of the blog posts on ToK Exhibition prompts is here, this includes (free) explanations of other Exhibition prompts.

If you have suggestions for other content that you would like covered (eg unpacking of another ToK Exhibition prompt) then please let me know (Daniel@ToKToday.com).

Stay Toktastic my friends!
Daniel, Lisbon, Portugal, Nov 2023

Antarctica: Most recent evidence strongest?

Can the history of the mapping of Antarctica help us to understand whether the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest ?

Above is a map of the southern hemisphere made by Covens and Mortier in Amsterdam in 1741, and you can see that Antarctica is missing, where we would expect to find Antarctica on a modern map is just a big empty space on this map - this is because apparently we didn’t find Antarctica until January 1820. In the words of popular culture we didn’t “discover” antarctica until January 1820. We’ll come back to that notion later in this video.

Here’s a map of the world drawn by Turkish Admiral Piri Reis in 1513 many argue that it shows the northern coastline of Antarctica. How does this map, drawn 307 yrs before we discovered Antarctica show the Antarctic coastline ?

Here is a map drawn by Oronteus Finaeus drawn in 1531 that not only shows Antarctica, but it shows it ice free, and also accurately shows the mountains and the rivers of the continent in their correct places. Again, this was drawn 290 yrs before we apparently discovered Antarctica.

There are many other maps drawn 100s of years before Antarctica was apparently discovered that show Antarctica in its correct position, with accurate depictions of its coastline, the position of the southpole, and the position of mountains and rivers. The shortened version of the reason for the existence of these maps is simply that we didn’t discover Antarctica in 1820, we have known about the continent for millenia. However, for a multitude of possible reasons we lost that knowledge.

If you want to know more about why we lost that knowledge, and possibly lots of other knowledge check out the work of Graham Hancock, his Netflix  series Ancient Apocalypse is an excellent starting point.

ToK specific learning relating to maps and 'lost' knowledge.

1. This has direct relevance to ToK Essay 6 May 24 - should we assume the most recent evidence is the strongest ? The examples of these maps clearly shows that the most recent evidence may be incomplete in comparison to earlier evidence. The maps from the early 18th and 19th century did not show Antarctica merely because the cartographers were not aware of it despite earlier cartographers knowing of its existence, and showing it on their maps.

2. It shows that the development of knowledge is not necessarily linear nor cumulative. Meaning that later knowledge does not necessarily build on earlier knowledge, it could ignore that knowledge, that knowledge could be deemed to be wrong when the new knowledge was constructed, or crucially the evidence upon which the older knowledge is based could be judged to be too weak, unreliable or inaccurate to be taken into account when the most recent evidence is constructed.

3. It shows that evidence is both perspective based and highly contextualised. The maps from the 16th and 19th century are different because they are constructed by knowers with different perspectives, operating in different contexts with different intentions, purpose and assumptions.

On a further point, these maps link to ToK Essay 4 May 24 about the challenges of Transferring knowledge from one context to another. Arguably, the context in which the 19th century maps were made was markedly different from the context within which the 16th century maps were made, as such much of the knowledge from 16th century was not transferred to the 19th century. Arguably, in the 19th century it was believed, like today, that their latest scientific navigational & mapping instruments were far superior to anything that had existed during an earlier age, and therefore evidence produced using these instruments was far superior to evidence produced during an earlier period without these scientific instruments. The lack of knowledge transfer from one context to another shows that one of the variables influencing the transfer of knowledge is the values and assumptions underpinning the construction and meaning of knowledge.

Was Antarctica 'discovered', 'found' or constructed ?

Did sailors discover Antarctica in 1820, or did they find Antarctica in 1820 ? It may be a small semantic difference, but that difference could represent significant differences in our values concerning knowledge, or knowledge value system so to speak. The word discover could imply that Antarctica was of little significance before it became known to those particular knowers, whereas the word “find” places the emphasis of not knowing about it on the knowers themselves.

Now, we could throw a third concept in here - that of construction. Did the sailors construct the knowledge of Antarctica back in 1820 is a different way of approaching this question. I’m not suggesting that they imagined the continent in a form of fantasy , nor that the continent did not exist before they had knowledge of it. Construct in this sense means that they formed particular knowledge of Antarctica which gave us one coherent concept of the continent, some things will have been left out of that concept, further, Antarctica has radically changed over the millennia - these changes will not be in the concept. Our knowledge of Antarctica is not Antarctica itself, it is merely a limited concept of Antarctica - yes, we’re in Plato’s cave, it’s a friendly place to be, we could say that it’s platonic !

This swiftly brings me to the final bit of ToK learning from these maps - The early 19th century maps do not show Antarctica because they didn’t have any evidence of Antarctica in the early 19thC, or at least they didn’t have anything that they would deem to be evidence of antarctica. As such there is an absence of Antarctica on the maps because there’s an absence of evidence of antarctica. However, today, all of our latest and best evidence shows that Antarctica does exist, as such  In the early 19th C there was an absence of evidence of antarctica, but this was not evidence that antarctica does not exist. Too often in the sciences and other AoKs we believe that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

This is my second blog in 2 weeks on maps, I love maps - there’s so much to learn from maps. I am also reading and learning a lot from Graham Hancock at the moment. Hancock is a historian who has challenged the dominant paradigms of history & archeology and has been ostracised and belittled by Historians and Archeologists for challenging the accepted assumptions of those disciplines. He has slowly & methodically gathered evidence to prove his case, and has grown in status and acceptability as a consequence.

If you want to know more about ToK Essays 4 & 5 May 24, or any of the other ToK Essays May 24 click here.

Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 23

Detailed guidance video for ToK Essay 6 May 24

Library of Alexandria: Custodians of Knowledge

What can the destruction of the Library of Alexandria tell us about whether we need custodians of Knowledge ?

The Library of Alexandria, situated in Alexandria, Egypt, was one of antiquity's most renowned centres of knowledge and scholarly activity. Founded in the 3rd century BCE under the Ptolemaic dynasty, it aimed to collect the world's wisdom. However, its destruction is shrouded in mystery and has become synonymous with the loss of invaluable knowledge. Various accounts suggest different phases of decline and destruction.

The first significant blow is thought to have occurred in 48 BCE when Julius Caesar set fire to ships in Alexandria's harbour; the flames purportedly spread to parts of the city, including the library. Additional harm was inflicted under the reign of Emperor Theophilus in 391 CE, who sought to eliminate pagan influences, and further during the decree of Theodosius that closed all pagan temples. In 642 CE, after the Islamic conquest of Alexandria, any remaining traces of the library were possibly lost forever. 

The cumulative effects of these incidents resulted in the irretrievable loss of countless ancient scrolls, texts, documents and artefacts.  

What are The ToK implications of the destruction of the library?

The Library of Alexandria could be seen as a custodian of knowledge. At the time of its first destruction It was thought to contain the greatest documented collection of human knowledge up to that point in time. It was a protective store of all that was thought to be worthy to document and store, a veritable vault of the best knowledge of human civilisation. As such, its destruction could be seen as a significant rupture in the continuum of human knowledge.

This argument could be seen as the reason why we do need custodians of knowledge, the documents in the library could have provided us with an understanding of how the ancient world operated, their tools and engineering techniques, their values and belief systems, and their social organisation. Some of this knowledge may have helped us in the subsequent 2000 yrs to avoid some of the mistakes that we’ve made, and to produce better knowledge still. Much of this was lost in the three main destructive events. 

This is the cumulative theory of knowledge, and creates a fairly compelling (if obvious) argument as to why we need Custodians of Knowledge.

However, can we develop counter-arguments, arguments that the loss of the knowledge in the library did not create significant problems, or may even have been a positive for the development of new knowledge ? In other words can we develop arguments that don’t need custodians of knowledge.

Counterarguments to the need for Custodians of Knowledge

Exclusivity.

The first argument against the positive role of the Library could be developed from the exclusivity of knowledge. It is a fair assumption that not many people had the ability to read and write in the ancient world. It wasn’t so long ago that even in today’s fully literate societies a minority of people could read and write. If these skills were also rare in the ancient world then access to the knowledge held in the Library at Alexandria would have been limited and restricted to a minority of people. Add to this that access would probably have been granted according to membership of elite groups based on religious, political or academic interests  and social class and we start to see that this knowledge would have been the reserve of an elite group. Exclusionary access to knowledge can often develop into power hierarchies which can be used to consolidate and further reproduce privilege. The challenges for the evolution of knowledge that such power hierarchies can create leads us to our second argument against the Library as a Custodian of Knowledge, that is the problem of innovation.

Innovation

If a select group of people have access to knowledge that they use to consolidate their own power we can see an inherent conservation and possible stagnation in that knowledge. There are very few pressures on knowledge to be adapted and evolved it it serves to maintain the current conditions. As such innovative ideas, or new knowledge, are far less likely to appear. If they do appear they are far less likely to be accepted into the library of ‘legitimised knowledge’. This is the gatekeepers argument of the ancient world.For example a stonemason is far less likely to have a great new idea for building pyramids if they are unable to read the established knowledge for building pyramids, and even if they did have that great new idea it is far less likely to be accepted and adopted if they are not part of the social, religious or political groups that have access to, and authorise, knowledge in the library.

This argument is that exclusive libraries can stifle the innovation of new ideas, or new knowledge.

People as knowers.

The third argument is based on the means, or location, of the storage of knowledge, in some ways it is an argument about technology. Some societies don’t have writing, these are often called oral cultures, non-literate or pre-literate cultures, some indigenous cultures fit into this category. In these societies knowledge is stored in people rather than in books, and documents. The knowledge of the society is the sum total of all the knowledge in the society. People pass knowledge to each other, and from one generation to the next using stories, music and art. These societies could be seen as having more inclusive access to knowledge than literate societies, roughly in an oral society everyone has the rights and means to access all of the knowledge. It could be argued that knowledge in such societies is far more open to innovation, evolution and fresh ideas. New knowledge will arise from the lived experiences of the people, and will be verified and legitimised through collective experiences. It could be argued that libraries take people away from the primary experience of knowledge, and therefore remove both their awareness and acceptance of new experiences, and therefore potential new knowledge. This is an argument that libraries stifle innovation.

Summary

In summary we could argue that the destruction of the library of Alexandria may have led to increased pressures for the innovation of new knowledge because the established knowledge was destroyed. This new knowledge may have been better adapted for the new conditions (such as living under the new Roman or later Byzantine Empires), and it may have led to more people both contributing to the development of this knowledge, and knowing the new knowledge.

Of course, personally I don’t believe any of this, I think that knowledge is sacred, libraries are temples of enlightenment, and that we should never destroy books nor libraries. But such are the lengths that we are willing to go to in the pursuit of counter arguments in ToK.

If you want to know more for essay 5 (or any of the other May 24 Essays), if you want detailed guidance notes then click here . These guidance notes give you knowledge arguments, counter arguments,  real world examples, evaluation points and implications.

Please feel free to contact me for help and advice with your ToK Essay (Daniel@ToKToday.com),

Enjoy your writing, Stay toktastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23

JUMBOS : What are the implications for ToK?

On the 2nd October 2023 scientists working with the James Webb deep space telescope announced the discovery of a new type of planetary object. 

As reported on Earth.com:

NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has made a groundbreaking discovery of Jupiter-sized “planets” freely floating in space, unattached to any stars. These intriguing objects, observed within the Orion Nebula, are referred to as Jupiter Mass Binary Objects, or “JuMBOs” for short.

The Orion Nebula 

In a recent detailed survey of the Orion Nebula, the JWST identified approximately 40 pairs of JuMBOs. These mysterious objects are remarkable for their autonomous movement in pairs, a phenomenon that currently puzzles astronomers. 

The Orion Nebula (M42) is an expansive star-forming region located about 1,400 light-years from Earth. This star-forming region has long fascinated researchers and has been significantly illuminated by the high-resolution and infrared sensitivity capacities of the JWST.

Mysterious origins

The origin and nature of JuMBOs are shrouded in mystery. According to Professor Mark McCaughrean, the European Space Agency‘s (ESA) senior science advisor, there are a couple of prevailing theories. 

Let’s leave the Astronomical knowledge there for the moment, and turn to the first ToK implications of this discovery:

ToK Implications of the discovery of JUMBOS

Firstly, and patently obviously, this shows that we don’t yet know everything. This is ‘patently obvious’ to those of you who understand ToK, but I am constantly surprised by the number of students who view current knowledge as fixed, total, summary and complete. This discovery shows that knowledge is constantly developing. That development could be that it is adding to what is currently known, but it could also be that it is challenging what it is currently known - we’ll come back to that a bit later in this video.

Secondly - this discovery shows that the technology for knowledge production can be crucial. The James Webb Deep Space Telescope is a high resolution, high sensitivity infra-red telescope placed by NASA 1.5million km’s away from earth. The production & development of this technology, and the Ariane 5 rocket required to put into space, required all the previous technological development, and knowledge, of historical space imaging. Without the James Webb Telescope we wouldn’t have found Jumbos, and without the prior knowledge development of telescopes going back to the early 17th century we wouldn’t have the James Webb Telescope. 

Which brings us to our next implication, which is that the production of knowledge at any single point in time has significant, and sometimes unpredictable, affects on the subsequent production of knowledge far into the future. If Hans Lippershey had not invented the telescope in 1608 we may not have the James Webb Telescope in 415 yrs later, which is not to say that we wouldn;t have anything at all for deep space imaging. We just may now have something completely different, that different thing could possibly be better than the telescope, but then it could also possibly be worse !

More ToK Implications arising from the discovery of Jumbos

So, these newly discovered Jumbos challenge our current knowledge of astro-physics. They do this in three main ways:

Firstly,  they are autonomous: that means they float free from the gravitational pull of a star or a planet, they’re not orbiting a planet or a star.

Secondly, they come in pairs - they seem to be paired together, and they move as pairs.

Thirdly, they are made of gas, and our current knowledge of gaseous physics suggests that they should not be possible. As Professor McCaughrean of the European Space Agency says: “Gas physics suggests you shouldn’t be able to make objects with the mass of Jupiter on their own, and we know single planets can get kicked out from star systems. But how do you kick out pairs of these things together? Right now, we don’t have an answer. It’s one for the theoreticians” 

What are the ToK implications of this new knowledge?

Well - firstly, the cause and effect relationships that we previously thought existed may be inaccurate, or even incorrect. Or, those cause and effect relationships may not be limited, or bound, in the ways we thought that they were.

Secondly - it shows that the body of knowledge upon which current knowledge and assumptions is developed is limited, or partial. Again, this seems obvious - as we’re developing knowledge that which is already known is limited, but that also limits the development of further knowledge. To use the metaphor of the map - we don’t go down new roads if we don’t know that those new roads even exist.

As such, we can think of  Pre-existing knowledge -as either an enabler or an inhibitor of the production of new knowledge, and sometimes it could be both.

Thirdly - The discovery of new knowledge could improve pre-existing knowledge giving us a better, fuller and more holistic understanding. However, on the other hand the discovery of new knowledge could show that pre-existing knowledge is inaccurate, and as such we have to change, or even reject pre-existing knowledge - only time will tell.

Chrissy Sexton at Earth.com summarises the role of Jumbos well "As these objects cannot be easily classified as either stars or planets, they represent an entirely new category of celestial bodies, challenging and expanding the existing boundaries of astronomical knowledge and understanding".

I decided to make this video about the discovery of Jumbos because it’s highly relevant to ToK Essays 3 & 6 in May 24 session, it could also be well used in ToK Essays 2 & 5 in May 24.

Halloween ToK Triple Bill

If you're getting into that Halloween spirit, or if you're a teacher and your students are getting into that Halloween spirit, we present The ToK of Halloween triple bill. The ToK of:

• Dracula

• Frankenstein

• Unexplained things

The ToK of Dracula and Frankenstein

The two gothic horror books are considered through the lens of ToK. We use the techniques and frameworks to analyse these books that students could use to develop knowledge arguments from objects in their ToK Exhibitions.

The ToK of the unexplainable.

This third element of our ToK of Halloween is a little more esoteric (but also more substantial) than the first two. In this third element we're focussing on the ToK concept of explanations. We look at a range of issues relating to explanations (e.g. the quality of explanations, the purpose of explanations, the implications of explanations). We do this using the work of Graham Hancock (Lost civilisation hypothesis). The story of the development, and possibly increasing acceptance, of his work has many ToK themes incl. the nature of evidence, gatekeepers, power hierarchies, paradigms etc etc.

If you have any suggestions for the ToK of Halloween next year please let me know (Daniel@ToKToday.com), and if you have any suggestions for any (non-halloween) related content also feel free to get in touch.

Enjoy your halloween season!
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23

Why are explanations difficult?

How can ToK help us to develop better explanations, and to understand the problems of verifying evidence?

How do processes of explanation help us to understand why unexplained phenomena exist ?

Millions of people read the books of Graham Hancock, and watch his videos on YouTube everyday. He writes about a wide range of unexplained phenomena that surround us. One way of understanding his work is that he highlights the weaknesses and flaws in the explanations that we have for these phenomena. ToK is about looking at the evidence required to establish something as known, and looking at what makes strong and weak explanations.

Therefore, I thought it would be valuable to look at some of Graham Hancock’s unexplained phenomena in terms of their ToK. Let’s just be clear Graham Hancock is providing us with real world examples of things that we may not have adequate explanations for, he is not the ToK itself, nor the ToK Expert.

Atlantis: A case of confirmation bias ?

Mr Hancock has written a lot about Atlantis, theorising that this mythical island may have been a real, advanced civilisation lost to history. In books like "Fingerprints of the Gods," he explores the idea that remnants of Atlantis might be found in existing ancient structures and myths, challenging mainstream archaeological views. He cites a range of evidence for the existence of Atlantis, including common archeological structures found across the globe, references to it in ancient texts, geological evidence and advanced mathematical and astronomical knowledge.

However, from a ToK point of view this evidence, and his theory could be interpreted through the lens of confirmation bias."

This is the idea that people often seek information that confirms their existing beliefs, dismissing data that does not fit. When information can be used to confirm a theory or pre-existing beliefs we can then label it as ‘evidence’. Confirmation bias is incredibly strong and influential across a range of Areas of Knowledge and disciplines, and makes the process of verification of unexplained phenomenon even more complicated."

The Lost Civilisation Hypothesis: The power of assumptions.

Let’s move on to look at another one of Graham Hancock's unexplained phenomena - this is often called the Lost Civilisation Hypothesis. This is the idea that there was an advanced, ancient society predating known history. He argues that this civilisation had sophisticated knowledge of astronomy, engineering, and mathematics, which can be seen in ancient monuments like the pyramids and Stonehenge. Hancock suggests that remnants of this lost culture are scattered across myths, texts, and archaeological sites, challenging the mainstream timeline of human advancement.

The challenge for archeologists, historians and ToKers trying to evaluate the claim of a lost civilisation is that our pre-existing knowledge, largely rooted in archaeology and history, suggests that advanced civilisations only emerged a few thousand years ago. This assumption underpins all subsequent assumptions about the evidence presented by Graham Hancock. All of our latest physical and human scientific knowledge says that the first advanced civilisation were the Sumerians, in Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq) about 4000 years ago. Because the aggregation of all the latest and best evidence tells us that the Sumerians were the first advanced civilisation it is very hard for us to neutrally consider Graham Hancock’s claim that advanced civilisations may have existed before that. Our belief in our latest science is just as strong as earlier civilisations beliefs in their origin stories. And just as we may now look at those earlier civilisations beliefs as being wrong, future thinkers may look at our scientific beliefs as being wrong, inaccurate or misguided.

It’s very difficult for us to verify Graham Hancock’s Lost Civilisation Hypothesis because we come to it with deeply ingrained assumptions about what is right and wrong. In many ways our very definition of what constitutes neutrality, impartiality and objectivity is informed by these assumptions. As such, it could be argued that it is virtually impossible for us to be impartial, neutral and objective analysts of evidence of lost civilisations because of our pre-existing assumptions of when civilisation began.

The Sphinx: accept the pre-existing knowledge base ?

Moving on to look at another of Graham Hancock’s interesting claims: the water erosion marks on the Sphinx in Giza Egypt. I include this because when I visited the Pyramids at Giza a few years ago I was a little underwhelmed by the Pyramids themselves, however I was blown away by the Sphinx, it was far bigger & more imposign than I had imagined, and just filled me with an amazing sense of wonder.

Graham Hancock’s theory of water erosion on the Sphinx challenges the traditional dating of the Sphinx.  He suggests that the erosion patterns on the Sphinx are consistent with prolonged water exposure, possibly from rainfall, rather than wind and sand. This could indicate that the Sphinx is much older than commonly believed, possibly dating back to a prehistoric era with a different climate, thus reshaping our understanding of ancient Egyptian civilisation.

The ToK implications of this theory are that the existing knowledge base of how and when the Sphinx was made may lack the scope needed to fully explain these unusual features. We know that developing cause and effect explanations is rather like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. When there are pieces missing from the puzzle the picture is incomplete, or possibly even inaccurate. In the case of the sphinx we’re not necessarily saying that Graham Hancock’s theory is correct, we are saying that our existing knowledge about the sphinx may be incorrect, and as such this complicates our efforts to verify the water erosion hypothesis."

Finally, let’s look at the nature of the very tools that we use for verifying, explaining and justifying the reliability and certainty of evidence, and the claims arising from that evidence. This example has a nifty little tie in between the knowledge content and the tools for analysis - a marriage of object & subject.

The validity of psychedelics: Are our schema, paradigm, or perspective wrong ?

Graham Hancock has explored the role of altered states of consciousness, often achieved through shamanic practices or substances like Ayahuasca, in understanding reality and acquiring knowledge. He argues that these altered states might offer insights into different dimensions or realms, challenging the scientific paradigm that dismisses such experiences as 'subjective' or 'unreal.' Hancock suggests that these states could be a neglected source of valid, transformative knowledge.

The challenge for ToK thinkers when assessing the quality of Hancock’s claim regarding altered states of consciousness is that the tool of assessment is also the object of assessment - that is the brain, or the mind. Our  paradigm or schema for assessment of the claim about the mind is the mind itself. The paradigm that we bring for such an assessment (be that rationalist philosophy, hypothetico deductive scientific methodology or something we call “good old common sense”) is determined by the paradigm within which our mind operates. Modern science often dismisses altered states as 'unreal' or 'subjective,' which could be absolutely accurate given the paradigm of modern science. Graham Hancock is arguing that other paradigms exist within which alternative knowledge is available. What’s difficult for us is to ascertain the validity of such a claim given that we are operating within this mindset.

Other links to commonly recurring ToK content includes:

• Questions without answers.

• The strength of evidence (like ToK Essay #6 M24).

• Theories fitting evidence or evidence fitting theories ?

• The labelling & categorisation of knowledge leading to the definition of that knowledge.

The challenges of developing and evaluating explanations is relevant to all of ToK, however it is of particular relevance to ToK Essays #3, #5 and #6 in the May 2024 session. If you want to know more about these essay titles you can pick up detailed guidance notes form the ToKToday shop.

Daniel, Lisbon, October 2023

Dracula and ToK: A Deeper Look into Theory of Knowledge

The Nexus of Dracula and ToK

Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, "Dracula" provides a rich tapestry for exploring the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) across various Areas of Knowledge (AoK). We'll delve into the Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, and the Arts. The idea of looking at "Dracula and ToK" came to me as I was considering the changes in medical knowledge from 19th century surgery at Guy's Hospital in London, to the development of the covid vaccine at Oxford in 2020. In the short period of 200 years we have evolved knowledge so dramatically. Such drama is realised in Gothic Horror such as Dracula.

Dracula through the Lens of Natural Sciences

In the Natural Sciences AoK, Dracula personifies how the progression of scientific knowledge can incite a fear of the unknown. Consider the character of Dr. Van Helsing, a staunch man of science. When confronted with the supernatural, it strains the confines of his rationality and scientific cognition.

From this, we discern an argument that fear springs not from ignorance but from testing the frontiers of knowledge. It's an affirmation that the Natural Sciences, in their pursuit of rationality, might cause fear or apprehension about maintaining our humanity. Such fears position reason and logic in a dichotomy with compassion, kindness, and altruism.

Science and power (over mind & matter)

What about the omnipotence of the scientific method? The scientists in the novel, such as Van Helsing and Dr Seward, try to elucidate vampires scientifically. We live with the comforting belief that science will eventually be able to explain everything: given sufficient time, energy and resources we will be able to solve every challenge we face with scientific knowledge. But what if that’s not true ? What if there are challenges that science will not be able to solve ? - that’s our worst nightmare, and that’s what Dracula is all about.

When Bram Stoker wrote the book scientists were just beginning to discover viruses, and quickly developing knowledge of infectious diseases, contagion, and vaccination. So the links with modern day science are obvious. From a ToK point of view we are interested in how pre-existing knowledge is integrated into newly emerging knowledge (and vice versa). We’re interested in the caution, maybe scepticism, maybe fear, with which new knowledge is greeted. We’re interested in the mutually inclusive relationship between the technology of knowledge production and the new knowledge produced.

When Bram Stoker wrote the book scientists were just beginning to discover viruses, and quickly developing knowledge of infectious diseases, contagion, and vaccination. So the links with modern day science are obvious. From a ToK point of view we are interested in how pre-existing knowledge is integrated into newly emerging knowledge (and vice versa). We’re interested in the caution, maybe scepticism, maybe fear, with which new knowledge is greeted. We’re interested in the mutually inclusive relationship between the technology of knowledge production and the new knowledge produced.

Among other scientific ties to the Natural Sciences in Dracula, we find glimpses of early scientific theories like Physiognomy and hypnotism. These reflect the novel's potent interplay between existing knowledge and emerging scientific models.

Deciphering Dracula in the Human Sciences

When we shift our lens to the Human Sciences, Dracula accentuates how these disciplines often hinge on a rational model of the human. Stoker authored Dracula at a time when rational empirical positivism of both Natural and Human Sciences was uprooting older forms of knowledge production.

Dracula poses a disruptive question: What if humans aren't rational? What if we can't elucidate them using rational models? It's here we find divergences in Psychology and Anthropology. Psychology endeavours to comprehend people's irrational thoughts and behaviours through scientific models. At the time that Stoker was writing Dracula in Scotland, Dr Freud in Austria, was writing about Neuroses - he was creating a new science which aimed to understand people’s irrational thoughts and behaviours.

Dracula is an artistic visualisation of the neuroses, obsessions, phobias and fears that Dr Freud was identifying, naming and classifying. The labelling, identification, classification and organisation of knowledge is a big thing in ToK. We can ask whether without early Psychology we would have had Dracula ? In many ways Dracula is the AoK The Arts version of knowledge that Freud was creating in AoK The Human Sciences.

Anthropology stands in a special place in AoK The Human Sciences in its central focus on ethnomethodology. This is a process of knowledge production that proposes that to understand people you have to live their lives as closely as possible. This is the human as research tool, and in many ways it is unique in AoK Human Sciences. Rather than separate subject, object and researcher it blends their perspectives, championing validity over reliability. This is unlike the other Human Sciences that prioritise reliability over validity).  Arguably this central premise of ethnomethodology is mirrored in Dracula, you can only understand Vampires by becoming one. In wider terms this proposes that you can only evaluate knowledge from the inside rather than the outside. This mirrors the premise in Dracula that you can only comprehend vampires by becoming one.

Unfolding Dracula in the Realm of the Arts

In the Arts AoK, Dracula embodies the symbolic structure of the story arc. The narrative carries both surface-level meaning and deeper symbolic interpretations. This vividly encapsulates the dramatic transformations of the late 19th century, representing the disruptive changes in terms of artistic knowledge. Dracula's journey can be seen as a narrative of transformation and struggle between light and darkness. It reveals not just a physical journey, but also a profound emotional and moral journey. This demonstrates that knowledge can be multi-faceted, and artistic knowledge can represent these multiple perspectives in ways that are more difficult for knowledge from other AoKs.

Dracula and the emergence of new gender roles (Knowledge of identity).

Stoker's depiction of Mina Harker, an educated woman, reflects the changing norms and gender roles of the era. Stoker defies the Victorian ideal of a passive woman, positioning Mina as a pivotal character. Mina uses her intelligence to outwit Dracula. As such the novel demonstrates the potential for artistic knowledge to both describe an empirical reality and to imagine if that reality were changed, or how that reality might evolve. This is one of the key strengths of Artistic Knowledge relative to other forms of knowledge.

Furthermore, Dracula contributed to the evolution of the novel structure. Stoker employed an epistolary format, incorporating letters, diary entries, and newspaper articles, thereby altering the landscape of storytelling. The novel allows for the development of plural interpretations, representing a layered form of knowledge.

Concluding Thoughts

So, what can Dracula teach us about ToK? It demonstrates how Artistic knowledge can communicate and build upon knowledge from other AoK. It shows how knowledge development in one AoK impacts others. Further it emphasises how a society producing new knowledge can also react to new knowledge and perspectives.

In essence, "Dracula" takes us on a journey through the Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, and Arts. The novel unveils ToK debates that continue to resonate today.

ToK Resources (indirectly linked to Dracula and ToK)

If you would like more help with choosing & understanding Exhibition prompts, or choosing objects, you can pick up any of ToKToday’s e-books on the ToK Exhibition. We have e-books explaining individual prompts, a range of prompts, or all of the prompts.

You can also find out about our other resources to support your ToK Essay Writing at this link.

Are reason & emotion different forms of knowledge in ToK ?

ToK students often view Reason and Emotion as being oppositional forms of knowledge. Of course research by a number of Psychologists, including Damasio, show that Reason & Emotion are often mutually inclusive processes in both decision making, and in a wider sense of understanding our world.

Most [apparently] rational decisions are just a set of perceived choices which are shaped by an emotionally experienced end point.

If emotion shapes reason (and vice versa) the possible consequences for decision making are significant, consider:

• decision making in emergency situations such as natural or human disasters.

• decision making in potentially risky contexts such as use of substances, or interpersonal behaviours.

• decision making in policy setting contexts such as military intervention, or welfare spending.

Are emotions a form of knowledge ?

To look at the relationship between emotion and reason it’s useful to be able to explain emotion both in structure, form and function. I really like the first few chapters of Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence for explaining why and how emotions developed, and how they are structured. Essentially Goleman argues that emotions predate the development of modern sensory systems as such they constitute our pre-sensorial understanding of the world. Goleman explains that the word emotion comes from the Latin word motus meaning to move. Before the development of modern senses the stimulation of the limbic system would have made the organism move, that is to move away from danger, towards food, towards protection, and towards the opportunity to reproduce.

As such ToK students comparing emotion and reason have a way of showing the interrelationship between various Areas of Knowledge. If you take a neuro-evolutionary approach you can describe how the various lobes of the Cerebrum developed as a mutually inclusive process of the development of the various of organs of sensory perception. Roughly the Occipital Lobe developed as there was increased need to process data from the eyes, the Parietal lobe to deal process taste, and skin pressure, the Temporal Lobe for hearing, the Frontal lobe for speech and smell. The emphasis here is on the interpolation of the senses, and most importantly that sensory perception is built upon emotion.

Reason in ToK: an oversimplification?

This realisation then leaves us open for a wonderfully interesting discussion about the relative strengths of different types of knowledge in understanding and decision making. A rather cliched example that I pose my students is the decision about whom to date / marry: is this best made using reason or emotion as a form of knowledge ? Of course the answer to that question is culturally specific, do we marry the person we love, or grow to love the person we marry ? This can be easily seen as a reason vs emotion debate, but could be developed to a more sophisticated discussion around cultural influences on cognitively, and biologically based experiences. Which leads us to the issue of Neuroplasticity.

Neuroplasticity: is that reason or emotion?

Recent findings on Neuroplasticity turn the whole emotion / reason / perception etc debate upside down and inside out. If you are yet to hear about, or understand, the process of neuroplasticity click here for a far better explanation than I can give.

Lutz et al 2005 have shown that regular meditation causes structural changes to the brain of the meditator, improving functioning and increasing the number of Amygdala connections. Maguire et al 2006 found that London cab drivers had far more develop posterior hippocampi in comparison to London taxi drivers. both pieces of research used fMRI to investigate the brains of their subjects (the use of reason as a WoK…,). Both pieces of research found that the environment has a major influence on the structures which mediate emotion and reason. As such, the research would seem to suggest that rather than treating emotion and reason as separate types of knowledge we could look at them as being mutually integrated types of knowledge which are heavily influenced by the environment.

So emotions have reason based causes?

Let’s go back to the biological basis of emotion so oft described in the theories of emotion. Wedekind (1995) has shown that romantic attraction has a genetic basis in the major histocompatibility gene combination that a person carries (read more here). Again, the research shows an integration of emotion and reason as types of knowledge. However, in this case the ‘reason’ can be seen as an internal biological process of reasoning, akin to natural selection.

Further research from a range of researchers suggests that the hormone Oxytocin is the basis for bonding, attraction and love. If we can understand an emotional experience (such as love) as a biological process is it appropriate / correct to separate reason and emotion as types of knowledge ? does one not subsume the other ? Which subsumes which ? now becomes the crucial question.

Reason in ToK: The basis of scientific knowledge?

Whilst it could be argued that Scientific biological knowledge is based upon reason (ie establishing cause and effect, tested using experimental processes etc). It could also be argued that the motivation to establish this knowledge is in itself based upon emotion. The emotions in question here would be those associated with status, survival, self fulfilment. The more we look at ‘why humans seek to find things out’ the harder it becomes to dismiss the dominant role of human emotions.

For students who want to extend their depth of analysis this paper looks at the role of cognitive biases in disrupting emotions associated with motivation in patients who suffer depression and anxiety disorders. As such the paper shows a mutually integral relationship between emotion, reason and perception as types of knowledge.

If you’re preparing your ToK Exhibition, or deciding which ToK Exhibition prompt to use be sure to check out our range of ToK Exhibition e-books - ToK Exhibition prompts explained. They give you step by step ways of developing knowledge arguments for each ToK Exhibition prompt, and examples of objects that you could use. You can pick up the e-book of all prompts explained, or get an e-book for just 5 of the prompts, and we even have e-books explaining just the individual most popular prompts - whichever best suits your needs.

Daniel, Lisbon, Aug 2023

Understanding Intuition in the Context of ToK

Intuition is often seen as a mysterious, yet common and powerful form of knowledge. It sits in a space between a form of knowledge and an emotional response. Notably, we base many of our vital decisions (romantic partners, jobs, etc) on intuition. However, the role of intuition in decision making isn't very well understood. When it comes to experience, intuition often doesn't seem to match up with reason-based ways of knowing.

How Intuition and Emotions Fit Into ToK

A Theory of Knowledge (ToK) that includes intuition must also consider whether emotions are a form of knowledge. Neglecting intuition (or other emotions) in ToK misses some of the most critical influences on what we know, and why we know it. Hence, it's important to discuss intuition as a form of knowledge in ToK.

AoK Natural Sciences: Defining Intuition

We kick off with AoK Natural Sciences. Volz and Zander (2009) define intuition as a non-conscious process influencing behaviour, which operates based on implicitly acquired knowledge and signals to higher processing areas in the conscious brain. This takes us straight to the realm of AoK Human Sciences, especially neuro-psychology.

Neuro-Psychology and Intuition in ToK

To see intuition as more than an elusive meta-reality, we can examine cognitive processing in the memory and attention systems. Intuition might be understood as a process of linking implicit memories to conscious and subconscious memory systems. This perspective on intuition leads us to several intriguing knowledge questions about physical sensory perception.

Voss & Paller’s research published in Nature Neuroscience in 2009, provides evidence that the retrieval of explicit and implicit memories involves distinct neural substrates and mechanisms.

Essentially the research shows that stimuli encoded and stored whilst attention was diverted elsewhere were remembered more strongly than stimuli which were directly encoded through volition. As such this research indicates that intuition is most probably a product of learned behaviour rather than an innate ‘sixth sense’. In ToK terms this means that intuitive knowledge is formed indirectly without the proactive volition of the knower - we’ll call this the “indirect learning hypothesis”.

Knowledge Questions about Sensory Perception in ToK

The 'indirect learning' hypothesis of intuition brings forth a range of interesting knowledge(ish) questions about physical sensory perception, such as:

• Is evolved niche development the cause or consequence of the development of sense perception?

• Why did visual perception become the primary human sense?

• Have we 'lost' perceptual senses beyond those currently known?

• Is the residual data from lost/declining senses now labelled as intuition?

If Intuition is based on neurological processes of perception and learning (albeit indirect learning) then we should be able to improve decision making which is apparently based on ‘intuition’. This is exactly what Wan et al (2012) demonstrated with the training of novices in the game of Shogi (Japanese Chess). They trained the novices for 15 weeks, whilst also monitoring neural activation through fMRI. Wan et al took ‘next-move’ knowledge as being indicative of the knowledge that we usually label as ‘intuitive knowledge’. They compared professional players with amateurs, and found that professionals had a significantly higher level of stimulation of the caudate nucleus, an area in the dorsal of the Basal Ganglia. The role of the caudate nucleus in voluntary motor functioning has long been known, we are now beginning to understand that it also has a role in spatial mnemonics – which is similar in aspect to muscle memory. It is clear that indirect learning is involved in muscle memory, and other sensory based memories, as such the neurological basis for intuition becomes established.

The Importance of Intuition in ToK

In ToK terms this means that intuitive knowledge forms perception, and more pertinently perspective. These ‘frameworks of knowledge’ are acquired / socially constructed (through communities of knowers). However, they have an empirical biological base. This draws into focus the question of free will vs determinism - To what extent are we free to acquire / produce knowledge independently through volition, and to what extent is the acquisition & production of knowledge bound by external determinants such as biological conditioning ? This is even more acute given that the learning that leads to intuition is involuntary and indirect - ie we don’t choose to do it, we don’t know we’re doing it, and we have little control over it ! 

The claim that intuition has a neurological basis should be of interest to ToK students because firstly it gives an empirical basis for knowledge without evidence. Secondly, it starts to bring ‘scientific evidence’ to the constraints on our knowledge world. It leads us into the idea that our knowledge frameworks are, to a degree, the product of the limited boundaries of our biology. As such this claim leads to the possibility of currently unspecified AoK’s, those which have possibly ‘declined’ / lost during human evolution.

Intuition's Neurological Basis and its Impact on ToK

n conclusion I come back to the power of intuition, it’s a form of knowledge that we rely upon to validate other other forms of knowledge, and sometimes to make important decisions. Neuroscience is increasingly showing us that intuition is actually a learned set of skills and knowledge. As such it should be possible for us to teach people to be more intuitive. This would lead to better, and faster, decision making. As such knowledge of intuition becomes both an individual and social good.

In conclusion, intuition is a powerful form of knowledge that we rely on to validate other forms of knowledge and make important decisions. Neuroscience is increasingly showing us that intuition is actually a learned set of skills and knowledge. Therefore, it should be possible to teach people to be more intuitive, leading to better and faster decision making. Thus, knowledge of intuition becomes both an individual and social good.

ToK Exhibition Preparation

If you're preparing your ToK Exhibition, or deciding which ToK Exhibition prompt to use, be sure to check out our range of ToK Exhibition e-books - ToK Exhibition prompts explained. They provide step-by-step ways of developing knowledge arguments for each ToK Exhibition prompt, along with examples of objects that you could use. You can pick up the e-book of all prompts explained, or get an e-book for just 5 of the prompts, and we even have e-books explaining just the individual most popular prompts - whichever best suits your needs.

We also have resources to help you with your ToK Essay, and coaching services offered here.

Stay TokTastic my friends,
Daniel, August 2023

The Little Prince and ToK: Unraveling ToK in a Masterpiece.

A while ago, I shared my top 5 ToK books and notably, my number one pick was Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince". This raised some eyebrows among readers who found the choice unexpected, struggling to see a link between "The Little Prince" and ToK. Today, we will delve into this enchanting story and draw out its intricate web of ToK connections.

The Little Prince: An Unusual ToK Resource

The choice of "The Little Prince" as a primary ToK resource is twofold. Firstly, it's an engaging story that, on the surface, doesn't seem complex nor philosophical. This simplicity makes it accessible to everyone. Secondly, it introduces the fundamental concepts of ToK by fostering an emotional bond with the reader.

Getting to Know The Little Prince

If you're unfamiliar with "The Little Prince", it's readily available online and is a rather short read. Alternatively, you can listen to Kenneth Branagh narrate it on YouTube. The story follows a young prince journeying across different planets, each home to unique characters who personify diverse aspects of human experience such as love, loss, and friendship.

The Construction of Knowledge: The Little Prince's Voyage

The Little Prince's interplanetary journey can be interpreted as a symbol of knowledge construction. On each planet, the Prince interacts with inhabitants who each encapsulate a different facet of human nature and societal norms, teaching him about power, vanity, escape, obsession, duty, and understanding.

This journey resonates with ToK's concept that knowledge is constructed through experiential learning and social interactions. Yet, the Prince often questions the relevance and quality of the knowledge he gains, urging us to contemplate the usefulness of the knowledge we construct.

The Interpretation of Knowledge: Seeing with the Heart

Among the valuable lessons from "The Little Prince" is the interpretation of knowledge. The fox imparts the wisdom, "One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible to the eye," implying that understanding should extend beyond what is physically perceivable.

This emphasises the subjective interpretation of knowledge in ToK. Each individual knower, influenced by their unique experiences, emotions, and perspectives, interprets knowledge differently. Even empirical evidence is processed through individual interpretive frameworks, often determined by areas of knowledge, subject disciplines, the knower's community, or personal perspectives.

The Knower’s Perspective: The Little Prince and the Aviator

The story juxtaposes the Little Prince's innocent, profound perception and the Aviator's grounded, adult perspective, underscoring the knower's influence on reality comprehension. This aligns with ToK's understanding that the knower's context, such as age and cultural background, shapes their knowledge perspective.

The narrative addresses the classic ToK debate of knowledge being discovered or created. The Aviator's rigid understanding of the world is contrasted against the Little Prince's open-mindedness, signifying how openness to new perspectives can foster wisdom and understanding.

Evidence and Claims: The Snake’s Riddle

In ToK, the validity of claims is evaluated based on supporting evidence. A key example in "The Little Prince" is the snake's riddle—"I can carry you further than any ship could take you". This claim lacks tangible evidence, leaving its validity open to interpretation.

This emphasises ToK's fluid concept of evidence. The selection and interpretation of evidence can lead to different understandings or misconceptions, highlighting the need for critical examination of claims.

Ethical Dilemmas: Taming the Fox

When the Little Prince tames the fox, he faces an ethical dilemma—whether to form a bond knowing the inevitable pain of parting. This dilemma resonates with ToK's understanding that knowledge comes with responsibility and ethical considerations.

Conclusion: The Little Prince and ToK

Although "The Little Prince" seems simplistic, it offers deep insights into ToK. It encourages us to reflect on the construction and interpretation of knowledge, the knower's perspective, the importance of evidence, and ethical dimensions of knowledge.

Let the Little Prince guide us through the complex landscape of ToK, teaching us that knowledge exploration is a journey of discovery, contemplation, interpretation, and growth.

As we conclude, if you're working on your ToK Exhibition and need guidance with choosing a prompt, understanding the prompt that you have chosen or selecting objects, consider using ToKToday’s e-books. We have resources explaining individual prompts, a range of prompts, or all of the prompts.

I hope this exploration of "The Little Prince and ToK" inspires you as much as it does me. Stay curious and Stay TokTastic !

Daniel, August 2023

What's the problem with history in ToK ?

In my experience AoK History is the AoK that students find hardest to use in ToK. 

Let me explain why. Most students understand that there can be bias in historical knowledge. They understand that bias can derive from the interpretation of historical evidence, and the production of historical knowledge.

However, not many students understand that the very concept of historical knowledge is highly contested. We can start by roughly identifying 2 broad approaches on what historical knowledge is. These are the Relativist Approach, and the Absolutist Approach.

An example of the problem of historical knowledge.

Let’s start with a concrete example: When did the second world war start ? It seems like a fairly straight forward question. If we google it we are told that WW2 started on 1st september 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. However, France & the UK didn’t declare war on Germany until 3rd September 1939, so did it actually start on 3rd September ? Further, Germany, Poland, UK & France at war isn’t “world war”, it’s European war. Maybe we have to look at the US entry to the war in December 1941 after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. However, the US were supporting UK & France’s war effort from September 1940, so maybe they entered the war then ? Talking of Japan - they invaded Manchuria on 19th September 1931, so maybe that was the start of the second world war, maybe it was the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in Oct 1935, or maybe the Spanish Civil war in 1936 ? Obviously it comes down to definitions, how are we defining the second world war - definitions are all important in ToK, and this is just as evident in AoK History as in any other AoK.

One of the main problems with the treatment of AoK History in ToK is that students often engage in the historical record (as I did above), rather than in the production of historical knowledge. ToK studies how historical knowledge is made rather than the historical knowledge itself. Sure there’s an overlap, but the focus needs to be on the construction of the knowledge. This is where relativist and absolutist approaches to historical knowledge come in.

Relativist & Absolutist Approaches to History

Relativist and absolutist approaches to historical knowledge represent two distinct viewpoints concerning our understanding of history. The fundamental difference between the two lies in their beliefs about the nature of truth, objectivity, and the role of perspectives in interpreting historical events.

Absolutists (sometimes grouped with objectivists) believe in the existence of a single, unalterable, and objective truth. They argue that historical events are absolute facts that exist independently of the individuals or societies that perceive them. In other words, absolutists believe that there is a factual truth, or single truth version of history. Or as one student put it recently : an actualité. Absolutist historians aspire to portray history as it "truly" happened, asserting that there is a definitive account of historical events. This truth can be known through meticulous research and comprehensive evidence. They contend that the historian's role is similar to that of a scientist. They're trying to develop an unbiased, detached, and unequivocal understanding of the past. Bias, they believe, can and should be removed through rigorous methodology. Most students that I meet have an absolutist view of history, but in ToK we need to look at more than one perspective. Very few students look at the relativist view of history.

Relativists, often called constructivists, propose that our understanding of history is inherently subjective and multiple truths can coexist. They contend that historical knowledge is not independent of our interpretation but is constructed through the lenses of culture, time, place, and personal perspective. They posit that it's impossible to separate historical facts from the context in which they are understood, implying that historical "truth" is relative to the observer's viewpoint. Relativist historians view their role more as interpreters, giving voice to different perspectives and narratives. They believe bias is inevitable and consider it a part of the narrative that can enrich our understanding of the past.

Evaluation of relativist and absolutist approaches to History

The absolutist approach has been praised for its dedication to objectivity and commitment to the truth. Critics point out that it may oversimplify complex historical events by seeking a singular, definitive narrative and ignoring differing viewpoints. The relativist approach is praised for embracing complexity and multiple perspectives. However it is criticised for its potential to lead to a form of historical relativism where any interpretation could be seen as equally valid, regardless of evidence or logical consistency.

In practice, many historians tend to use a blend of both approaches. They strive for objectivity and rigour while acknowledging that their understanding of the past is inevitably shaped by their perspectives and the context in which they work. This approach helps to create a nuanced, richly textured understanding of history. This makes room for both the pursuit of objective facts and the recognition of subjective interpretations.

So, if you’re considering using AoK History in ToK Essay or Exhibition, consider the different approaches to historical knowledge. Doing so will help you to have a more sophisticated discussion, and to get higher marks !

If you’re looking for extra help with your ToK Essay or Exhibition check out the links below. You can also look at the other resources on TokToday.com. If you're writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary check out the ever popular e-book Every ToK Exhibition Prompt explained.

I also offer ToK Coaching and Written Feedback: details on the Student Support Pages.

I hope that this post helps you if you are writing about history, stay tok-tastic my friends.

Daniel, Lisbon, July 2023

Help with ToK Essay:

How to write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps (ebook)

Why do the best ToK Essays get mediocre grades? (teachers)

Choosing your ToK Essay Question

Help with ToK Exhibition

Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes

What can Taylor Swift teach us about ToK?

How do I structure my ToK Exhibition Commentary?

What can Frankenstein teach us about ToK ?

One of my favourite bits of ToK is the optional theme Knowledge and Technology. Frankenstein is a really useful novel for Knowledge & Technology.

Mary Shelley’s seminal novel, "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus," (1818) has become a crucial text in examining the fears and anxieties of humanity being overshadowed or replaced by the rapid growth and development of technology. The novel, written in the 19th century, a period marked by significant scientific and technological advancements, embodies an inherent tension between the arts and the sciences, an apparent tension that we often explore in ToK. This tension also reverberates in our current apprehensions concerning artificial intelligence.

Frankenstein: (V.) brief synopsis

Shelley's tale of Victor Frankenstein, a man consumed by his ambition to bring life to inanimate matter, resonates with contemporary readers through its exploration of unchecked scientific ambition. Victor's success in creating a sentient creature reflects the age-old fear that humanity, in its relentless pursuit of knowledge and control, might overstep its boundaries and bring about unforeseen consequences. We can see discussions of this in ToK in the ethical issues arising from the development of scientific knowledge.

Culture & Context for ToK

During the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution was reshaping society and economies, making way for a future characterised by mechanisation and technology. Simultaneously, the Romantic movement emerged, with artists and thinkers emphasising emotion, imagination, and the human connection to nature as a counterweight to the growing prevalence of rationalist science and industry. There's a clear link to ToK here between different ways to approach the production of knowledge: imagination, emotion and subjectivity on the romanticists side versus reason, logic and objectivity on the scientific side. At the danger of reductionism, it could be thought of as AoK The Arts vs AoK The Sciences. It poses questions for the traditional empiricism vs rationalism debate as both empiricism and rationalism are enshrined within the scientific side.

William Blake: a visionary thinker

Let me quickly mention William Blake, one of my favourite romananticists of 19th century England. Check out Blake’s paintings and poetry  if you want to get a sense of the 19thC fear of industrialism and science, if you are in London go to The Tate Gallery in Pimlico where you can see Blake’s paintings - for free.

Frankenstein: Sciences vs The Arts?

Back to Frankenstein, in the book Mary Shelley navigates this tension between the arts and sciences masterfully. Victor’s obsession with scientific knowledge and the subsequent creation of the monster, which leads to his ruin, is a manifestation of the fear that the sciences, if not tempered with humane sensibility and the wisdom of the arts, might lead to humanity's downfall.

Shelley uses the narrative to highlight the necessity of empathy, responsibility, and moral judgment in our engagements with technology. Victor's failure isn't his scientific achievement per se but his inability to foresee the ethical implications of his creation and his subsequent refusal to take responsibility for it. This portrayal serves as a powerful critique of a technocratic worldview that values scientific advancement over moral considerations.

Frankenstein and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The connection between Frankenstein's monster and modern concerns about artificial intelligence (AI) is strikingly evident. Like the monster, AI is a product of human ingenuity and ambition. It's a technology capable of learning, evolving, and potentially surpassing human intelligence. This possibility sparks fear and anxiety, similar to those conveyed in Shelley’s novel. These fears revolve around the loss of control over our creation and the potential consequences of an intelligence that could, in theory, exceed our own. This is reflected in the fear of Victor Frankenstein when he realises he has created a being stronger and more resilient than any human.

Frankenstein & The Ethics of knowledge.

Moreover, the ethical dilemmas that AI presents parallel those illustrated in Frankenstein. How should we treat entities that possess, or seem to possess, consciousness? What responsibilities do creators have towards their creations, especially when those creations have the capacity to cause harm?

Just as Shelley's novel represented 19th-century anxieties about industrial technologies, it similarly echoes contemporary concerns about AI. It offers a cautionary tale about the hubris of creation without forethought for consequences and the potential ethical implications of advanced technology. The debates between science and art, rationality and emotion, technological progress and moral responsibility are explored. That debates that Shelley navigated in her time continue to shape our discourse about AI today.

Despite the centuries separating Shelley's context from ours, Frankenstein remains an enduringly relevant narrative. It urges us to grapple with our fears about technology and to engage with the ethical implications of our scientific endeavors. Whether in the form of Frankenstein’s monster, or the spectre of rogue AI, the fear that our creations might overtake us persists. This reminds us of the need to balance our scientific ambitions with our moral responsibilities.

If you’re thinking of exploring the relationship between the arts and science in your ToK Essay or Exhibition, consider looking at Shelley’s Frankenstein. You could also consider Blake’s work or other 18th and 19th century writers and artists.

If you’re looking for extra help with your ToK Essay or Exhibition we have loads of resources to help you. If you're working on the ToK Exhibition be sure to check out the ever popular e-book Every ToK Exhibition Prompt explained.

More ToK help?:

What are the Examiners thinking? (ToK Exhibition)

How to write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps

What can Taylor Swift teach us about ToK?

Basic mistakes in the ToK Exhibition

What can Minecraft teach us about ToK?

What is the link between Minecraft and ToK ? How can we use Minecraft to understand ToK ? Are their parallels ? Is one a metaphor for the other ? A video version of this blog is linked here.

ToK is an exploration of how knowledge is made. Therefore there is ToK in everything that we know. I ask my students to reflect on the ToK in their lives. Unfortunately, I doubt that many of them are reading Bertrand Russell, Simone de Beauvoir or Marcel Proust on a daily basis. However, they probably are playing computer games, listening to music and watching TV everyday. So we’re going to look at how ToK manifests itself in elements of popular culture.

Minecraft as a metaphor for ToK ?

We’re going to start by looking at Minecraft because it’s one of the elements of popular culture to make connections with ToK . Minecraft is about constructing worlds, ToK is about how knowledge is constructed.

Minecraft offers players a vast and immersive virtual world to explore and shape according to their imagination. While it may seem like a simple game at first glance, Minecraft holds several ToK lessons that can be gleaned from its gameplay and mechanics. From the concepts of creativity and self-expression to the significance of community and the exploration of the function and meaning of knowledge, Minecraft offers us a rich ToK experience.

Minecraft & the metaphor of the map.

Minecraft is the obvious computer game representation of that old ToK favourite the Metaphor of the map. This is the idea that knowledge can be thought of as a map. It is built for a particular purpose, and that purpose determines what is shown on the map and how it is shown in relation to everything else on the map. Knowledge, like the map has boundaries, and that which is not known is not represented.

Construction in Minecraft & ToK

In Minecraft we build our own world - this is like our knowledge world, all that is known is represented in this minecraft world. That which is not known is not represented (obviously). The minecraft world is built for a purpose, just like the knowledge world, and it has boundaries, just like the knowledge world.

The concept of structural Integrity is also shared between the minecraft world and the knowledge world. In the minecraft world buildings are made from interlocking a range of different shaped blocks, in the knowledge world knowledge is made by combining information with meaning, purpose and context. In the minecraft world you can have strong blocks leading to solid building. Likewise in ToK we have strong methodologies for making solid, reliable and accurate knowledge. Likewise in Minecraft we can have weak and damaged blocks which lead to unreliable, unsafe buildings. I don’t need to describe the parallel with the knowledge world.

Self expression, the perspective of The Knower.

One of the fundamental ToK lessons that Minecraft imparts is the power of creativity and self-expression. The game encourages players to build and create using a variety of blocks, allowing them to construct intricate structures, landscapes, and even entire worlds. In doing so, Minecraft teaches players the value of imagination, innovation, and the satisfaction that comes from applying imagination in the minecraft world. This concept mirrors ToK ideas about the human capacity for innovation and creation of new knowledge, and the significance of the unique perspective of the player, or knower in the ToK World.

The power of community.

Furthermore, Minecraft emphasises the significance of collaboration and community. The game enables players to engage in multiplayer mode, where they can join forces, collaborate on projects, and work towards common goals. In this context, Minecraft showcases the inherent value of cooperation and networks in the construction of knowledge. The game highlights the benefits of collective effort in achieving greater outcomes. This aligns with the ToK ideas surrounding communities of knowers, cooperation, and the idea that as knowers we have contextualised knowledge perspectives.

Minecraft: Empiricism vs Rationalism ?

Another ToK theme present in Minecraft revolves around exploration and discovery. The game presents a vast, open world teeming with hidden treasures, uncharted territories, and secrets waiting to be unveiled. Minecraft prompts players to venture into the unknown, to embrace curiosity, and to push the boundaries of their understanding. In this sense, the game reflects ToK notions of the human desire for knowledge, or curiosity and the importance of exploration in broadening our horizons. The core ToK theme of rationalism vs empiricism ie is knowledge created or discovered ? is implied in the structure of minecraft.

The wider ToK theme of the function of knowledge also finds its place within Minecraft. The game provides players with a sense of autonomy and freedom. This allows them to navigate and shape the virtual world according to their desires. This concept of agency and personal responsibility mirrors ToK ideas about free will vs determinism. Individuals are encouraged to take charge of their own lives, make choices, and find meaning in their existence. Minecraft reminds players that they have the power to shape their own narratives, both within the game and in their lives beyond it.

The evolution of knowledge.

Finally, Minecraft touches upon the ToK concepts of the evolution of knowledge and the consequent transient nature of current knowledge. In Minecraft structures can be built and destroyed, landscapes can be transformed, and the virtual world is in a constant state of flux. This mirrors ToK ideas about the temporary nature of current knowledge. Including the importance of thesis, antithesis and synthesis in the development of knowledge.

There are many ways in which Minecraft could be used as an object for reflection in the ToK Exhibition. If you are looking for help and ideas with your ToK Exhibition ToKToday has detailed explanations. We also have suggestions for objects for EVERY ToK Exhibition Prompt - link here.

Minecraft teaches players to appreciate the beauty of transience, to adapt to new circumstances, and to find value in the process rather than fixating on the end result. Similarly, ToK teaches us about the inherent beauty of knowledge construction, application and evolution.

Watch out for more posts on the link between ToK and computer games, music and movies.

Stay tok-tastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, May 2023

ToK Exhibition: Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds?

Get LOTS more help with this prompt from the e-book Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds explained.

Only €5 (US$5.30) this e-book has detailed explanations of knowledge claims, and suggestions for objects that could be used.

Available for immediate download (get help now, no waiting around for email replies).

Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds? - YouTube Video of this commentary linked here

Interpretation of prompt (should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds ?):

I interpret this prompt as asking whether there is some knowledge that we should not acquire, or produce, for ethical reasons. You may interpret it in a different way, that’s fine, just be sure to explain to the examiner at the beginning how you are interpreting it. I have seen some students who have interpreted this prompt as asking whether we have to use ethical means to acquire knowledge. That’s not how I interpret it.

Identify Knowledge arguments BEFORE the objects.

Ok - let’s work out 3 knowledge arguments to answer this prompt. I strongly recommend that students identify 3 knowledge arguments BEFORE you identify objects for the prompt - it makes the rest of the exhibition easier, and makes it more likely that you will gain high marks.

So:

Knowledge Argument 1:

Some knowledge should not be sought because seeking it will require unethical behaviours.

Knowledge Argument 2:

Some knowledge should not be sought because there is a high probability that it will be used for unethical purposes.

Knowledge Argument 3:

All knowledge, including ethical standards, is contextual, therefore there is no knowledge that should not be sought on ethical grounds.

These are just examples of knowledge questions that could be used for this IA prompt, there are many other knowledge questions that you could develop for this prompt.

Now we have our knowledge questions let’s develop each of them as an answer to the prompt. To do this we will be using the ToKToday structure that ensures that you cover all aspects of the marking rubric, increasing your chances of getting a high score in The Exhibition.

moving from real world context to knowledge arguments in ToK Exhibition

Object 1: Photo of Tuskegee University, Alabama, United States.

By Skegeepedia - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Explain link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.

Between 1932-1972 Tuskegee University, and the US Dept of Public Health, infected 399 African American men with syphilis in order to study the progression of syphilis in the men. The study is now deemed unethical as the men were not given proper treatment for their disease. Further, the researchers did not obtain informed consent from the participants, and the study potentially perpetuated harmful stereotypes about African Americans (Ogungbure).

Explain link between the object and the knowledge argument.

The aim of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (to understand the natural progression of the disease in African American Men) would be deemed justifiable by many health professionals. However, this knowledge could have been sought using ethical means such as studying men who have contracted the disease naturally. The debate is whether the quality of knowledge produced by unethical means was significantly better than that which would have been produced using ethical means. If the knowledge produced unethically was significantly better than that produced ethically the unethical “costs” of seeking such knowledge could be justified. In some instances knowledge produced unethically can lead to greater ethical benefits than the costs of the unethical practices required to produce them. In the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study the knowledge gained is deemed by many researchers to not be significantly better than that which could have been gained using ethical methods (Pritchard and Goldfarb). How we determine “better” knowledge varies depending on the context, including the purpose of the knowledge, the intentions of the researcher, and methodological constraints. The context of the Tuskegee study did not require unethical practices to produce knowledge that was significantly better than that which could have been sought ethically. As such this object demonstrates that some knowledge should not be sought on ethical grounds due to unethical practices of seeking that knowledge.

Justification for inclusion in the Exhibition.

The Tuskegee study is included specifically because it demonstrates that often knowledge can be sought using ethical means rather than unethical means even if the ethical means are lengthier or more costly.

Words for object 1: 321

Object 2: Eugenics poster from Wonders of Life Exhibition, Berlin 1935.

(“Bundesarchiv Bild 102-16748, Ausstellung ‘Wunder Des Lebens’”)

Explain link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.

Object 2 is a poster shown at an exhibition in Berlin in 1935. The poster promotes human eugenics (selective breeding to increase the frequency of “desirable” characteristics). The poster shows demographic projections of the higher fertility of the "inferior" people compared to "superior" people. The poster shows that some knowledge should not be sought on ethical grounds if that knowledge will be used for unethical purposes. As such, object 2 refers to ethical grounds as the ethical principles regarding the use of knowledge.

Explain link between the object and the knowledge argument.

Much research into genetics has occurred since the Nazis were undertaking eugenics research in the 1940s. Contemporary genetics research is governed by strong ethical frameworks, including ethical codes of practice, disclosure and application, including the use of ethical boards and overseeing bodies. As such contemporary genetics research is widely deemed to be ethical, it gives us an understanding of the link between genetics and various diseases, and is used to improve human health and prolong life. However, the Nazis used the subsection of genetics research known as eugenics in order to develop a “superior” racial grouping. Their research methods involved many unethical practices including enforced sterilisation, murder of people with specific conditions, and enforced surgery.

Justification for inclusion in the Exhibition.

Object 2 is included in The Exhibition because it demonstrates that not only should some knowledge not be sought because of the methodology of seeking that knowledge, but also because of the application of the knowledge when it is produced. Contemporary genetics research (in contrast to Eugenics research) has parallels in terms of the knowledge sought, but both the methodology of seeking the knowledge, and the use of the knowledge produced, is radically different from eugenics research (Caplan et al.).

Object 2 words: 365

Object 3: Fingerprints by Francis Galton (1892)

Explain link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.

Object three is the book fingerprints by Frances Galton 1892. Francis Galton undertook the first scientific study of fingerprints as a means of identification, and was the first scientist to codify the use of fingerprints for identification. This object is linked to the prompt because Galten's work on fingerprints would be deemed unethical by today's standards and yet the knowledge is now applied for ethical purposes. As such this object demonstrates that all knowledge including ethics is contextual, and therefore open to change, and therefore no knowledge should not be sought on ethical grounds.

Explain link between the object and the knowledge argument.

In the 1890s gold Cinemas undertaking a form of eugenics research in which he was interested in the relationship between genetics and phenotypical characteristics. he undertook Mass cross cultural research. the aims, some of the practices, and the knowledge produced from this research would have be deemed unethical today. However, at the time The work was viewed as respectable and sophisticated scientific research. This shows that ethical codes and practices change in time and space.As such we could argue that we should seek knowledge regardless of current ethical beliefs as those ethical beliefs may change in the future (Galton and Galton) .

However, Galton's work gives further support for this argument because in the course of his research codified the use of fingerprints as a means of identification. This knowledge is used in such a way today that would be deemed ethical in preventing wrongdoing.

Justification for inclusion in the Exhibition.

Object 3 is included because it was the first time that fingerprints were scientifically studied to produce the knowledge for reliable identification by fingerprint. Arguably, because of Galton’s context, and the lack of prior research in this area, the study necessarily broke contemporary ethical guidelines. However, not only was the research not deemed unethical in the late 19th century, but the knowledge produced from Galton’s research is used for ethical purposes today. As such, this object supports the proposition that all knowledge should be sought regardless of the ethical grounds.

Object 3 words: 329.

Total words: 1015 (I’ve got a bit of editing to do)

Other resources available on The ToK Exhibition includes:

Key factor in ToK Exhibition: Specificity

ToK Exhibition Commentary: What counts as knowledge?

What are the Examiners thinking? (ToK Exhibition)

Bibliography.

Works Cited

• “Bundesarchiv Bild 102-16748, Ausstellung ‘Wunder Des Lebens.’” Wikimedia.org, 2021, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-16748%2C_Ausstellung_%27Wunder_des_Lebens%27_rotate_crop.jpg?20210601153422. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.

• Caplan, A. L., et al. “What Is Immoral about Eugenics?” British Medical Journal, vol. 319, no. 7220, Nov. 1999, pp. 1284–84, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1284.

• Galton, D. J., and C. J. Galton. “Francis Galton: And Eugenics Today.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 24, no. 2, Apr. 1998, pp. 99–105, https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.24.2.99. British Medical Journal.

• Ogungbure, Adebayo. “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Some Ethical Reflections.” A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK) New Series, vol. 3, no. 2, 2011, pp. 75–92, www.ajol.info/index.php/tp/article/view/74876/65465#:~:text=The%20Tuskegee%20Study%20raised%20a.

• Pritchard, Michael, and Theodore Goldfarb. “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study | Online Ethics.” Onlineethics.org, 2000, onlineethics.org/cases/ethics-science-classroom/tuskegee-syphilis-study.

• Skegeepedia. “English: Built in 1906 and Completely Renovated in 2013, Tompkins Hall Serves as the Primary Student Dining Facility and Student Center. The Building Includes a Ballroom, an Auditorium, a Game Room, a Retail Restaurant, and a 24-Hour Student Study with Healthy Food Vending Machines. It Is Home to the Offices of the Student Government Association (SGA).” Wikimedia Commons, 26 Oct. 2013, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30051263. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.

Fallacies in ToK

In ToK we are concerned with questions such as how knowledge is acquired, the nature of truth, and the extent of our knowledge. One of the key challenges in ToK is identifying and avoiding fallacies – errors in reasoning that can lead us to false conclusions. In this blog post, we will explore the main types of fallacies found in ToK.

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy

The ad hominem fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. In ToK, this fallacy might take the form of dismissing an argument because of the person making it rather than addressing the merits of the argument. For example, if someone argues that climate change is real, and someone else dismisses the argument by saying that the person making the argument is a liberal, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.

2. Straw Man Fallacy

The straw man fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer misrepresents the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack. In ToK, this might occur when someone misrepresents an opposing view in order to make their own view appear stronger. For example, if someone argues that atheism is the belief that there is no god, and an atheist argues that atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god, the theist would be committing a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting the atheist's position.

3. Appeal to Authority Fallacy

The appeal to authority fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer cites an authority figure in order to support their argument, without providing any further evidence or argumentation. In ToK, this might occur when someone argues that a particular belief is true simply because an expert or authority figure says it is true. However, this is not a valid argument, as experts and authority figures can also be wrong or biased.

4. False Dilemma Fallacy

The false dilemma fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer presents only two options as though they are the only options, when in fact there may be other possibilities. In ToK, this might occur when someone argues that either science or religion can provide us with the truth about the world, ignoring the possibility that both may be useful in different ways.

5. Circular Reasoning Fallacy

The circular reasoning fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer uses the conclusion of the argument as one of the premises. In ToK, this might occur when someone argues that a particular belief is true because it is supported by scripture, and then uses the belief in scripture as evidence for the truth of the belief. This is not a valid argument, as it simply assumes the truth of the conclusion.

In conclusion, fallacies can be a major obstacle to gaining knowledge and understanding in ToK. By being aware of the most common types of fallacies, we can better identify them and avoid them in our own reasoning and arguments. This, in turn, can help us to arrive at more accurate and well-supported conclusions about Knowledge acquisition and production.

Daniel, Lisbon, March 2023

Are all swans white? (Falsification)

The Principle of Falsification in Theory of Knowledge

The Falsification Principle is a method used in science to test the validity of scientific statements or theories. It was first introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, who argued that scientific knowledge must be testable and falsifiable, meaning that it must be possible to demonstrate that it is false. In other words, a scientific statement or theory can only be considered true if it is possible to prove it false.

To illustrate the Falsification Principle, let us consider the statement "all swans are white". If this statement is true, then every swan that has ever existed or will exist must be white. However, this statement can be falsified if just one black swan is found. The discovery of a black swan would prove that the statement "all swans are white" is false, as it would contradict the statement's claim that all swans are white. This example demonstrates the power of the Falsification Principle, as it shows how a single observation can disprove a theory or statement.

The Falsification Principle is important for establishing objective knowledge in science because it provides a way to test scientific statements and theories. By attempting to falsify a theory, scientists can determine whether it is true or not. If a theory withstands numerous attempts at falsification, it becomes more likely to be true. This process of testing and refining scientific knowledge helps to establish a strong foundation of objective knowledge that can be relied upon for future research.

One of the key benefits of the Falsification Principle is that it prevents scientists from making unfalsifiable claims. An unfalsifiable claim is one that cannot be proven false, and therefore cannot be tested using the scientific method. For example, the claim that "God exists" is unfalsifiable, as it is not possible to prove that God does not exist. Since this claim cannot be tested, it falls outside the realm of science.

The Falsification Principle also helps to prevent scientists from making unjustified claims. By requiring that scientific statements and theories be testable and falsifiable, the Falsification Principle ensures that human and natural scientists do not make claims that cannot be supported by evidence. This helps to maintain the integrity of scientific research and ensures that scientific knowledge is based on sound evidence.

In conclusion, the Falsification Principle is an important tool in AoK Human Science and Natural Science for establishing objective knowledge. By requiring that scientific statements and theories be testable and falsifiable, the Falsification Principle ensures that scientific knowledge is based on sound evidence and prevents scientists from making unfalsifiable or unjustified claims. The example of "all swans are white" demonstrates how the Falsification Principle can be used to test scientific statements and theories, and how it can help to establish a strong foundation of objective knowledge in science.

Daniel, Lisbon, March 2023

Further related posts can be found at:

Historical Truth

Applying the scientific method.

Priest's religious knowledge - do they believe in God?

Today's post can be used as an RLS for The Core Theme Knowledge & The Knower, and as RLS for AoK Human Sciences, and the Optional Theme Knowledge and Religion. It's about Priests who don't believe in God, and was the most popular post on my old ToK Blog (ToKTrump). There are obvious links with the role of Religious Knowledge in this research.

The Core Theme: Knowledge and The Knower is a very broad unit encompassing a wide range of knowledge questions. It can be a little unwieldy if not focussed onto some key knowledge questions, or a set of themes. I have slowly developed a sense that my student's most illuminating learning in this unit is firstly that knowledge is constructed rather than give, secondly that that process of construction is highly contextualised, and finally that it is not experienced as contextualised by the knower.

It's difficult to find the original study today, however I did find:

A review in The Atheist's Quarterly on JSTOR linked.

A summary on the website Why Evolution is True linked.

The world view of the knower is not experienced as contextualised, but is their "known world". We can draw upon Husserl's view of "Lebenswelt" or lived world here.

Why is The Priests who don't believe in God pertinent to ToK ?

Unstructured interviews of 5 non-believing priests carried out by Dennett & LaScola (2010) are a fascinating, and rare, insight into people who hold one set of beliefs, and yet live their lives by another set of beliefs. This dissonant state gives rise to a compelling set of insights for ToK. Whilst this example may not be 'typical' for most knowers, arguably it is in this somewhat extreme, contrast that we can uncover some of the processes of knowing that are experienced by all of us as knowers. Some of these implications include:

• We can hold contradictory knowledge (and beliefs) at the same time.

• Performativity of knowledge is both evidential and significant ( a behavioural element of knowledge).

• Internal ethical justification of knowledge occurs when the knower is presented with contradictory or inimical knowledge/beliefs/values.

• Even deeply held beliefs and values can change when the knower is challenged with opposing arguments/beliefs/values.

• When deeply held beliefs/values are changed the knower may not change their public behaviours according to the newly held beliefs.

• Beliefs & values (as forms of knowledge) can be known in many different ways by different knowers.

How to use this in ToK:

Core Theme: Knowledge & The Knower.

A quick skim through the KQs of the Core theme Knowledge & The Knower we can immediately see links to many KQs, particularly those dealing with the knower's knowledge in relation to others through interactions. I have allocated KQs to groups of students and asked them to use the research to explore their allocated KQ.

AoK Human Sciences.

The study can be relevant to all of the Hum Sci Knowledge Framework. Of particular interest to me is the link to perspectives and research methods. Specifically the validity vs reliability debate, and the value of extrapolation from a small (& we assume unrepresentative) sample.

Optional Theme - Knowledge & Religion.

Obviously there are a range of interesting KQs which could be explored using the Dennett & La Scola study. Of particular interest is the link between faith & religious beliefs, the role of culture's influence on religious beliefs, the relationship between reason and religious beliefs, etc.

For more ToK Lesson content for Knowledge and the Knower try this link.

For more ToK Lesson content on AoK Human Sciences try this link.

Conclusion.

The Dennett & LaScola research focuses on an atypical and unusual situation in knowledge. However, maybe it is in the strong contrasts found in the unusual cases that we can better understanding the framework and underlying processes of the knowledge held in all other cases.

If you would like more content like this (focussing on useful RLS), or have suggestions for further content please don't hesitate to contact me - Daniel@TokToday.com

Wishing you a great day!
Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 2023

Bibliography & References.

• “Atheists Anonymous.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 34, no. 3, 2010, pp. 77–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41000971. Accessed 11 Jan. 2023.

• whyevolutionistrue. “Dennett and LaScola Study of Nonbelieving Clergy.” Why Evolution Is True, 18 Mar. 2010, whyevolutionistrue.com/2010/03/18/dennett-and-lascola-study-on-nonbelieving-clergy/. Accessed 11 Jan. 2023.

Ethics & Technology.

When thinking about the possible ethical issues arising from technology in a ToK context I start from the perspective of ethics rather than technology. In doing so I will be asking 4 big questions:

• What are the potential ethical issues arising from technology?

• Where do these ethics and technology issues sit on a ‘good-bad’ continuum?

• What are the implications of these ethics & technology issues for the construction and acquisition of knowledge?

• How might these ethics & technology issues evolve in the future?

What are the potential ethical issues arising from technology?

We tend to think of ethical issues arising from technology in modern terms, ie issues arising from modern digital technologies. However there have been ethical issues arising from technology since humans first started to utilise technology. In the modern age such issues rose to greatest prominence during the first era of industrialisation in the 19th Century.

I will look at ethical issues arising from technology through 4 main lenses / perspectives. Each perspective has both positive and negative ethical consequences within it.

4 lenses that have ethical consequences arising from the application of technology:

• Accessibility

• Health, productivity and fulfilment.

• Diversification - Homogenisation

• Privacy - Autonomy - Control

Accessibility.

Positive ethical consequences of improved access afforded by technology.

Technology both increases and decreases accessibility across a wide range of fields, and in multiple ways. A starting point to think about this is that technology should increase our capacity to manipulate the environment. The outcomes of such manipulation in terms of accessibility will reflect the value basis of those in charge of the technology. Whether this is a negative, or positive, ethical outcome will also largely depend on the value basis of those making the judgement. Let’s take the application of technology in a mediaeval village as a real world example. The application of technology to crop production (eg ploughing, irrigation, crop rotation etc) increases the yield of production. Thus increasing access to food, and the time available to residents to access other ways to spend their time. There are subsequent consequent improved access improvements such as access to healthcare, culture, further technological innovation etc.

The most obvious improvements in access realised by modern technologies are access to knowledge acquisition and knowledge production. The development of public libraries, public education, and the internet have significantly improved the access that people have to knowledge acquisition. The development of universities, and more recently Web 2.0, significantly improves the access that people have to knowledge construction.

Schutz: The Social Distribution of Knowledge.

The positive ethical benefits of such improved access are wide ranging, and potentially profound. The expansion of human and civil rights seen in many areas of the world can be understood as being augmented by the improved access to knowledge realised by technology. In his article The Well- Informed Citizen: An Essay on the Social Distribution of Knowledge Alfred Schutz explains how improved access to knowledge changes the classification of an elite ‘expert’ group who are afforded the right to produce ‘socially approved’ knowledge (that is knowledge afforded prestige and influence). Technology allows more people to join this group, adding a more diverse set of perspectives to socially approved knowledge. Schulz uses the models of social identity theory from Social Psychology to understand the possibly liberating effects that wider knowledge access can have for individuals in breaking down in group-out group stratification. Further, Schulz explains how wider access to knowledge increases people’s opportunities to question taken for granted assumptions, and therefore increasing the potential to develop ‘better’ knowledge, ideas that have built upon, and evolved from that which is pre-existing.

Friedman: The World is Flat.

Schutz rather prophetically wrote his article in 1946, many of his ideas were updated in 2005 by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty First Century. Friedman describes how technology (mainly Web 2.0 tech) has increased access to knowledge acquisition and construction which, in turn, has enabled those in developing countries to compete financially, technologically, and culturally with those in the developed world. Here we see the argument that access afforded by technology has significant positive ethical consequences. 

Schutz rather prophetically wrote his article in 1946, many of his ideas were updated in 2005 by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty First Century. Friedman describes how technology (mainly Web 2.0 tech) has increased access to knowledge acquisition and construction which, in turn, has enabled those in developing countries to compete financially, technologically, and culturally with those in the developed world. Here we see the argument that access afforded by technology has significant positive ethical consequences. 

Negative ethical consequences of improved access afforded by technology.

The most common concern raised with the increased access that technology allows is applied to digital technologies - the digital divide. We will come to that later in this section, but let’s first take a step back and consider the wider knowledge implications of increased access to technology.

The argument for the positive ethical benefits of increased access to technology is essentially that more of things (knowledge & its consequences) is a good thing. However, this doesn’t account for the context within which this change occurs, specifically the values and purpose of the wider society. That increased access will have outcomes which are, arguably, largely shaped by the value structures and power relationships of the wider society within which they operate. Namely, the value structure of the wider society. If the value structure is one in which power is used to restrict  the freedoms, or privacy, of the individual then this could be reflected in the wider access to knowledge afforded by technology. Not only does the mass populace have more access to knowledge, but powerful actors now have more access to the thoughts and behaviours of the population. We will come back to this in the section on privacy.

The concept of ‘more’ isn’t necessarily a positive ethical outcome, let’s go back to our mediaeval village. After the application of agricultural technology the people have more time to do things other than farming. However, if there’s a power structure which can direct how people spend their time (eg a Lord of the Manor) this extra time could be used for negative ethical outcomes such as warfare, environmental destruction etc.

The Digital Divide.

The digital divide refers to the unequal distribution of technology and internet access between different groups of people globally.  The divide creates a gap between those who have access to the knowledge resources opened up by the internet and those who do not, leading to unequal opportunities for growth, development, and success. For example Northern Europe has an ‘internet penetration’ (people who have access to the internet) of 95% whilst Africa has an ‘internet penetration’ of approximately 40% (“List of countries by number of Internet users”)

The digital divide affects individuals from different regions, socio-economic backgrounds, age groups, and cultures. People who live in rural areas, low-income communities, and developing countries often lack access to technology and the internet. This limits their opportunities for education, job training, and accessing information, which can lead to lower wages and limited opportunities for social and economic mobility.

The digital divide also affects businesses, as those without access to technology may struggle to compete in the global market. Moreover, it perpetuates existing inequalities, such as gender and race, as marginalised communities are often the ones who lack access to technology and internet.

The Digital Divide is an example of technology widening the gap of power between those with and without access to the technology. This is a recurring theme that we will see arising from many different types of technology across history.

Health, productivity and fulfilment.

I am rather uncertain about including a section on the applied ethical effects of technology as I run into danger of describing the real world ethical effects of technology rather than focussing on the ethical effects of technology on knowledge acquisition, construction and interpretation. However, as this is somewhat a false division, and students need to draw upon real world examples for both ToK assessments, I’ll go ahead and include this section anyway.

At prima facie level the immediate effect of the application of technology in area of life should be to increase productivity - this applies equally to the production of knowledge as it does to the production of ceramic vases, cars or pizzas. This increase in productivity has significant ethical effects. There is a long tradition of writers (eg sociologists, artists, economists etc) describing the negative effects of technology in the workplace. There is a significant body of research on the alienation and deindividuation experienced in the industrialised workplace. In his paper on Technology and Human Relations Carleton Coone argues that increased application of technology requires a more pressing focus on designing for human relations if we are to avoid the negative effects of that technology (such as alienation). Students can review the paper (referenced below) for real world examples.

On the other hand, Jon Shepard, in his 1973 research in the oil industry, found that the application of technology did not inevitably lead to powerlessness and alienation. This finding was underpinned by two main processes (i) technology increases productivity, and therefore increases the free time that workers have to spend doing things that they find intrinsically fulfilling. (ii) that increased specialisation of roles afforded by technology can actually increase the autonomy and personal involvement that a worker has in their job.

The ethical consequences of medical technology.

The positive ethical benefits of the application of technology in medical sciences are both obvious, and seem to be indisputable. Students and teachers can draw from a vast range of real world examples including the development of vaccine technology, the application of medical imaging technology, the application of pharmaceutical technology etc. However, there are, arguably, some negative ethical consequences of the application of technology in the medical sciences. The application of technology to medical knowledge has the greatest possible ethical consequence - that of maintaining, prolonging or ending life itself. As such the responsibility of the practitioner, and the accountability of those practitioners, is brought to the forefront. The ethical demands upon practitioners is greatly increased by the increased efficacy of the technology.

Peter Singer (2000) identifies 5 areas in which the ethical considerations have greatly increased in recent years:

• Quality of end of life care.

• Tavistock Principles to improve medical error.

• Prioritisation and access to resources.

• Stem Cell Research.

• E-health and bio-global ethics.

I include these here to demonstrate the nuanced range of ethics and technology issues arising from the application of technology in healthcare and medicine. If ToK students want to draw real life examples from these 5 areas they could follow the article referenced below, or search JSTOR for research related to the area of their choosing.

Ethical concerns of medical technology.

In his article Too Much Technology Bjorn Hofmann argues that the overuse of, and over-reliance on,  technology is starting to have negative ethical consequences for the application of medical knowledge. He argues that the application of medical technology can actually be more harmful than positive, draws funding and resources away from functions which could have more positive effects, reduces efficiency, and leads to overdiagnosis. This last point is of direct relevance in ToK, and requires a little more examination.

Technology enables us to better identify disease and the causes of illness, further it helps us to better understand the interpolation of causal factors. As such it can allow us to develop new categories, and classifications, of medical conditions and illness. Therefore, the application of technology actually increases our construction of knowledge. Technology allows us to create more knowledge. An example of this from medical sciences is the recent development of a machine learning model which can predict rare diseases, even when these diseases aren’t represented in the data sample used (Singh).

Consequences

A consequence of improved medical technology is obviously increased human lifespan, which also has ethical consequences. The ethics of increasing human population on resource allocation and competition are well rehearsed, and easy to find sources for. As such I won’t detail them here. However, of direct relevance to ToK is the consequent increase in non-working (leisure) time, particularly the effects of the 4th industrial revolution with the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning.  Jandrić, Petar, and Sarah Hayes (2020) look at the range of arguments whether the 4th industrial revolution will result in fewer jobs (“technological unemployment”) and more leisure time, or lead to the creation of a whole new range of jobs (as has happened in previous periods of technological innovation). Both scenarios will lead to new forms of knowledge production, acquisition, and interpretation as they further shape, and redefine, the human-machine interaction.

Further references to the work of Heidegger here will be useful for those who wish to follow this line of argument. There are ancillary ethics and technology issues in terms of the varied access to these forms of technology, and the consequent implications for power distribution, and life fulfilment. 

Diversification - Homogenisation

Of more direct relevance to our Theory of Knowledge is the effect of technology on the type of knowledge produced, and the distribution of that knowledge. These arguments are most accessible to us in 2023 by considering the rise of digital technologies in the last 40 years, however the same principles apply to all previous forms of knowledge technology.

The oft cited promise during the mass adoption of the internet, and world wide web, in the mid 1990s was that many more people would have access to far more information faster and cheaper than ever before. Even taking into account the inequalities of The Digital Divide (discussed earlier in this article) this promise of mass access to mass information appeared to be accurate - this is the increased acquisition and interpretation of knowledge afforded by new technologies. The dawn of Web 2.0 in the early 2000s promised that many more people would be able to produce / construct knowledge through self publishing in written, visual, music etc form. Again, the rise of sites such as YouTube, Wordpress and TikTok would seem to have borne this promise out.

Concerns.

However, many writers have taken a more critical approach  to this apparent diversification in the production, acquisition and interpretation of knowledge. Kumar Sashi (2011) uses a Gramscian framework to understand the operational processes and effects of digital technology on knowledge production and acquisition. His argument is that digital platforms operate like conventional markets, making the knower a consumer, and producer’s effectiveness is determined by their power. As such production of, and exposure to, agglomerates to the most powerful actors (knowers). The effect of power based agglomeration is the homogenisation of knowledge. Rather than horizontal demarcation of knowledge producers we have vertical integration and monopolisation of producers. This process is exacerbated by internal promotion systems (such as Google search algorithms, or YouTube’s “Like” algorithms). This is even further exacerbated by globalising forces which enable knowledge producers to transcend national boundaries, time zones and localised practices.

The ethical consequences of homogenisation.

The ethical consequences of such homogenisation of knowledge production and acquisition are equity and accessibility issues (as touched on earlier). There will be amplification of certain knowledge producers (and their content) beyond their real world organic functional niche. As such, the homogenisation of knowledge production and acquisition means that a narrower range of people’s content will be seen, causing an unequal distribution of influence in the social and political spheres - some people have more influence in political processes than others (links to the rise of populist movements can be made here, there is substantial literature on eg the rise of Trump, Bolsonaro, Black Lives Matters Movement etc. Students who take DP Global Politics will be able to make clear links to their units on social movements in politics). 

Akin Unver, in the paper Politics of Automation, Attention and Engagement, argues that digital media platforms (eg Twitter, Tik Tok, etc) have become “political governance systems”. They allow both politicians and the electorate to bypass the traditional institutional gatekeepers such as the established media, institutions (eg Parliament), and opinion polling systems to communicate more directly with each other. Professor Unver explains the commodification of user attention, the rentier economic model of the private owned for profit platforms, and the effects of content control being moved beyond the traditional nation state. It is argued that this can lead to new forms of political ideology / techno-politico expression such as “cyber communism”, “networked feudalism”, and “Authoritarianism 2.0 and 3.0”. However, he argues that digital platforms are an imperfect democratic space which are playing the role of “saving democracy” in the new digital age. Their primary advantage over older forms of democracy is that they give users ‘sovereignty’ over their data and political voice.

Privacy - Autonomy - Control

There are well known, and widely discussed, concerns over the potential threats to the right to privacy raised by digital technology. The sharing of various forms of data with corporations and governments is an obvious consequence of digitalisation. However, similar concerns regarding  privacy also apply to earlier forms of technology. An example could be the invention of the camera in the 19th century meant that people’s public behaviours could now be permanently recorded. As the discussions regarding privacy are well rehearsed elsewhere I won’t focus on them here, rather I will look at the effects of technology on individual autonomy, and on social control.

Most technology shapes the behaviours that individuals are undertaking, this is especially true in the workplace. Probably best exemplified by the advent of the production line during the 19th century industrial revolution in which people were often employed to carry out a small range of tasks with little or no latitude for variation. The increase in control over our environment afforded by technology somewhat paradoxically leads to a decrease in our freedom of choice of behaviours (eg hunter gatherers used a fire for warmth and protection at night, but now they are tied to staying near the fire as it provides so much more warmth and protection than any other resources available at that time). As such it can be argued that technology decreases our physical autonomy. 

The ethics of the production line.

We can develop the physical autonomy argument further when we consider the role of control afforded by technology. The production line controls the pace of the individual’s work, and some corporations require their workers to wear tracking devices so that they know where they are at all times, etc . The examples are myriad. However, for our theory of knowledge we need to consider whether such control can also be applied to knowledge and thinking. In this we can refer back to the section re. Homogenisation and selection of messages in digital media earlier this article. We can apply the same models to earlier technologies - eg book publishers, religious organisations, even theatre producers have all been powerful gatekeepers during earlier stages of history. The important emphasis of the argument here is that technology amplifies their control.

Biotechnology and autonomy.

Further, the ethics and technology issues pertaining to autonomy and control are further exacerbated when we consider medical technology, particularly recent developments in bio-technologies. Some companies have been making employees wear fitness trackers for the past few years. The reasons given are the health benefits, but this also, undoubtedly encroaches on the individual’s privacy, and potentially their autonomy. There is now increased used of internal biological monitoring systems (eg monitoring cardio-vascular metrics), again the positive ethical benefits of health come with concerns over possible infringements of autonomy and control.

A further concern for autonomy and control arises from the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (see earlier post on AI). Artificial Intelligence is increasingly performing processes and functions that were previously within human control. Whilst the initial coding of the AI may determine how it performs those functions, machine learning enables the AI to learn, and adapt, it’s processes. As such, many argue that AI is reducing our autonomy over the functions that we give it (this is inherently the very point of AI). The ethical issues arising from AI include all of the above (autonomy, control, privacy, productivity, democratic, access). 

Conclusions.

This article is an overview of some of the ethical issues potentially arising from the application of technology for ToK students studying the Knowledge & Technology optional unit. The article doesn’t intend to look in depth at the particular ethical issues, this would be better achieved by students who have chosen to investigate further those issues. In summary we have broadly described that whilst technology may bring positive ethical outcomes the nature of its application can also lead to some ethical concerns.

Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 2023

Other posts on technology in this series:

We need to talk about Pune India.

What is Technology?

How does Technology change the pursuit of knowledge?

Does my thermostat have feelings? (Artificial Intelligence)

Bibliography

• Coon, Carleton S. “Technology and Human Relations.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 75, no. 1, 1942, pp. 23–27. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20023443. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

• Hofmann, Bjørn Morten. “Too Much Technology.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 350, 2015. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26518356. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• Jandrić, Petar, and Sarah Hayes. “Technological Unemployment and Its Educational Discontents.” The Digital Age and Its Discontents: Critical Reflections in Education, edited by Matteo Stocchetti, Helsinki University Press, 2020, pp. 161–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv16c9hdw.13. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• Kass, Leon R. “Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection.” The New Atlantis, no. 1, 2003, pp. 9–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43152849. Accessed 8 Feb. 2023.

• KUMAR, SASHI. “Hegemony in Contemporary Culture and Media and the Need for a Counter Initiative.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 46, no. 51, 2011, pp. 38–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23065547. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• SCHÜTZ, ALFRED. “THE WELL-INFORMED CITIZEN: An Essay on the Social Distribution of Knowledge.” Social Research, vol. 13, no. 4, 1946, pp. 463–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40958880. Accessed 3 Feb. 2023.

• Shepard, Jon M. “Technology, Division of Labor, and Alienation.” The Pacific Sociological Review, vol. 16, no. 1, 1973, pp. 61–88. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1388654. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• Singh, Niharika. “Stanford Researchers Developed a Machine Learning Model Called POPDx to Predict Rare Diseases, Including Diseases That Aren’t Present in the Training Data.” MarkTechPost, 6 Feb. 2023, www.marktechpost.com/2023/02/06/stanford-researchers-developed-a-machine-learning-model-called-popdx-to-predict-rare-diseases-including-diseases-that-arent-present-in-the-training-data/. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• Singer, Peter A. “Recent Advances: Medical Ethics.” BMJ: British Medical Journal, vol. 321, no. 7256, 2000, pp. 282–85. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25225223. Accessed 7 Feb. 2023.

• Unver, H. Akin. “DIGITAL CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY: POLITICS OF AUTOMATION, ATTENTION, AND ENGAGEMENT.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1, 2017, pp. 127–46. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26494368. Accessed 8 Feb. 2023.

• “List of countries by number of Internet users.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users. Accessed 3 February 2023.

Does my thermostat have feelings?

in other words : Does Artificial Intelligence 'Know' in the same way that humans know ?

Starting Points.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in recent years, but it still remains an open question whether AI can know in a similar way to humans. The philosophical debate about AI and its capacity for knowledge has been ongoing for decades, with some arguing that AI can truly know, while others claim that AI lacks the necessary cognitive faculties.

The first person to use the phrase “Artificial Intelligence” was mathematician and computer scientist John McCarthy at The Dartmouth Conference of 1956.In 1979 McCarthy wrote an insightful, and prophetic, paper directly addressing the relationship between AI and human knowledge titled “Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines”. This blog will draw upon McCarthy’s paper which seems more pertinent today than ever, whilst also offering alternative perspectives.

Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines

John McCarthy's 1979 paper "Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines" discusses the idea of machines having mental qualities, such as beliefs and desires. McCarthy argued that machines can have mental states and that it is possible to describe them using a system of mental attribution. He proposes that mental attribution should be based on the machine's behaviour and its goals, rather than its physical structure. The paper highlights the importance of considering the relationship between mental states and physical systems in artificial intelligence research.

McCarthy explains that the "beliefs" that a thermostat may be said to have relate to its operational functions ie to calculate whether it should switch the heater on to make a room warmer, or whether to switch the heater off to make a room colder. McCarthy further explains that the thermostat could not be said to have "beliefs about beliefs" ie, it doesn't have beliefs about what temperature the room should be, or whether it believes its beliefs. It certainly doesn't have beliefs outside of its operational (programmed) sphere such as who won the Battle of Waterloo.

Download Ascribing Mental Qualities to Machines

Some common criticisms of McCarthy’s position (as outlined in his 1979 paper) include the problems of defining mental states and attributing them to machines, the difficulty in creating a systematic method for mental attribution, and the concern that attributing mental states to machines may lead to anthropomorphizing them and losing sight of their true nature as mechanical systems.

Daniel Dennett’s critique of McCarthy

Daniel Dennett, philosopher and cognitive scientist,  has written extensively on the topic of artificial intelligence and the idea of ascribing mental qualities to machines. Dennett has been critical of the idea that machines can have mental states, and he has put forward the argument that mental states are inherently subjective and cannot be reduced to purely physical or computational processes.

In his book "Consciousness Explained", Dennett argues that consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, and that it is not possible to ascribe mental states to machines in the same way that we ascribe mental states to people. He proposes that the idea of mental states in machines is a form of anthropomorphism, and that it is more productive to focus on understanding the computational processes that underlie machine behaviour, rather than attributing mental qualities to them.

Dennett's views on this issue are significant because they challenge the idea that machines can have mental states and provide an alternative perspective on the relationship between mental states and physical systems in artificial intelligence.

Knowledge as Justified True Belief.

Questions on Artificial Intelligence in ToK inevitably start with the question of what knowledge is, and what it means to know. Many students are attracted to Gettier’s definition of knowledge as “Justified true belief”. Obviously, this definition has a number of implications for our studies in ToK. However, it's a useful place to start exploring the question of whether AI knows in the same way that humans know.

From a philosophical perspective, the concept of knowledge requires the existence of beliefs and understanding, as well as the ability to justify those beliefs through reasoning and evidence. Some argue that AI, with its vast amount of data and sophisticated algorithms, can possess knowledge in this sense. However, others argue that AI lacks the consciousness, introspection, and self-awareness that are necessary for true knowledge.

It's difficult to be rigorous about whether a machine really 'knows', 'thinks', etc., because we're hard put to define these things. We understand human mental processes only slightly better than a fish understands swimming.

John McCarthy "The Little Thoughts of Thinking Machines", Psychology Today, December 1983, pp. 46–49. Reprinted in Formalizing Common Sense: Papers By John McCarthy, 1990, ISBN 0893915351

Characteristics of Knowing

(from McCarthy’s article The little thoughts of thinking machines):

• Intention

• Tries

• Likes & Dislikes

• Self conscious.

Despite being written over 40 yrs ago McCarthy’s work is highly relevant today, and very easily accessible. (I strongly recommend both articles cited in this blog). His 4 characteristics of knowing provide a practicable starting point for ToK students who are exploring questions on AI and knowing. Whilst, prima facie, his characteristics may seem rather reductionist they are both pertinent to human and machine knowledge as they encompass goals, trial and error, reward and reflection.

Belief.

The difference between human belief and AI algorithms lies in the nature of their cognitive processes and the sources of their knowledge.

Human beliefs are shaped by a combination of personal experiences, cultural influences, emotions, and reasoning. They are based on a subjective understanding of the world and can change over time as new information becomes available.

In contrast, AI algorithms are based on objective rules and mathematical models that process data in a systematic and impartial way. They make decisions based on patterns in the data they have been trained on and do not have personal experiences or emotions that can influence their beliefs.

Furthermore, human beliefs often rely on intuition, speculation, and assumptions that may not be grounded in evidence, while AI algorithms can only make decisions based on the data they have been trained on and the rules they have been programmed with.

Machines as simple as thermostats can be said to have beliefs, and having beliefs seems to be a characteristic of most machines capable of problem solving performance. However, the machines mankind has so far found it useful to construct rarely have beliefs about beliefs, although such beliefs will be needed by computer programs that reason about what knowledge they lack and where to get it. Mental qualities peculiar to human-like motivational structures , such as love and hate, will not be required for intelligent behavior, but we could probably program computers to exhibit them if we wanted to, because our common sense notions about them translate readily into certain program and data structures. Still other mental qualities, e.g. humor and appreciation of beauty, seem much harder to model.

John McCarthy, "History of Lisp," 12 February 1979; republished at www-formal.stanford.edu.

Descartes on Machines & thinking.

René Descartes, French philosopher and mathematician, was one of the earliest thinkers to address the question of whether machines could think. Descartes believed that the mind and the body were separate entities, and that the mind was capable of thinking, reasoning, and having experiences, while the body was merely a physical machine.

In "Meditations on First Philosophy", Descartes argued that the mind was a non-physical substance that was distinct from the physical body. He believed that the mind was capable of independent thought and consciousness, and that it was not possible for a machine, no matter how sophisticated, to have these same qualities.

Descartes' views on this issue were influential in shaping the philosophical debates about the nature of consciousness and the relationship between mental states and physical systems. Although his views have been widely criticized and challenged in the centuries since they were first articulated, they remain an important part of the philosophical discourse on the topic of artificial intelligence and the possibility of machines having mental states.

In summary, the difference between human belief and AI algorithms lies in their sources of knowledge, their cognitive processes, and the nature of their decision-making. While AI algorithms can provide a highly accurate and objective approach to decision-making, they lack the subjective and personal aspects of human beliefs.

In terms of academic research, there is a growing body of evidence that AI can acquire knowledge through machine learning and other methods. For example, deep learning algorithms have been shown to successfully identify objects in images and perform other tasks that require knowledge of the world. However, there is still much work to be done in order to determine the limits of AI's knowledge acquisition and whether it can truly know in the same way as humans.

Consciousness.

Can artificial intelligence be said to have consciousness ?

Obviously, in order to answer the question whether AI can be said to have consciousness we need to consider different perspectives on what constitutes consciousness.

Many writers have attempted to describe the different characteristics which could be said to constitute consciousness. A useful writer in this area is David Chalmers (1995) who made the distinction between the easy problems of consciousness (characteristics which can be described by neurology and cognitive science), and  “The hard problems” (more process based, or seemingly diaphanous characteristics);

the “easy problems” he describes include:

• The focus of attention.

• Assimilation of new knowledge into a knowledge system.

• The communication of mental states.

Chalmers' 'easy problems' are a useful list for ToK students as they provide a model which can be easily used to compare AI with humans. We can identify both humans and AI executing, solving and displaying these processes/problems. However, are they 'the same' in both humans and AI ? Obviously to answer such a question we would have to consider what we mean by 'the same', but we could also introduce the notion of qualitative differences at this point. Those arguing for a more distinct difference between humans and AI might argue that whilst we can apply the same labels to processes in both entities (humans and AI) there is a qualitative difference in the ways in which those processes are realised and experienced. This (conveniently) takes us onto the issue of consciousness.

What is Consciousness ?

In this blog I only seek to answer the question on the nature of consciousness in order to help us to answer the question of whether AI knows in a similar way to the way in which humans know. A comprehensive discussion on what consciousness is would require writing a very long, and complicated, book - which is not the purpose of this blog !

Some of the main philosophical theories of human consciousness include:

1. Dualism: This theory, first proposed by René Descartes, holds that consciousness is a non-physical substance that exists separate from the physical body. According to dualism, the mind and body interact, but they are distinct entities.

2. Physicalism: This theory, as put forward by J.J.C. Smart, D.M. Armstrong, and Paul Churchland, proposes that consciousness is a byproduct of physical processes in the brain, and that there is no need to postulate a separate, non-physical substance to explain it. Physicalism is sometimes referred to as materialism or reductionism.

3. Idealism has been developed by writers including George Berkeley, Immanuel Kant, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This theory holds that consciousness is the primary reality, and that everything else, including the physical world, is derived from consciousness.

4. Emergentism takes a more systems based approach to the problem of consciousness. Developed by writers such as Samuel Alexander, C.D. Broad, and J.C. Smart. This theory suggests that consciousness emerges from complex interactions between physical processes, but that once it emerges, it cannot be reduced to these underlying processes.

It's worth noting that these theories have been developed and modified over time by many philosophers, and that the list of proponents for each theory is not exhaustive. 

How do these theories relate to Artificial Intelligence ?

Human & Machine Consciousness (David Gomez)

Dovid Gomez in his article Human & Machine Consciousness gives us some useful ways in which to approach the question of whether AI can achieve consciousness. The first distinction that Gomez makes is that clearly we can build AI which exhibits human conscious behaviours such as writing essays, driving cars and playing computer games. However, most commentators would agree that an external behaviour does not, in itself, constitute consciousness. For example, we often do things “without thinking”, ie we have not directed targeted consciousness towards our own behaviours. 

Further, we can even build AI which is modelled on human consciousness, that will display conscious-like behaviours, and may even display evidence of self awareness. However, this does not necessarily mean that the AI is experiencing consciousness,

To paraphrase Mr Gomez:

A model of a river looks like a river, tells us about the form of a river, even about the functions of a river, but it is not necessarily wet.

Here we continue to see some of the distinctions between how and why questions, and necessary and sufficient conditions. To understand the function (how) of a river it is not necessary to make a river, to simulate a river, nor to even be like a river. Could this be the same with consciousness?

Further, Mr Gomez argues that until we understand the relationship between human consciousness & the physical world we will not be able to simulate consciousness in artificial systems. This challenge presents itself even before we attempt to demarcate the necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness, and the functions and causes of consciousness.

In many ways we could argue that Mr Gomez is drawing upon a more physicalist tradition in thinking about consciousness. He posits AI as outcomes which are, to a degree, dependent upon the physical processes and outcomes of human consciousness.

Free Will.

Consciousness, for most people, requires a degree of free will. Or at least free will constitutes a desirable component of consciousness. However, Nahmias et al in their paper Can AI have Free Will ? challenge this apparent link between consciousness and free will. Both consciousness and free will are context dependent, we could easily be in a state in which we are highly aware (conscious) of our lack of free will etc. As such, they argue, that free will is not a necessary, nor even sufficient, condition for AI to be said to be self-aware, or conscious. This argument is a strong counterargument against the “AI achieves Singularity and takes over the world” scenarios so prevalent in popular fiction.

In this (very brief) discussion of free will and AI we raise some of the issues arising from the Dualist and Idealist theories of consciousness. If consciousness is tenuously related to the physical structures within which it occurs, or from whence it is produced, then it could be expressed as being ‘beyond’ the limitations of those structures. This discussion brings into sharp focus the question of the purpose of consciousness, and free will, in an AI system.

Imagination.

Most people view imagination as being central to our human consciousness, and often posited as a necessary condition of our free will. Critics of the notion that AI can achieve consciousness often cite the difficulty of simulating imagination as evidence that AI cannot become conscious. Hilary McLellan, in her work AI & Imagination, takes a Systems Theory approach rather than a functionalist atomistic approach to the issue of imagination. In systems theory the emphasis is placed on the processes and interactions between the components of the system rather than on the components themselves. In these processes and interactions we see the product or output. The processes work in a synergistic manner in which the outcomes are greater than the sum of the products of the individual components. As such the product of the AI is greater than the sum of the outcomes of the individual units of coding.

Ms McLellan situates AI in the symbiotic relationship between culture and technology, culture changes technology and technology changes culture. In such an environment adaptation and evolution have low context relevancy (adaptation happens as context changes), however stability has very high context relevancy (the organism, or machine, can only remain stable if the context remains stable). This observation helps us to start to answer the question why AI would need imagination ?, and why might AI need imagination to attain consciousness ? 

In evolutionary psychology imagination is often seen to be a survival function allowing us to predict threats, prepare for, and take actions to avoid such threats. If we see imagination as a necessary condition for AI to be said to be conscious we will need to consider whether AI has the same needs for threat protection ?

AI, Context & Consciousness.

Both Heidegger and Dreyfuss discussed the importance of context when considering whether AI knows in a similar way to humans. Heidegger, in explaining the Daesin, described how we achieve many things because of the way in which the world works rather than because of our knowledge of how things explicitly work. For example, we can achieve flying from one country to another by getting on a plane, we don’t actually have to know how a jet engine works to achieve this goal.

All of our human behaviours are highly context specific, we are consciously aware, and subconsciously sense, the immense range of factors constituting context. Dreyfuss called this immensely complex context “background”. Both writers argued that it is very difficult, nigh impossible, to code for / artificially simulate context. Heidegger argued that this difficulty is compounded because we have very limited understanding of our human contexts, the influences on, and experiences of those contexts.

Dreyfuss further developed Heidegger’s Daesin in his discussion on the unconscious mental processes which give us a sense of context, and in turn allow us to be consciously aware of our position and intention in context. Contextual understanding and contextually appropriate conscious thought and behaviour requires the corralling of a seemingly infinite number of facts. We have to select this huge number of facts from an even greater number of facts, in order to make correct selections we need rules about contextual based selection. These rules are, in turn, underpinned with even more facts about the selection rules. As such we see a mutually inclusive relationship between facts, rules, selection and context. Both writers argued that such endless possibilities are nigh impossible to code for. 

Critics of Heidegger and Dreyfuss level two key critiques at this argument. Firstly, AI is only required to operate within a very narrow band / confines of contexts. AI doesn’t need to understand the wide range of human contexts that a human may encounter. AI which is developed to identify a particular type of fruit has a narrow band of contexts, with very limited variation. 

Creativity.

AI can simulate certain aspects of human creativity, but it cannot truly replicate the full extent of human creativity. Human creativity involves the ability to generate novel and original ideas, to make connections between seemingly disparate concepts, and to imagine new possibilities. While AI can generate novel outputs based on patterns it has learned from data, it still lacks the ability to truly understand the context and meaning behind its outputs, and to experience the emotions and intuition that drive human creativity.

Additionally, AI algorithms are limited by the data and parameters they are trained on, and they may generate outputs that are not truly creative or original. In this sense, AI can only simulate certain aspects of human creativity and cannot fully replicate the richness and complexity of human imagination.

There have been some fascinating attempts to develop AI that has archetypical creative behaviours. At a phenotypical level these involve designing the AI to write music or paint in the style of pre-existing human artists.

Daddy's Car is an AI devised and produced song written in the style of the Beatles.

Art created by the AI Dall E2. I asked the AI to create "an oil painting in the style of Lucian Freud of a man reading a book in a library"

However, the field of AI and creativity is an active area of research, and AI is being developed to perform increasingly complex tasks related to creativity, such as generating art and music, or creating new designs and products. As AI continues to evolve, it is possible that it may one day be able to simulate human creativity in more sophisticated ways. But for now, human creativity remains a unique and valuable aspect of human cognition that cannot be fully replicated by AI.

Conclusion

Overall, the question of whether AI can know in a similar way to humans is still a matter of ongoing debate and research. While AI has made great strides in recent years, there is still much that is unknown about its capacity for knowledge and understanding. As the field of AI continues to evolve and advance, it is likely that we will gain a better understanding of the limits of AI's knowledge and its potential for truly knowing in the same way as humans.

Most crucially for ToK Students, we could argue that as we develop AI's capacity and abilities our definitions, or labels, of what it is doing will develop. We will develop labels beyond "machine learning", "algorithm" etc to describe new and richer processes that AI is capable of. In turn we may also develop new labels for human ways of knowing. As such this very question ("Can AI know in the same way as humans") will develop and change in the future.

Daniel, Lisbon, February 2023

Other posts / videos on Technology:

We need to talk about Pune India.

What is Technology?

How does technology change our pursuit of knowledge?

Bibliography

• Brandhorst, Kurt. Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy. Bloomington, Ind., Indiana University Press, 2010.

• Chalmers, David. 1995. “Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3): 200-219.

• Dennett, Daniel Clement, and Paul Weiner. Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown and Company, 2007. 

• Gamez, David. “Machine Consciousness.” Human and Machine Consciousness, 1st ed., Open Book Publishers, 2018, pp. 135–48. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv8j3zv.14. Accessed 31 Jan. 2023.

• McCarthy, John (1979). Ascribing mental qualities to machines. In Martin Ringle (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence. Humanities Press.

• "The Little Thoughts of Thinking Machines", Psychology Today, December 1983, pp. 46–49. Reprinted in Formalizing Common Sense: Papers By John McCarthy, 1990, ISBN 0893915351"The Little Thoughts of Thinking Machines", Psychology Today, December 1983, pp. 46–49. Reprinted in Formalizing Common Sense: Papers By John McCarthy, 1990, ISBN 0893915351

• Mccarthy, John. “The Little Thoughts of Thinking Machines.” Psychology Today, 1983, pp. 46–49. 

• Nahmias, Eddy, et al. “When Do Robots Have Free Will?: Exploring the Relationships between (Attributions of) Consciousness and Free Will.” Free Will, Causality, and Neuroscience, edited by Bernard Feltz et al., vol. 338, Brill, 2020, pp. 57–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvrxk31x.8. Accessed 31 Jan. 2023.

• Preston, Beth. “Heidegger and Artificial Intelligence.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 53, no. 1, 1993, pp. 43–69. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2108053. Accessed 31 Jan. 2023.