Essay #2 May 25: Fragility

The first essay that I decided to write guidance notes on for the May 25 session is Essay #2 fragility. I really like this essay, it’s super accessible, touches upon many core ToK ideas, and helps me to understand why all the best music was made between 1970-2000.

When I was growing up in ye olden days of yore (the 1970s-1990s) artists like US singer Madonna and UK punk band The Clash dominated popular culture. Madonna, known as the “Queen of Pop,” was a trailblazer selling over 400 million records, and shaping fashion, music, and wider culture. The Clash, meanwhile, were pioneers of punk rock, using their politically charged lyrics and rebellious sound to influence an entire generation. These artists, and others, were revered knowledge, and they seemed to be very stable, strong (the opposite of fragile).

Today, however, many younger people are unfamiliar with the cultural significance of these acts. I ask my ToK classes whether they’ve heard of Madonna, or The Clash, and very few have. Arguably, Madonna and The Clash remain influential figures in music history, but their revered status has diminished with time as newer artists, genres, and cultural trends have taken centre stage. This illustrates how knowledge (whether in music or broader intellectual fields) evolves. As cultural values and interests shift, what was once revered knowledge may become less relevant or known. The example of these once-dominant bands reflects the broader theme that revered knowledge is subject to change and may not hold the same enduring significance across generations. As such the revered knowledge of today, maybe more fragile than we assume due to the inevitable evolution of knowledge.

Making revered knowledge with a guitar.

Today’s music stars may be relatively unknown in the near future. Knowledge evolves, and therefore may be fragile.

This example is just one of many ways that ToK Essay #2 May 25 can be unpacked. You can find many other ways to understand, and to write, this essay in the TokToday Student Guidance Notes for ToK Essay May 2025.

May 25 ToK Essay Titles & Toddle !

The ToK Essay Titles for May 2025 students have been published ! They’re out 2 days earlier than expected (thank you very much IB, it is much appreciated).

Obviously I can’t republish the titles here because IB own the copyright, so ask your DP Coordinator / ToK teacher for a copy of them. However, I can give you some of my first thoughts on the titles.

If you would like to discuss the titles further with me, and other ToK teachers, please come to the (free) Toddle Conference on 15th September - details below.

First Thoughts on ToK Essay Titles May 2025

Essay #1 on whether historians and humans scientist have an ethical obligation to not ignore contradictory evidence.

At first read this essay title seems to be fairly accessible, most students will find the reasons for and against ignoring contradictory evidence fairly straightforward. However, I think that the core of this essay is the question of whether knowledge producers have ethical obligations. It’s this question that students might find a little more challenging. We will have to look at the possible tensions between the production of knowledge, and the wider ethical issues arising from such processes.

Essay #2 on whether revered knowledge is more fragile than we assume it to be.

This is a lovely, open, accessible essay question. It gives the students opportunity to explore a very wide range of issues on the nature and use of knowledge. There is the potential complication that the title includes the assumption of an assumption! However, this shouldn't trip up the vast majority of students. I am interested in the wording that knowledge may be more fragile than we assume it is. This implies that the students must comment upon, the degree of fragility assumed in comparison with the estimated degree of fragility.

Essay #3 on reconciling the drive to pursue knowledge with finite resources.

This is a very timely and contemporary question, arising at the moment of the potential unlocking of great levels of productivity by AI. It will be very tempting for students to jump down the route of AI, and other period of technological innovation. Of course, we need to ask first what finite resources the question could be referring to? Are these material, social, or metacognitive resources? Most crucially, this question is asking how we can reconcile the assumed proposition in the prompt. As such, the focus must be on the concept of reconciliation. So, at this early stage I am considering issues of knowledge integration, the function and purpose of knowledge, power hierarchies, et cetera. I'm tentatively considering whether knowledge has an inbuilt self rectifying function?

Essay #4 on on the whether improved tools always result in improved knowledge?

I see clear connections between essay three and essay four, and those who have studied the knowledge and technology option will have a great range to choose from for this essay. I particularly like this question because it gives the opportunity to explore different definitions of the concept of improved tools and improved knowledge. This question has great accessible openness to it and there are numerous straightforward ways in which to respond to it I would be encouraging students who find more challenging, to favorably at this question.

Essay #5 on models in mathematics wrong but useful?

This is one of the most straightforward maths questions that we have had for the last few sessions (thank you IB). In reality, the question is possibly less about mathematics and more about the role of models. Models are found in all areas of knowledge, and have a range of different uses. Again, I think this question is fairly accessible for most students and gives a great range of examples from which to draw upon. In the upper range, students will be able to have really interesting discussions about what it means to judge a model as “wrong”.

Essay #6 on whether acquiring knowledge destroys a sense of wonder.

I LOVE this question! Coincidentally, the tension between knowing and wonder is something that I have been discussing a lot with my friends recently. This is the “Wizard of Oz” question ! Students should avoid getting too bogged down in ways of defining a sense of wonder, and place more emphasis on issues such as function of knowledge, applications of knowledge, the intentions of knowers etc. There could be interesting discussions about the relationship between structure and form in the arts, consequences and reasons in the human and natural sciences, purpose and identity in history, complexity and clarity in mathematics.

These are just initial first sight thoughts about these essay questions, I saw them for the first time about an hour and a half ago. In the coming weeks I will produce far more detailed resources to support students and teachers who are working with these titles. So, please keep checking back to TokToday for our latest resources.

If you would like to discuss the essay titles with me and fellow ToK Teachers then please join me at the Toddle DP Roundtable on Sunday 15th September 12:15pm GMT. Sign up here:  https://hubs.li/Q02MnXMG0

Stay Tok-Tastic my friends !

Daniel, Lisbon, August 24

Are some TOK essay titles more likely to lead to higher scores? What makes some of them more challenging than others? Join me as I discuss the gems & pitfalls of the May 2025 essay titles and reveal how to guide students in approaching them effectively. Book your free seat: https://hubs.li/Q02MnXMG0

ToK Exhibition Prompt 11: Can New Knowledge Change Established Values or Beliefs?

Exploring ToK Exhibition Prompt 11: “Can new knowledge change established values or beliefs?” reveals interesting questions about the nature of knowledge, values, and beliefs. In this blog post, we explore three knowledge arguments, each illustrated by a specific object, to provide a comprehensive approach to answering this prompt. This method can help you to develop a structured and insightful ToK Exhibition for Prompt #11.

Understanding the Prompt

Prompt 11 poses several critical questions: How long must values and beliefs be around to be considered ‘established’? How many people must subscribe to them for these values to be ‘established’? And how many people must adopt new values for them to be considered ‘changed’? By addressing these questions, we can develop focused knowledge arguments, knowledge questions, and knowledge issues.

Knowledge Argument 1: Scientific Beliefs and New Knowledge

Object 1: Photo of the Sinosauropteryx Fossil

Knowledge Argument: New knowledge can modify established beliefs if those beliefs are primarily scientific.

Explanation: The discovery of the Sinosauropteryx fossil in 1996 significantly altered scientific beliefs about dinosaur skin. Previously, it was widely accepted that dinosaurs had scaly, reptilian skin. However, the Sinosauropteryx fossil displayed feather-like structures, providing the first concrete proof that some dinosaurs had feathers. This revelation reshaped the perception of dinosaur appearance and behaviour, suggesting a closer evolutionary relationship between dinosaurs and birds.

Commentary: Prior to this discovery, over 800 species of dinosaurs had been identified, establishing the belief in scaly dinosaur skin. The Sinosauropteryx finding challenged and changed this belief. Scientific knowledge is inherently subject to continuous testing and examination. If new evidence contradicts previous assumptions, those assumptions must be adapted or changed. This deductive and inductive nature of scientific knowledge makes it susceptible to change, increasing its reliability and objectivity. As such, new evidence is likely to change established beliefs if those beliefs are scientific.

Knowledge Argument 2: Identity and New Knowledge

Object 2: Research Paper by Leon Festinger on Cognitive Dissonance

Knowledge Argument: New knowledge is less likely to change established values or beliefs if those values or beliefs are directly related to personal primary knowledge such as identity.

Explanation: Festinger’s 1962 research on cognitive dissonance explored a group believing in an impending extraterrestrial visitation. When the event did not occur, instead of abandoning their beliefs, the group adjusted adjacent causal beliefs. They rationalised the non-arrival of extraterrestrials as a result of their preparations. Festinger argued that the group’s identity within their knowledge community prevented them from changing their core beliefs. As such, new knowledge is less likely to change values and beliefs if those values and beliefs are concerned with identity.

Commentary: Values and beliefs tied to personal identity are deeply ingrained. New knowledge that contradicts these values represents a threat to one’s identity, leading individuals to find alternative explanations rather than change their beliefs. This example illustrates that new knowledge is not always a unified concept; different individuals may interpret it differently, making it more complex and inconsistent.

Knowledge Argument 3: Secondary Knowledge and New Knowledge

Object 3: 2021 Newspaper Article on Gerald Ratner’s Comments

Knowledge Argument: New knowledge is highly likely to change established values or beliefs if those values or beliefs pertain to secondary knowledge largely unrelated to identity.

Explanation: In 1991, Gerald Ratner, owner of Ratners jewellers, disparaged his own products as “crap.” Despite being the most successful jewellery business in the UK, Ratners collapsed as consumers deserted the stores following his comments.

Commentary: This example shows that values and beliefs arising from secondary knowledge—knowledge acquired through secondary sources rather than direct experience—are more open to change. Ratner’s remarks led consumers to reassess their values about Ratners jewellers. Since these values were not tied to personal identity, they were more easily changed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, addressing ToK Exhibition Prompt 11 involves understanding the nature of knowledge and its impact on established values and beliefs. Scientific beliefs are more susceptible to change due to their reliance on continuous evidence. In contrast, beliefs tied to personal identity are resistant to change, as they form a core part of an individual’s self-concept. Secondary knowledge, however, is more flexible and subject to change.

These are just examples of some of the many ways that you can approach this prompt. There are many, equally valid, possibly better, ways to answer this prompt. For more resources and detailed explanations click here: you can find guides, e-books, and coaching services to help you excel in your ToK Exhibition.

If you found this blog post helpful, please share it and subscribe to the site (it’s free) for more ToK insights and tips.

Stay TokTastic!
Daniel, Sesimbra, July 2024

How to Write an Excellent Conclusion to a ToK Essay

The conclusion of your Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essay is like the destination in a journey – essential and impactful. Crafting a strong conclusion not only ties all your arguments together but also provides a direct answer to the prescribed title. This blog post will guide you on how to write a compelling conclusion for your ToK essay, contrasting an adequate conclusion with a more sophisticated one.

This blogpost can also be watched as a video here, and below.

The Basics of a ToK Essay Conclusion

An adequate conclusion will sum up the arguments presented in the essay, bringing them together into a clear statement that answers the prescribed title. This type of conclusion is typical of essays scoring up to 5 marks. It provides a direct response but often lacks deeper insight and analysis.

Example of an Adequate Conclusion

Let’s take the essay title #4 from May 2021: “Statistics reveal as much as they conceal: discuss.“

We will examine the Areas of Knowledge (AoK) in The Arts and The Natural Sciences.

Example of a conclusion typically scoring up to 5 marks:

“In AoK The Arts, we found that statistics reveal very little because artistic knowledge is subjective to the individual knower. As such, in The Arts, statistics reveal less than they conceal. However, in AoK The Natural Sciences, it was clear that statistical proof is required for scientific knowledge. As such, in The Natural Sciences, statistics reveal a lot more than they conceal. Therefore, whether statistics reveal as much as they conceal depends upon the type of knowledge and the area of knowledge in which they are applied.”

This conclusion is clear and to the point. It adequately summarises the knowledge arguments in each area and builds to a direct response to the question. However, it lacks deeper insight and analysis.

Moving Beyond Adequacy: Crafting a Sophisticated Conclusion

Essays scoring more than 5 marks typically exhibit a development of knowledge arguments as the essay progresses, leading to unforeseen insights that enhance the response to the prescribed question. A sophisticated conclusion draws together the findings of each section, incorporating these new insights.

Example of a Sophisticated Conclusion

Example of a conclusion typically scoring more than 5 marks:

“Arguments and examples demonstrating both that statistics do, and don’t, reveal as much as they conceal can be developed in both AoK The Natural Sciences and AoK The Arts. As these arguments were evaluated, it became increasingly clear that it is the intended use of the statistics, and the ways in which the concepts of ‘reveal/conceal’ are defined, that determine the answer to the question. It was found that if we wished to generalise artistic knowledge, then statistics become revelatory, as they do if we wish to confirm knowledge in The Natural Sciences. As such, whether statistics reveal as much as they conceal depends upon the intention of the knowledge producer, the applied use of knowledge, and what it is that is thought to be revealed or concealed.”

In this conclusion, the writer draws together the conceptual or thematic findings in a more synoptic fashion. By finding the similarities and differences between the AoKs, the writer looks past the AoKs to identify other factors impacting the answer to the question. This approach provides a more cumulative and insightful conclusion.

Tips for Writing an Excellent ToK Essay Conclusion

1. Plan Ahead: Sketch out your conclusion during the planning of your essay. Knowing your destination helps you navigate your arguments more effectively.

2. Summarise and Synthesise: Summarise your main points but also synthesise them, showing how they collectively answer the prescribed title.

3. Incorporate Insights: Highlight any new insights gained through the progression of your essay. This adds depth and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding.

4. Holistic Approach: Look beyond individual AoKs to identify overarching themes or factors that influence your answer.

By following these tips and understanding the difference between an adequate and a sophisticated conclusion, you can elevate the quality of your ToK essay. Remember, a well-crafted conclusion not only summarises but also provides deeper insight and analysis, ensuring a more compelling and thoughtful end to your essay.

For more detailed guidance on writing your ToK essay, visit the ToKToday website. You can also check out our e-book “How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps” or hire me as an essay coach for personalised support.

If you found this blog post useful, please share it. For more helpful ToK content, subscribe to the site (it’s free).

Stay Tok-tastic!
Daniel, Lisbon, July 2024

How to Evaluate AoK The Arts

Evaluating Area of Knowledge (AoK) The Arts within the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course, involves understanding the diverse perspectives and criteria that shape understanding of artistic knowledge. Here, we explore four broad evaluation points of artistic knowledge. These could be developed into more specific evaluation by students who are exploring AoK The Arts in their ToK Essay.

The is blogpost can be watched as a video at this link, or below.

1. What’s the purpose of artistic knowledge ?: Artistic Expression vs Audience Engagement

One significant debate in evaluating artistic knowledge is whether its primary purpose is artistic expression or audience engagement. Some argue that art is a medium for the artist to convey personal emotions, ideas, and experiences, making artistic expression the core purpose of art. Others contend that the engagement and reaction of the audience are what ultimately give art its value and meaning. This debate highlights the dynamic interaction (mutually inclusive relationship ?) between the creator and the viewer, suggesting that both expression and engagement are essential components of artistic knowledge.

2. Artist vs Audience in Defining Meaning

Another approach to evaluating artistic knowledge is determining who defines its meaning: the artist or the audience. This can be linked to the concepts of connotation and denotation. Denotation refers to the literal, explicit meaning of a work, often intended by the artist. Connotation, on the other hand, involves the personal, emotional, and cultural associations that the audience brings to the artwork. While the artist may imbue their work with specific meanings, the audience’s interpretation can vary widely. This debate emphasises the fluidity of meaning in art and the importance of considering both the knowledge producer’s intention and the viewer’s interpretation.

3. Defining Artistic Knowledge

Debates concerning the definition of artistic knowledge further complicate its evaluation. Is artistic knowledge defined by its method of production, the knowledge itself, the use of that knowledge by the audience, or by some other criteria? Some argue that the techniques and processes involved in creating art are what constitute artistic knowledge. Others believe it is the knowledge conveyed through the artwork or the way the audience interacts with and utilises this knowledge. These differing viewpoints highlight the multifaceted nature of art and the various ways it can be understood and appreciated.

4. Aesthetics vs Underlying Structures

Finally, evaluating whether artistic knowledge is defined by aesthetics or by underlying structures is another useful consideration. Aesthetics focuses on the beauty, form, and sensory experiences evoked by art. However, some argue that the underlying structures, such as themes, concepts, and techniques, are what actually define artistic knowledge. This perspective suggests that a deeper understanding of the intentions and frameworks behind a work can offer more profound insights into its significance.

In conclusion, evaluating artistic knowledge requires a nuanced approach that considers multiple perspectives. By examining the debate between artistic expression and audience engagement, the roles of the artist and audience in defining meaning, the criteria for defining artistic knowledge, and the balance between aesthetics and underlying structures, you can develop more insightful evaluations for your ToK Essay.

Click here for “How to evaluate Natural Sciences”

Click here for “How to evaluate Human Sciences”

Click here for “How to evaluate History”

Click here for “How to evaluate Mathematics”

Stay ToK-tastic!
Daniel, Lisbon, July 2024

How to Evaluate AoK Mathematics

Students hoping to score 5 or more marks in the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay must evaluate the knowledge arguments made within the essay. This blogpost provides 4 general evaluation points for Area of Knowledge (AoK) Mathematics. These general evaluation points could be refined into more specific evaluation points for the particular knowledge arguments that the student has used in their essay.

This blogpost can also be watched as a video at this link, and below.

AoK Mathematics offers , in many ways, a more distinctive form of knowledge, and knowledge production, than the other AoKs. Evaluating mathematical knowledge involves understanding its strengths and limitations. Here, we explore four critical evaluation points: the development of hypothetical knowledge, the generalisability of mathematical knowledge, objectivity in understanding causal relationships, and the limitations in capturing qualitative human experiences.

1. Mathematical Models and Hypothetical Knowledge

One significant strength of mathematical knowledge is its ability to develop hypothetical knowledge through models. These models allow us to predict and forecast future events with remarkable accuracy. For instance, meteorologists use mathematical models to predict weather patterns, while economists rely on them to forecast market trends. By formulating equations and analysing data, mathematicians can simulate scenarios and estimate outcomes, providing valuable insights that inform decision-making across various fields. However, the accuracy of these predictions depends on the quality of the data and the assumptions underlying the models, highlighting the importance of critical evaluation.

2. Generalisability to Other Areas of Knowledge

Another crucial point in evaluating mathematical knowledge is its generalisability to other Areas of Knowledge. Mathematics, particularly statistics, plays a vital role in the Natural and Human Sciences. For example, biologists use statistical methods to analyse genetic data, while psychologists employ them to understand behavioural patterns. The universal nature of mathematical principles allows for a consistent framework that can be applied across disciplines, facilitating interdisciplinary research and enhancing our overall understanding of complex phenomena. This generalisability underscores the versatility and integrative power of mathematical knowledge.

3. Objective Understanding of Causal Relationships

Mathematical knowledge also enables the development of standardised and objective measures of causal relationships between phenomena. By using statistical techniques, researchers can determine the strength and significance of correlations, thereby identifying potential causal links. For instance, epidemiologists use mathematical models to understand the spread of diseases and the impact of interventions. This objectivity is crucial for developing evidence-based policies and practices, as it provides a clear, quantifiable basis for understanding how different factors interact and influence each other.

4. Limitations in Capturing Qualitative Human Experience

Despite its strengths, mathematical knowledge also has limitations, particularly in capturing the qualitative and subjective aspects of human experience. While mathematics excels in providing precise and objective information, it often struggles to encompass the nuances of human emotions, experiences, and cultural contexts. For example, the qualitative aspects of art, literature, and personal relationships cannot be fully quantified or expressed through mathematical equations. This limitation highlights the need for a balanced approach that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world.

In conclusion, evaluating mathematical knowledge requires a nuanced appreciation of its strengths and limitations. By considering its ability to develop hypothetical knowledge, its generalisability to other Areas of Knowledge, its role in understanding causal relationships, and its limitations in capturing qualitative human experiences, students can develop a deeper evaluations of mathematical knowledge.

This is part of a series of blogposts on how to evaluate knowledge in each of the 5 Areas of knowledge. The others are:

Evaluating knowledge in AoK The Arts

Evaluating knowledge in AoK History

Evaluating knowledge in AoK The Human Sciences

Evaluating knowledge in AoK The Natural Sciences

If you have feedback, or suggestions, on this (or any other) blogpost on TokToday please send it through to Daniel@TokToday.com. I welcome helpful suggestions for content, new ideas are a great way of paying forward!

Stay Tok-tastic my friends,

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

ToK Results May 24 & Feedback

Congratulations if you, or your students, have just received your DP & ToK results. Regardless of the actual numerical score, any study of the IB Diploma (particularly ToK) is a valuable achievement.

Thousands of students (and their teachers) used ToKToday resources in the May 24 exam session, I would love to know what you thought of the resources, and what scores you achieved in ToK. So, if you are a student receiving IBDP grades today, or a teacher who prepared students for the May 24 session I would be very grateful if you would fill in the survey linked below. The survey is anonymous, and it won’t take more than 2 minutes to complete.

Thank you for all of your feedback, and have a great day!

How to Evaluate AoK History

When writing the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay students are asked to evaluate their main knowledge claims. Today’s post looks at the main evaluation points that can be applied to most knowledge claims made in Area of Knowledge (AoK) History. Obviously, these evaluations points would need to be considered in terms of the specific claims made in an essay. This is the third in a five part series looking at evaluation points for each of the 5 Areas of Knowledge.

This blog can be viewed as a video at this link, and below.

Evaluating historical knowledge within the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course, involves understanding the complexities and nuances of how we interpret and construct our understanding of the past. In today’s blogpost, we explore four critical evaluation points: selectivity in the production of historical knowledge, interpretation of historical sources, post-event attribution of cause and effect, and the possibility of constructing unbiased historical knowledge.

1. Selectivity in the Production of Historical Knowledge

One significant issue in evaluating historical knowledge is the selectivity involved in its production. Historians must choose which events, figures, and perspectives to include in their narratives. This selectivity is influenced by the historian’s cultural background, personal beliefs, and the prevailing attitudes of their time. As a result, certain events or viewpoints may be emphasised or marginalised. For instance, traditional histories often focused on political and military leaders, neglecting the experiences of everyday people. Recognising this selectivity helps us understand that historical knowledge is not a comprehensive account of the past but a curated interpretation shaped by various biases and perspectives.

Selectivity is also a potential problem when we review the historical record of an event or time period. Some events may have a vast range of historical sources related to them from which we can choose. The sources that we select will affect our contemporary view of the historical event. The selection of sources may be influenced by our cultural perspectives.

2. Interpretation of Historical Sources

Another challenge in evaluating historical knowledge is the interpretation of historical sources. Historians rely on documents, artefacts, and other sources to reconstruct past events, but interpreting these sources is inherently subjective. Understanding past events from a modern perspective can lead to anachronisms, where contemporary values and beliefs are projected onto historical contexts. For example, interpreting medieval practices through a 21st-century lens can distort our understanding of those practices’ original meanings and significance. Critical evaluation requires an awareness of these interpretative challenges and a careful consideration of the context in which historical sources were produced.

3. Post-Event Attribution of Cause and Effect

The post-event attribution of cause and effect is another complex issue in historical evaluation. Historians often associate events to demonstrate causation, but this retrospective analysis can be problematic. Establishing proof in historical events is challenging because the interconnected nature of historical factors makes it difficult to isolate specific causes. For instance, attributing the cause of a war to a single event oversimplifies the multitude of political, economic, and social factors involved. Recognising this complexity helps us understand that historical causation is often a matter of interpretation rather than definitive proof.

4. Constructing Unbiased Historical Knowledge

Finally, we must consider whether it is possible to construct unbiased historical knowledge. All historical narratives are influenced by the historian’s perspectives and the available sources. While historians strive for objectivity, complete neutrality is likely unattainable. Every historian brings their own biases to their work, consciously or unconsciously. This does not mean that historical knowledge is inherently flawed but rather that it is a reflection of the interplay between past realities and present understandings. Evaluating historical knowledge thus involves critically examining these biases and recognising the subjective nature of historical interpretation.

In conclusion, evaluating historical knowledge requires a nuanced understanding of these four key points: selectivity in production, interpretation of sources, post-event attribution of cause and effect, and the potential for bias. By examining these aspects, you can develop a deeper appreciation of the complexities involved in constructing and understanding history. This will help you to write better developed evaluation points for historical knowledge in the ToK Essay.

If you need more help with your ToK Essay check out the services available linked here.

If you need help with your ToK Exhibition check out the services available linked here.

Stay Toktastic,

How to evaluate AoK Natural Sciences

When writing the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay students are asked to evaluate their main knowledge claims. Today's post looks at the main evaluation points that can be applied to most knowledge claims made in Area of Knowledge (AoK) Natural Sciences. Obviously, these evaluations points would need to be considered in terms of the specific claims made in an essay. This is the first in a five part series looking at evaluation points for each of the 5 Areas of Knowledge.

This blogpost can also be watched on YouTube at this link.

The natural sciences, as an AoK within ToK, offer a rigorous and systematic method of investigating the natural world. Evaluating natural scientific knowledge involves several key considerations that help students understand the strengths and limitations of this AoK. Here, we explore four critical evaluation points: the importance of falsification, the challenges of demonstrating causation, the issues of validity versus reliability, and concerns about ecological validity.

1. The Importance of Falsification

One fundamental principle in the evaluation of scientific knowledge is the concept of falsification, proposed by philosopher Karl Popper. Falsification is the idea that for a hypothesis to be scientifically valid, it must be testable and potentially disprovable. This is often more challenging than simply confirming a hypothesis because it requires rigorous and critical testing. Focusing on falsification rather than confirmation encourages scientists to design experiments that challenge their theories, thus preventing confirmation bias and ensuring a more robust understanding of the natural world. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that some hypotheses may be difficult to falsify due to technological or methodological limitations, making this an ongoing challenge in scientific inquiry. Further, it could be argued that there is a tendency for most non-scientists, and even some scientists, to place greater value on evidence that is seen to prove a hypothesis rather than falsify a hypothesis.

2. Challenges of Demonstrating Causation

In the natural sciences, establishing causation is notoriously difficult, particularly within multi-variate environments where numerous variables interact in complex ways. Demonstrating causation requires isolating variables and ensuring that any observed effects can be attributed to the variable of interest rather than confounding factors. This often necessitates controlled experiments and the use of statistical methods to determine the likelihood that a particular relationship is causal. However, even with rigorous methods, absolute certainty is rarely achievable, highlighting the tentative nature of scientific conclusions.

3. Issues of Validity vs Reliability

In evaluating scientific knowledge, it is essential to distinguish between validity and reliability. Validity refers to the accuracy of a measurement or the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the consistency of results when an experiment or measurement is repeated under the same conditions. A study can be reliable without being valid if it consistently produces the same results, but those results do not accurately reflect the phenomenon being studied. Conversely, a valid study that is not reliable may provide accurate results only sporadically. The scientific method strives for both validity and reliability, but achieving both can be a complex and demanding process.

4. Ecological Validity

Ecological validity concerns the extent to which the findings of a study can be generalised to real-world settings. Laboratory experiments, whilst offering control over variables, often lack ecological validity because the conditions are artificial and may not accurately represent natural environments. This raises questions about the applicability of scientific findings to real-life situations. Balancing the control of experimental conditions with the need for ecological validity is a perpetual challenge in the natural sciences, necessitating a careful consideration of experimental design and the context of the findings.

In conclusion, evaluating natural science knowledge requires a nuanced understanding of the challenges of producing knowledge that is both scientifically rigorous whilst also being relevant and applicable in the real world. By focusing on falsification, the challenges of causation, the balance between validity and reliability, and the importance of ecological validity, students can develop a deeper appreciation of the complexities and strengths of the natural sciences. This holistic evaluation helps in recognising the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing quest for a more accurate understanding of the natural world.

If you need more help with your ToK Essay check out the services available linked here.

If you need help with your ToK Exhibition check out the services available linked here.

What is a Knowledge Argument?

Recently, whilst coaching a student on his Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essay, I realised he was unfamiliar with the term “knowledge argument.” He hadn’t encountered the term "knowledge claim" or "knowledge issue" either, which are often used interchangeably. His candid admission highlighted a common gap in understanding, so I thought it apposite to look at the essentials: what is a knowledge argument?

Understanding the Knowledge Argument

A knowledge argument is a statement about how knowledge is created, received, interpreted, or justified.

In ToK, a knowledge argument is a statement about how knowledge is created, received, interpreted, or justified. These arguments are also referred to as knowledge issues, knowledge questions, or knowledge claims. They all centre on the same concept: a statement about knowledge itself.

Examples in ToK Prompts

All ToK Exhibition and Essay prompts are essentially knowledge arguments or questions. For instance, consider Exhibition prompt #25: “How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion?” This is a classic knowledge question. Similarly, Exhibition prompt #2: “Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?” also falls into this category. (This also happens to be the easiest ToK Exhibition prompt: click here for more details)

Essay titles follow the same pattern. For example:

• Q#5 May 2024: “Do we need Custodians of Knowledge?”

• Q#1 November 2023: “Are facts alone enough to prove a claim?”

These prompts are all questions about knowledge, even if they don’t explicitly mention the word "knowledge." They focus on exploring and understanding knowledge in various contexts.

The Importance of Knowledge Arguments

You might wonder why it’s crucial to understand and write knowledge arguments when the IB provides these questions anyway. The key is not just writing these arguments but also being able to explore and unpack them.

Example: Custodians of Knowledge

Take the question from May 2024: “Do we need Custodians of Knowledge?” To answer it, we need to break it down into smaller knowledge questions:

1. What is a Custodian of Knowledge?

2. What needs might they fulfil?

Focusing on the second question—what needs might Custodians of Knowledge fulfil?—we realise that in the context of ToK, these needs will be related to knowledge. Thus, we can derive several smaller knowledge questions:

• Do Custodians of Knowledge preserve and protect existing knowledge?

• Do Custodians of Knowledge identify and maintain knowledge gatekeepers?

• Do Custodians of Knowledge define and describe the methodology of knowledge production?

• Do Custodians of Knowledge define legitimate evidence of knowledge?

These smaller knowledge questions help us to explore and answer the broader question effectively.

Practical Application

By learning to write and explore knowledge questions, you can better address the big knowledge questions posed in the ToK Exhibition or Essay prompts. This skill is straightforward and invaluable, ensuring you don’t miss the centrality of knowledge questions in your work.

For more guidance on your ToK Essay click here, and for help with the ToK Exhibition click here.

Stay Toktastic, my friends!

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

What Makes a Good Object for the ToK Exhibition?

Students often ask me whether a particular object is a good object for the ToK Exhibition. To help you decide, I’m going to share three clear rules to determine whether your object is suitable for the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Exhibition. These guidelines will ensure your object meets the criteria set by the International Baccalaureate (IB) and effectively demonstrates your understanding of ToK concepts.

This blogpost can also be watched on video at this link, or below.

Rule 1: Is Your Object Specific?

A common misconception is that ToK objects must be personal. While personal objects can be specific, they are not the only option. The key is specificity. A specific object has distinct characteristics or a unique story that ties directly to the ToK concepts you're exploring

Example: Personal & Specific Object

The IB's May 2023 ToK Subject report clarifies this with an example: a Bible is not specific, but your family Bible, inherited from your grandmother, is. This personal connection makes it specific because it carries particular significance and history.

Example: Non-Personal & Specific Object

In the 2023 Exhibition example C, a 19th-century water pump from London was used. This pump was integral to Dr John Snow’s identification of cholera's transmission in 1853. Although not personal to the student, its historical and scientific importance makes it a specific object.

However, specificity alone does not make an object good. It must also demonstrate a specific knowledge argument.

Rule 2: Does Your Object Demonstrate a Specific Knowledge Argument?

A specific object needs to illustrate a particular knowledge argument relevant to the ToK prompt you are addressing. This means the object should help you explore how knowledge is developed, shared, and understood.

Example: Family Bible

Selecting a family Bible isn’t enough by itself. You must explain how its specificity helps explore knowledge issues in the prompt. For instance, you could argue that the Bible helped you realise that new knowledge cannot always change established values and beliefs (prompt 11), or it highlights that some things are unknowable if they are metaphysical (prompt 18).

If you need help understanding what a knowledge argument is, check out the next blogpost, “What is a Knowledge Argument?”

Rule 3: Could Many Other Objects Demonstrate Your Specific Knowledge Argument as Well?

For your object to be excellent, it must demonstrate the specific knowledge argument better than other comparative objects. This distinction is essential for achieving the highest marks.

Example: Edison’s Light Bulb

Answering Prompt #8, "To what extent is certainty attainable?", you might argue that certainty is rarely attainable because much knowledge is serendipitous. You could choose Edison’s first light bulb to illustrate this point, as its creation involved accidental discovery. While this object is specific and demonstrates a knowledge argument, many other objects, such as Fleming’s penicillin, X-rays, or Heparin, could serve the same purpose, making it less unique.

Example: Dr John Snow’s Hand Pump

Consider the hand pump from which Dr John Snow discovered cholera’s transmission method. Answering prompt #33, "How is current knowledge shaped by its historical development?", this object exemplifies how current scientific knowledge is built on historical understanding of public health. While other objects could demonstrate this argument, the hand pump’s role in establishing epidemiology makes it uniquely effective.

Conclusion

To summarise, here are the three rules for selecting a good object for your ToK Exhibition:

1. Is your object specific?

2. Does your object demonstrate a specific knowledge argument?

3. Could many other objects demonstrate your specific knowledge argument as well?

By following these rules, you can select objects that not only fit the criteria but also enhance your understanding and presentation of ToK concepts. For more guidance, check out our free video series, "How to Do Your ToK Exhibition", or our e-book series on the ToK Exhibition, which provides examples of knowledge arguments and suitable objects.

Thank you for reading, and I hope this helps you create a fantastic ToK Exhibition. Stay toktastic, my friends!

Daniel, Lisbon, June 24

What is the Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompt?

Students often ask, "What is the easiest ToK Exhibition prompt?" And truth be told, it’s a bit like asking, "What's the best flavour of ice cream?" It really depends on your tastes, or in this case, your interests, knowledge, and experiences. But being the curious beings we are here at ToKToday, we thought, why not try to quantify the ease (or difficulty) of the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Exhibition prompts?

The Quest for the Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompt

Today, we're diving into the deep end of ToK prompts to figure out which ones are a breeze and which ones are more like Maths AA HL P3 (IYKYK). To do this, we need a way to measure ease or difficulty. So, I’ve broken down the challenge of a ToK Exhibition prompt into three not-so-scientific but oh-so-fun criteria:

1. Closed-ended Three-part Structure:

2. Does the prompt lend itself to an easy, three-part structure? Since the Exhibition is based on three objects, prompts that naturally break down into three distinct parts are a gift from the examiners. For example, Prompt #2, "Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?" can be easily divided into three responses: Yes, No, and Sometimes. In contrast, Prompt #1, "What counts as knowledge?" is more open-ended and thus, more challenging to pigeonhole into a tidy three-part answer.

3. Abstract vs. Concrete:

4. Is the prompt asking you to wrestle with abstract ideas or more tangible, concrete ones? Generally, the more abstract the question, the harder it is to pin down. For instance, Prompt #7, "What are the implications of having or not having knowledge?" is quite abstract. In comparison, Prompt #10, "What challenges are raised by the dissemination/communication of knowledge?" is far more concrete and easier to tackle.

5. Complex (Abstruse) vs. Clear Wording:

6. Some prompts are written in a way that makes you feel like you need a degree in deciphering hieroglyphics, whilst others are as clear as a sunny day. The clearer the wording, the easier it is to grasp. For example, Prompt #13, "How can we know that current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge?" has complex wording. It involves multiple layers of inquiry, making it a tough nut to crack. On the other hand, Prompt #2, "Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?" is straightforward and direct.

Ranking the Prompts

Based on these three criteria, I’ve scored each ToK Exhibition prompt out of 10 in each category, giving us a total possible 'easiness' score out of 30. This highly subjective scoring system allows us to create a kind of league table, ranking the prompts from easiest to hardest.

The Five Hardest ToK Exhibition Prompts

Starting from the top (or bottom, depending on your perspective), here are the five toughest prompts to tackle:

1. Prompt #25: How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion?

2. This tricky prompt asks not just for definitions but for the nuanced differences between these concepts. It’s the philosophical equivalent of herding cats.

3. Prompt #7: What are the implications of having or not having knowledge?

4. This one twists your brain into strange shapes as you try to grapple with the abstract implications of possessing or lacking knowledge. Read more about implications at this link.

5. Prompt #20: What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge?

6. It’s a popular choice but beware – it’s abstract and asks you to explore the relationship between concepts rather than the concepts themselves. Read more about this prompt at this link.

7. Prompt #13: How can we know that current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge?

8. The wording here is a labyrinth. It requires you to untangle how we can assess improvements in knowledge and what constitutes past and current knowledge. Read more about this prompt at this link.

9. Prompt #38: To what extent is certainty attainable?

10. Low scores across all three criteria make this prompt a formidable challenge. Tackling it requires a solid understanding of the nature of certainty.

The Five Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompts

On the flip side, here are the prompts that are like the sweet smell of graduation for DP students:

1. Prompt #2: Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?

2. Scoring high across all our categories, this prompt is the champion of easiness. It’s clear, structured, and lends itself to a wealth of illustrative objects.

3. Prompt #11: Can new knowledge change established values and beliefs?

4. This prompt offers a nice, closed-ended structure and is straightforward in its wording. Plus, there are endless examples to support your argument.

5. Prompt #9: Are some types of knowledge less open to interpretation than others?

6. It’s easy to break this into a three-part structure, and the clear wording makes it accessible. You just need to consider different types of knowledge and their interpretability.

7. Prompt #10: What challenges are raised by the dissemination/communication of knowledge?

8. This is the most concrete of all the prompts, making it easier to grasp and explore in a structured way.

9. Prompt #12: Is bias inevitable in the production of knowledge?

10. While it does flirt with the tricky concept of inevitability, its clear wording and closed-ended structure make it a relatively easy prompt to tackle.

In Conclusion

There you have it! The easiest ToK Exhibition prompt, according to my rather subjective criteria, is Prompt #2: "Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?" But remember, these rankings are just for fun and based on my personal interpretation. Your experience might be different, and that's perfectly fine!

So, did I get it right? Have I unfairly marked a tricky prompt as easy or missed a deceptively difficult one? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

If you need more help with your ToK Exhibition, check out the free & paid resources linked here.

Click here for the e-book Every ToK Exhibition Prompt explained.

Happy exhibiting, and may the easiest prompt be ever in your favour! Stay Tok-tastic !

Get the full table of prompts ranked by "easiness" at this link.

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

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

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

The historical development of knowledge.

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

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

• periods of debate or contest.

• periods of integration or increasing cohesion

• periods of upheaval

• periods of denial

• periods of acceptance

• periods of lapsed, suppressed or repressed knowledge.

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

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

ToK Themes (Optional)

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

Choosing Objects - Developing Knowledge Arguments.

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

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

A note on specificity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ToK Subject Report May 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object 1: mRNA Vaccine Certificate (Thailand 2021)

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

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

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

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

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

Photo: (University of Sydney, 2020)

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

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

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

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

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

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

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

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

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

References

• Ali, H. (2013). Mapping the secular mind. International Institute of Islamic Thought. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkc67rh

• Jay-Z & Danger Mouse. (2004). The Grey Album [Album].

• Steinman, J. (2005, January 21). From “Way” to Grey: Two decades of genre remixing. Chicago Maroon. https://chicagomaroon.com/2277/arts/from-way-to-grey-two-decades-of-genre-remixing/

• Temple, B., & Tracy, C. A. (1992). From Newton to Einstein. The American Mathematical Monthly, 99(6), 507. https://doi.org/10.2307/2324058

• The Beatles. (1968). The Beatles [Album].

• University of Sydney. (2020). Philosopia Naturalis Principia Mathematica(First Edition, 1687). https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/images/news-and-opinion/news/2020/january/principia/newtown-principia-title-page-usyd.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.1280.1280.jpeg

• Wikramaratna, P. S., Sandeman, M., Recker, M., & Gupta, S. (2013). The antigenic evolution of influenza: Drift or thrift? Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 368(1614), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/23362559

The Lenses of Artists and Scientists Explored

This is the first of two blog posts looking at Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #6 Nov 2024: what can be gained if artists adopt the lens of the scientist, and scientists adopt the lens of the artist? The main blogpost for this essay title is linked here.

The video accompanying this blogpost is linked here, and below.

The Pursuit of Knowledge

The term "pursuit of knowledge" is not explicitly defined in the International Baccalaureate ToK Study Guide giving students a degree of freedom in their interpretation of the term. Broadly, the pursuit of knowledge could be thought to encompass both the production and acquisition of knowledge. It suggests an active, intentional effort by knowledge producers (who construct knowledge) and knowers (who collect and learn knowledge). Understanding this term is the first step in exploring the potential benefits ("gains") through the exchange of scientific and artistic lenses.

Understanding the Lens of the Artist and the Lens of the Scientist

Before we tackle the potential gains from the exchange of lenses, it's useful to consider what we may mean by the "lens of the artist" and the "lens of the scientist."

The Lens in the pursuit of knowledge.

The Lens of the Artist

The lens of the artist is informed by values, assumptions, typical methods and tools, conventional theories, and principles that guide the production and acquisition of artistic knowledge.

This lens has many characteristics, including:

1. Definition of Knowledge: Knowledge can be defined either by the artist or the knower, highlighting a flexible approach to what constitutes knowledge.

2. Ethical Codes: Artists often adhere to flexible and dynamic ethical codes, allowing for a broad interpretation of what is ethical in the creation and dissemination of artistic knowledge.

The Lens of the Scientist

Conversely, the lens of the scientist is shaped by values, methods, tools, theories, and principles used in the scientific production and acquisition of knowledge.

This lens has many characteristics, including:

1. Methodology: The scientific lens often utilises a limited range of accepted methods for constructing knowledge, prioritising rigor and repeatability.

2. Fixed Knowledge: Knowledge is typically external, measurable, and fixed, reducing subjectivity and focusing on quantifiable outcomes.

Potential Gains from Lens Exchange

Scientists Adopting the Lens of Artists

If scientists were to adopt the lens of the artist, they might gain significant flexibility in defining what is considered scientific knowledge. Traditionally, scientific knowledge is defined through rigorous methods like the scientific method and peer review. Adopting an artist's lens could democratise this process, potentially allowing for a broader range of contributors and innovative perspectives. Additionally, embracing the artist's flexible ethical codes could provide scientists with greater freedom to explore and define what is deemed ethical in their research. This could lead to new knowledge that would not have been created using conventional ethical codes.

Artists Adopting the Lens of Scientists

For artists, adopting the scientific lens could lead to a more structured approach to producing artistic knowledge. Whilst this might limit some creative freedoms, it could also introduce a new level of discipline and precision to artistic practices. The concept of making artistic knowledge external, measurable, and fixed could challenge artists to produce works that are less open to interpretation, possibly appealing to new audiences seeking clarity and precision.

Conclusion

This blogpost is only an introduction to the key terms in ToK Essay #6 Nov 2024, the next blogpost demonstrates an approach to answering the whole question. This blogpost describes 4 characteristics of the lenses of artists and scientists. There are many other characteristics that students could consider when writing this essay. The TokToday Essay Guidance Notes for ToK Essay #6 Nov 24 looks at 26 different characteristics of the lenses of artists and scientists. The Essay Guidance notes also contain a wide range of knowledge arguments, real life examples, evaluation points and implication points for this essay. youThey can be picked up from this link.

Watch the accompanying video on YouTube

ToK Essay #4 N24: Hypothesis & Speculation - a significant difference ?

Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Speculation Significant?

Today we're looking at ToK Essay #4 N24 "Is the difference between hypothesis and speculation significant?" Understanding the distinction between these terms is essential if you're writing this question. The previous blogpost (linked) focussed on defining the terms, as does the video linked here.

The video for this blog post is linked here, and below.

Defining Hypothesis and Speculation

Developing the definitions for hypothesis and speculation is obviously key to this essay. It is recommended that you develop these definitions within the knowledge arguments that are being used for each okay. This will allow for a more precise and talk focused exploration of these two central concepts.

The Significance of Their Differences

We might wonder, "What's the difference between hypothesis and speculation?" and more importantly, "Is the difference between hypothesis and speculation significant?". We could take the role of evidence as one of our measures of whether difference is significant or not. The role of evidence in the formulation of hypotheses is only one way to measure the significance of difference. There are many other ways, to approach the concept of significance.

Evidence and Knowledge Production

In AoK The Human Sciences, the distinction between hypothesis and speculation could be that hypotheses are formulated from evidence whilst speculation is based on more subjective sources such as experience, or intuition. Hypotheses are typically grounded in evidence, which allows for the development of knowledge that advances our understanding of human cognition and social interactions. For example, research by Bargh and Williams in 2006 on the priming of social distance demonstrates how hypotheses grounded in evidence can reveal insights that speculations could not achieve.

The Criteria for Significance

To evaluate whether the differences are significant, we can consider several factors:

• Impact on Knowledge Produced: If the use of speculation leads to different knowledge than the use of a hypothesis, this indicates a significant difference.

• Influence on the Subject or Object of Knowledge Production: Changes in who produces the knowledge or how it is produced can also signal significance.

• Alterations in Purpose or Intention: If a knowledge producer's intentions vary depending on whether they are speculating or hypothesising, this further underscores a significant difference.

These criteria offer us one (of many) way(s) understand and explore the significance of the differences between hypothesis and speculation.

Evaluating the knowledge argument and its Implications

Questioning the Premises

While it is often argued that hypotheses are grounded in evidence and speculation is not, this distinction may not always hold. The evidence underpinning hypotheses might still be subjective or based on prior assumptions, which could blur the lines between these two forms of reasoning.

The Role of Evidence

The use of a pre-existing evidence base to inform hypotheses tends to reinforce established knowledge. Therefore, one could argue that the significance of evidence in distinguishing between hypothesis and speculation may not be as profound, especially if the aim is to break away from established knowledge paradigms.

Conclusion

To determine if the difference between hypothesis and speculation is significant, one must consider how each affects the production, the nature of the knowledge being produced, the knowledge producer etc. This blog post is just an introduction into the many areas that could be explored using this essay question..

For a a wider, and deeper, exploration of this title pick up the ToKToday Essay Guidance Notes for Essay #4. These include more complex knowledge arguments and real-life examples, at 8,000 words long these notes serve as a mini-textbook focussed solely on this essay title.

Watch the accompanying video on YouTube:

What's the Difference Between Hypothesis and Speculation?

Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #4 Nov24 asks us to consider whether the difference between hypothesis and speculation is significant. This blog post introduces an approach to understanding both terms. It also starts to describe some of the possible differences between hypothesis and speculation. This blogpost is aimed to build understanding of the core concepts for the essay title rather than answer the title itself. For a fuller analysis of the title please go to the next blog post (linked). This blogpost is also accompanied by the video linked here, and below.

Understanding Hypothesis in the Human & Natural Sciences

A hypothesis (in the Human & Natural Sciences) could be seen as a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. It is a pivotal element of scientific research used to build on existing knowledge. Hypotheses are generally based on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. The strength of a hypothesis lies in its ability to be tested through experimentation or further observation. This means that a hypothesis must be framed in a way that makes it falsifiable.

Scientific methods revolve around the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. By adhering to this rigorous methodology, researchers can derive conclusions that are supported by empirical evidence. For example, a researcher might hypothesise that a specific kind of plant can lower blood pressure based on observations from traditional use in herbal medicine. They would then design experiments to test this hypothesis under controlled conditions, thus moving from assumption to verifiable knowledge.

Understanding Hypothesis in other Areas of Knowledge.

Students have a lot more freedom for describing a Hypothesis In the arts. For example a hypothesis in the arts could take the form of a proposed relationship between certain artistic elements and their impact on the viewer's emotional response. Specifically, a hypothesis in a visual arts study could be: "Increasing the contrast in a painting will result in heightened viewer engagement and a stronger emotional reaction." This hypothesis could then be tested and analysed through empirical observation and qualitative feedback.

In Maths and History the phenomena being studied may not be available for direct observation by the knowledge producer. This could change aspects of the process of developing a hypothesis. Such phenomena could be investigated through secondary sources or modeling. Despite the lack of direct manipulation of independent variables in many cases, the processes for developing and testing a hypothesis in these areas are similar to those in the sciences.

Exploring Speculation

On the other hand, speculation involves conjectures about a subject without firm evidence. It is often the first step in the investigative process, where ideas are formed based on intuition, hypothetical scenarios, or even imaginative thought processes. Unlike hypotheses, speculations do not necessarily have to be testable or grounded in reality; they are broader and can be seen as a form of creative thinking in both arts and sciences.

Speculation plays a critical role in forming hypotheses by providing a wide range of possibilities which can then be narrowed down through more precise questioning and research. For example, a scientist might speculate about the potential causes of a newly observed disease. While these initial speculations might be broad and varied, they pave the way for more targeted hypotheses that can be empirically tested.

Key Differences

The key difference between hypothesis and speculation is their place in the continuum of knowledge production. Hypotheses are precise, are often derived from some initial data, and are inherently testable by means of scientific methods. In contrast, speculation is much more open-ended, can be based on minimal or no evidence, and is not immediately subject to empirical testing.

Understanding when to use a hypothesis or engage in speculation depends on the objective of your inquiry. If you are seeking to contribute to verifiable knowledge or solve a specific problem, formulating a hypothesis is essential. However, if you're at the stage of generating ideas or exploring potential explanations without immediate need for empirical backing, speculation can be incredibly valuable.

Conclusion

By defining hypothesis and speculation, and starting to describe some of the differences between them, we hope to lay the foundations to tackle the bigger issues in ToK Essay #4 Nov 24. For further support and guidance with this essay title pick up the essay guidance notes linked here.

Watch the accompanying video on YouTube:

ToK Essay #3 Nov 24: Sever Ties with Its Past

This blogpost proposes just one of many possible approaches to ToK Essay #3 November 2024. We take the approach that the concept of "severing ties with its past," results in the significant transformation of an Area of Knowledge (AoK). This blog post aims to develop how this approach could apply to the Arts, and looks at the evaluation and implications of the knowledge argument used.

This blogpost accompanies the video linked here, and below.

Understanding Severance in the Context of AoK

The approach taken to understanding "sever ties with its past" is that there are significant changes to one or more elements of. the Knowledge framework of the AoK. This severance might be necessary for an AoK to maintain relevance amidst cultural and technological shifts that render old paradigms obsolete.

The Knowledge Framework and Cultural Shifts

The Knowledge Framework within ToK outlines the scope, themes, and nature of problems considered by an AoK. When cultural changes external to the AoK occur—be they technological advancements, shifts in available resources, or broader social transformations—the previously relevant knowledge may no longer suffice. The AoK must then adapt, potentially severing ties with its past methodologies and perspectives, to stay relevant. This adaptation can be seen as both necessary and beneficial, allowing the AoK to evolve and continue contributing meaningfully to society.

Real Life Example: The Shift in Visual Arts

An example of the process of 'severing ties with its past' outlined here, can be observed in the Arts during the mid-19th century. Prior to the 1860s, European visual arts, particularly painting, were dominated by realism—the accurate, detailed, unembellished depiction of the visual world. The invention of the camera and the rise of photography challenged this dominance by fulfilling realism's role more efficiently and effectively. This technological shift forced the Arts to reconsider their function; the result was the emergence of the Impressionist movement, which focused not on replicating reality, but on capturing the impressions—emotions, atmospheres, and experiences.

Far more details on this example can be found at this link.

Implications and Evaluations

The transition to impressionism demonstrates the severance of ties with the past in an AoK in response to external changes, but it also raises questions about the nature of such transitions:

• Continuity vs. Severance: Even as new movements like impressionism rose to prominence, the techniques and elements of realism did not vanish. This coexistence challenges the notion that an AoK can, (or maybe even should), completely sever ties with its past.

• Benefits vs. Losses: By adopting new methodologies and scopes, an AoK might risk losing valuable aspects of its tradition that could still have relevance. The decision to sever ties must be balanced against the potential loss of depth and continuity.

• Causality and Influence: The direction of influence—whether societal changes prompt shifts in AoK or vice versa—can be ambiguous. In some cases, movements within an AoK, such as the early impressionists' drive for recognition, might themselves instigate broader cultural shifts.

Conclusion

In discussing severing ties with the past within an AoK, as examined in ToK Essay #3 Nov 24, responses could largely revolve around the definitions developed for the key terms in the essay. Whilst the benefits of staying relevant and adaptive are clear, the complexities involved in deciding when and how to sever these ties highlight the intricate balance between innovation and tradition in the production of knowledge.

Further guidance and detailed analyses are available in our comprehensive ToK Essay Guidance Notes, designed to support your writing of ToK Essay 3 Nov 24.

Watch on YouTube:

What could "sever ties with its past" mean?

This blog post accompanies the video linked here, and below.

Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #3 from the November 2024 sessions asks us to consider the phrase "Sever ties with its past", In this blog post, we will look at one way of understanding this term, and we'll also look at the phrase "benefit an area of knowledge".

Understanding the Knowledge Framework

At the heart of Essay #3 N24—and indeed central to our understanding of the terms for Essay #3—is the Knowledge Framework. This framework is an integral part of the ToK curriculum, outlining the structure of each Area of Knowledge (AoK). It comprises four main components: Scope, Perspectives, Methods & Tools, and Ethics. These elements collectively define what each AoK entails, including its objectives, methodologies, and ethical considerations.

Severing Ties with the Past

To "sever ties with its past" within an AoK can be broadly interpreted as making changes to some or all of the elements of the Knowledge Framework. This might involve altering the methodologies employed to produce knowledge or revising the foundational principles and laws outlined in the Scope. It's a phrase that suggests significant shifts in how an AoK is structured or understood. However, many other definitions of this term could be developed, it's very much open to a range of arguments.

For a comprehensive understanding of this concept, it's advisable to refer to additional resources such as the ToKToday Essay Guidance notes available from this link. These notes offer detailed explanations and examples that can help refine your definitions and approach to addressing this element in your essay.

Benefits to an Area of Knowledge

The second key phrase, "benefit an area of knowledge," invites you to consider what improvements or positive changes can occur within an AoK due to adjustments in the Knowledge Framework (if you take changes to the knowledge framework as your definition of "sever ties with its past"). Benefits might be direct enhancements to the methodologies or tools used within the AoK or they could involve broader ethical improvements stemming from shifts in perspective or approach.

Just as with understanding how ties can be severed, discussing the potential benefits requires a nuanced approach.

The beauty of the Knowledge Framework

The beauty of using the Knowledge Framework to address these questions lies in its structured approach to understanding and analysing Areas of Knowledge. By mapping out changes or benefits within this framework, you can more effectively articulate and support your arguments in the essay.

Conclusion

Both "sever ties with its past" and "benefit an area of knowledge" are terms that, once explained, can help your understanding and handling of this ToK essay. Through the lens of the Knowledge Framework, these terms gain clarity and depth. This will help in your writing of this essay. For further assistance, do not hesitate to explore additional resources such as the ToKToday Essay Guidance notes available from this link.

A Feminist Perspective of Science

ToK students often find it hard to evaluate the Natural Sciences beyond validity issues of the scientific method. The feminist perspective of science helps us to reconsider some issues of objectivity and knowledge production in the sciences. This blog post considers the influences of gender on the acquisition, production, and interpretation of scientific knowledge, we focus on the work of key feminist theorist Donna Haraway, and use the work of Sandra Harding, and Evelyn Fox Keller. For ToK (Theory of Knowledge) students, understanding the feminist approach to science helps to appreciate the nuances in the construction of scientific knowledge, and the role that gender plays in that process.

The Critique of Traditional Objectivity

Historically, the quest for scientific objectivity aimed to eliminate biases, believing in the existence of a 'natural light of truth.' (as put forward by Descartes). However, feminist and Marxist critiques challenge this notion, arguing that biases are inherent to the human condition, thus questioning the very possibility of absolute objectivity. Donna Haraway, in "Situated Knowledges," evaluates previous feminist attempts to undermine the scientific pretension to a 'view from nowhere.' She argues against the possibility of Baconian objectivity, advocating instead for a new form of objectivity that acknowledges the 'situatedness' of scientists.

Situated Knowledges and the Role of Gender in Science

Haraway's concept of 'situated knowledges' introduces the idea that all scientific knowledge is rooted in the specific contexts of its producers. This notion extends beyond the Marxist focus on class to include gender as a critical factor influencing scientific inquiry. Unlike earlier feminist philosophers who may have focused on a distinctly 'feminine' science, Haraway and others like Sandra Harding and Evelyn Fox Keller highlight the broader implications of gendered biases in the methodology and practice of science. They critique the dominance of 'toxic masculinity' in scientific methodologies, which often emphasize control and predictability, overlooking the diverse and interconnected nature of scientific phenomena.

Feminist Science: Beyond Bias

The feminist perspective on science seeks to move beyond simply identifying biases to proposing more inclusive and reflexive approaches to scientific research. This involves recognizing the value of diverse perspectives in enriching scientific inquiry and ensuring that scientific practices and policies are informed by a wide range of experiences and understandings. The involvement of individuals from various backgrounds—gender, nationality, class—in both research and policy-making is crucial for a more holistic and democratic approach to science.

The Interplay of Science and Technology: A Cyborg Manifesto

Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" further explores the relationship between science, technology, and society, suggesting that our engagement with technology shapes our perceptions and interactions with the world. By embracing the cyborg as a metaphor for the complex interconnections between humans and technology, Haraway challenges traditional dichotomies and advocates for a more nuanced understanding of our technological entanglements. This perspective encourages us to reconsider the ways in which scientific and technological advancements are integrated into our lives and how they redefine our concepts of humanity and nature.

Rethinking Scientific Objectivity and Knowledge Production

The feminist critique of science calls for a reevaluation of what counts as objective knowledge and who gets to produce it. By emphasizing the importance of 'situated knowledges,' feminist theorists argue for a science that is more responsive to the social and ethical implications of its practices. This entails a shift from a singular, universal perspective to a multiplicity of viewpoints that reflect the complex realities of our world.

Conclusion: Towards a Feminist Science

The feminist perspective on science offers a powerful critique of traditional notions of objectivity and a pathway towards a more inclusive, ethical, and reflexive science. By acknowledging the influence of gender and other social factors on scientific inquiry, we can move towards a science that not only produces knowledge but also reflects the diverse realities and experiences of its global community. In doing so, we embrace a feminist science that values diversity, interconnection, and the responsible application of scientific knowledge for the betterment of society.

References

• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.

• Haraway, D. (1985). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.

• Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives.

• Keller, E.F. (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science.

• Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.

This exploration into the feminist perspective of science not only highlights the critical role of gender in shaping scientific knowledge but also calls for a reimagined approach to scientific inquiry—one that is inclusive, ethically conscious, and reflective of the diverse world it seeks to understand.

To find out (a lot) more about the feminist perspective of science head over to The Partially Examined Life blog and podcast.

What makes art arty?

It's useful to remember that "Art" and artistic knowledge includes music, literature, visual art, textiles, sculptor and film. In ToK a perennial debate is what defines art? Is it the subjective beauty perceived by an observer, or the underlying structures and theories that constitute its foundation? This discussion considers the complexities of aesthetic appreciation versus the structured knowledge that underpins artistic creation, with an aim to find ways to define art.

Aesthetics: The Subjective Experience

Aesthetics, derived from the Greek word "aisthesis," meaning perception, refers to the sensory experience or the beauty perceived in art. In music, literature, visual art, and film, aesthetics play a pivotal role in determining the audience's emotional response. Philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his work "Critique of Judgment," emphasised the importance of subjective beauty and its impact on the individual observer (Kant, 1790). For instance, the haunting melodies of Chopin's nocturnes or the stark, emotive lines of Picasso's Guernica strike chords of beauty and pain in listeners and viewers, transcending their technical composition.

Underlying Structures: The Foundation of Art

Conversely, artistic knowledge is rooted in established theories and structures. In music, this includes the understanding of chords, scales, and rhythm. The chromatic theory in visual art, and the rule of thirds in photography and painting, provide artists with guidelines to create balanced and harmonious compositions. In literature and film, narrative structures like Gustav Freytag’s pyramid and Joseph Campbell's "The Hero's Journey" are pivotal in crafting compelling stories. These structures are not just technicalities but are the backbone of artistic creation, offering a template for artists to innovate and express their ideas (Freytag, 1863; Campbell, 1949).

Music: Harmony and Melody

In music, the juxtaposition of aesthetics and structure is pronounced. The chord progressions in a piece by Bach or the innovative use of the tritone in Beethoven's compositions underpin the emotional response they evoke. Music theory is not just a set of rules; it's a language that enables composers to convey emotions and stories. For example, the use of minor keys to convey sadness or dissonance to express tension is a structured approach to creating an aesthetic experience (Rameau, 1722).

Visual Arts: Colour and Composition

In visual arts, the interplay of colours, lines, and shapes based on chromatic theory and compositional rules like the rule of thirds or the golden ratio, form the basis of aesthetic appeal. Monet's Impressionist works, though seemingly spontaneous, are underpinned by a deep understanding of light and colour theory. Similarly, the geometric precision in Mondrian's abstract works conveys beauty through structured form and colour (Gage, 1999).

Literature and Film: Narrative and Form

In literature and film, narrative structures guide the unfolding of stories. Shakespeare’s use of iambic pentameter in his plays provides rhythmic structure, enhancing the emotional impact of the words. The three-act structure, common in both literature and film, creates a framework within which stories are told, influencing how the audience perceives and engages with the narrative (McKee, 1997).

Balancing Aesthetics and Structures

The crux of the debate lies in finding a balance between these two aspects. Artistic knowledge and structures provide a foundation, but it's the artist's aesthetic choices that bring these elements to life. The tension between following rules and expressing subjective beauty is where art truly becomes 'arty'. This tension allows for innovation and creativity, leading to the evolution of art forms and artistic expression.

Conclusion

In conclusion, art is a complex amalgamation of aesthetics and underlying structures. While the aesthetic experience is subjective and varies with individual perception, the knowledge of underlying structures provides a framework for artists to express their creativity. The interplay of these elements is what gives art its depth, making it a continually evolving and dynamic field. Understanding this intricate balance is crucial for appreciating art in its entirety.

If you want help with your ToK Essay or ToK Exhibition contact me at Daniel@TokToday.com, or use the Messenger Chat icon on this website.

Stay arty my friends!
Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 2024

References

• Kant, I. (1790). *Critique of Judgment*.

• Freytag, G. (1863). *Die Technik des Dramas*.

• Campbell, J. (1949). *The Hero with a Thousand Faces*.

• Rameau, J. P. (1722). *Treatise on Harmony*.

• Gage, J. (1999). *Colour and Culture: Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction*.

• McKee, R. (1997). *Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting*.