Alternative Concepts for the ToK Course: Part 2
This is part 2 of the alternative concepts that could be used in the International Baccalaureate (IB) Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course. In the first part of this series, we examined concepts 1-4 (linked), and today, we will look at concepts 5-8. These concepts offer a fresh perspective on the foundational elements of ToK and could potentially enrich the curriculum. If you missed the first post, be sure to check it out for the initial concepts and some important caveats about this series.
You can also watch the video for this blogpost at this link, or below.
Concept 5: Construct (or Constructed)
The fifth concept on our alternative ToK concepts list is "Construct" or "Constructed." Traditionally, ToK is described as the study of how knowledge is constructed. This notion is quite profound when you truly grasp its implications. Many students experience a moment of awe, and possibly trepidation, when they realise the weight of this idea.
Although it’s unclear if we're still meant to formally teach knowledge construction in ToK, constructs remain integral to our discussions. The official ToK concept list includes terms like Power, Culture, Perspective, and Evidence—each is a construct in its own right, particularly from a constructivist viewpoint. Explicitly teaching "Construct" could make other parts of the course more accessible to students, particularly those who struggle with understanding the nature of constructed knowledge.
For more on the importance of the concept of Construct check out the blogs on:
Concept 6: Causation or Causality
Next up is "Causation" or "Causality." Much of ToK revolves around establishing the grounds for knowledge, and causation is a primary method for doing this, especially within the Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) of Human and Natural Sciences. Many students find evaluating human and scientific knowledge challenging because they lack a clear understanding of causality.
Causality naturally links with ToK concepts such as Certainty, Explanation, and Evidence. Many of the ToK Essay questions require a critical understanding of causality. Including Causality in the ToK curriculum could enhance students' ability to critically assess knowledge claims.
Concept 7: Identity
Our seventh concept is "Identity." Here, we're slightly bending our initial rule, which was not to replace IB's core concepts but rather to add new ones. I propose replacing "Truth" with "Identity." This suggestion stems not from a dismissal of Truth’s importance but from a recognition of its complexity.
Truth is a multifaceted concept that requires understanding a range of other ideas, including Perspective, Culture, Interpretation, Values, and Explanation. Students often simplify Truth to mean objective, external, fixed knowledge, which is a limited interpretation. Teaching the relationship between Identity and knowledge could serve as a scaffold, leading to a more nuanced understanding of Truth.
Concept 8: Category
The eighth concept is "Category," inspired by the Kantian notion of categorisation. This concept could also be termed "Labelling," as both serve similar functions in this context. Much of ToK involves organising knowledge within a framework, and discussions about categories and categorisation are inevitable.
Category is crucial because it bridges the organisation of knowledge with the ethics of knowledge. Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative highlights the relationship between knowing, behaving, and responsibility. Emphasising universality and absolutism offers a valuable counterpoint to more relativist concepts on the ToK list, such as Perspective and Interpretation.
Conclusion
This concludes Part 2 of our series on alternative ToK concepts. Join us in the next post, where we will explore concepts 9-12. These alternative concepts offer intriguing possibilities for enriching the ToK curriculum, providing students with a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of knowledge.
I hope you found this discussion thought-provoking and engaging. If you did, please consider leaving a comment, sharing your thoughts, or subscribing for more content. Stay tuned for the final instalment of this series, and as always, stay ToKtastic!
Daniel, Lisbon, May 2024
Perspective, Power & Responsibility
This is a lesson designed to teach students the ToK Concepts of Perspective, Power and Responsibility. You can watch the video of this blog at this link, or below.
The lesson materials are linked here, reading the blog below will help ToK Teachers to tailor the materials so that they work for your students, and context.
We can think of these 3 concepts (perspective, power and responsibility) as being mutually inclusive, a change in any one of the concepts leads to changes in the other 2.
These three concepts are central to many areas of the course. They provide a good framework for knowledge & the knower, they underpin all five optional themes, and are super useful concepts for linking the systemic & structured nature of AoKs with the more individual and contextual characteristics of knowledge producers and knowers.
Polysemous Concepts
These 3 concepts not only provide a bridge between the knower & Areas of Knowledge, but they are also polysemous - they have more than one meaning:
Power can be both individual and systemic, or structural at the same time. Power can be explored in the production, acquisition or pursuit of knowledge. It could also be looked at in terms of access to, and application of, knowledge.
Responsibility often comes up in ToK Essay Prescribed Titles. Responsibility can apply to both the knowledge producer and the knower in different ways. It obviously provides us with an excellent route to the ethical section of the knowledge framework.
And last, but certainly not least, perspective could arguably be the most important concept in the ToK course. The challenge for ToK teachers is to help students to develop an appreciation of perspective without them sinking into the morass of relativism.
"This lesson's too basic !"
I know that some ToK teachers are concerned that the materials shared here are "too basic". My aim is to produce resources that are accessible and effective for all ToK learners. Therefore, the lesson has to be accessible to the student that finds ToK highly challenging. The tasks are purposefully very open ended, therefore the complexity and challenge can be increased by the teacher depending upon the needs of the students.
The aims of the lesson:
Students have the opportunity to explore the interconnectedness of the 3 concepts, and begin to understand that change in one of the concepts is likely to change in the other 2.
Students have the opportunity to see that not only are the concepts polysemous, but they can also have different meanings in different contexts at the same time.
The structure of the lesson:
The lesson presents 6 case studies, and students are asked 2 questions about each case study. The questions are firstly To whom, or to what, does this knowledge have power ?, and secondly to whom, or what, is the knowledge producer responsible?
By asking the questions in this way the students will have to form their own definitions of “power” and “responsibility”, just as they have to in the ToK Exhibition and Essay. The differing definitions that students develop, and the different consequences that flow from these various definitions, are the opportunity for the teacher to develop the concept of ‘perspective’ in the subsequent discussions.
As a teacher you know how best to structure the lesson for your students and classroom. Personally I would put students in groups, have each group look at 2 of the case studies, have each group lead feedback on 1 case study, and then ask students to write a reflection piece after the lesson.
The lesson comes out of the work that I have been doing on developing a skills framework for ToK, if you want to know more, or are interested in contributing to the ToK Skills Framework - click here.
Stay ToKtastic my friends.
Daniel, Lisbon May 2024
What Is the Responsibility to Acquire Knowledge?
ToK Essay #1 Nov 24 asks us to consider whether the responsibility to acquire knowledge varies by AoK. To answer this students need an understanding of the term "the responsibility to acquire knowledge". This post outlines 3 ways to approach the responsibility to acquire knowledge as a grounding for writing Essay #1 Nov 24.
The Basics of Acquiring Knowledge
Acquiring knowledge encompasses a range of methods through which knowers gather knowledge. These processes can be formal, such as through educational institutions, or informal, like personal experiences or social interactions. For instance, understanding economic theories might come from classroom learning, whilst knowing about cultural vibrancy could stem from personal experiences. The key aspect here is the focus on the individual—the knower—and the diverse paths they take to gain knowledge, rather than a focus on the knowledge producer.
The Tripartite Responsibility to Acquire Knowledge
1. Towards Oneself
First and foremost, there exists an ethical and practical responsibility to acquire knowledge for oneself. This responsibility emphasises the importance of seeking out the most useful, or valuable knowledge depending on context. In some contexts this could be accurate and reliable knowledge, in other contexts it could be more emotional or experiential. The rationale is straightforward: better knowledge leads to better decisions, minimising errors and enhancing the quality of our lives. This pursuit of knowledge is fundamentally about living to our fullest potential, guided by the best information at our disposal.
2. Towards Others
The responsibility to acquire knowledge extends beyond the individual to include others. In this context, it's about ensuring our interactions (in knowledge communities) are based on the most useful knowledge to the community (for example this could be credible and ethical knowledge). This aspect of responsibility highlights the role of individuals within their knowledge communities, stressing the importance of shared knowledge in fostering understanding and cooperation. It's about the ability to participate in a collextive process of shared meanings and understandings.
3. Towards the Global Community
Finally, there's a broader, ethical responsibility towards the global pool of knowledge. As DP learners and inhabitants of this planet, we are part of a larger ecosystem of knowledge and culture. Acquiring knowledge about the world is a way to contribute positively to this global community. This responsibility speaks to the ideals of global citizenship, where learning and understanding foster a more informed, compassionate, and interconnected world.
Do We Have a Responsibility to Acquire Knowledge?
Whilst it might seem like a matter of personal choice, the concept of a responsibility to acquire knowledge is rooted in a deeper understanding of our roles as individuals and members of various communities. It's not just about personal growth but also about contributing to the well-being and progress of society at large. This perspective opens up a rich vein of inquiry into how our responsibilities vary across different domains and contexts.
Conclusion
Understanding the responsibility to acquire knowledge is more than an academic exercise; it's a reflection on how we live, learn, and interact in a complex world. Whether it's towards ourselves, others, or the global community, this responsibility underscores the importance of seeking truth and understanding in all that we do. Ways to consider whether this responsibility varies by AoK is answered in the next blogpost in this series - click here for more.
For those writing ToK Essay #1 Nov 24 the ToKToday Essay Guidance notes offer structured help (incl knowledge arguments, evaluation points, real life examples etc).
Find out more from The Covering The Basics video for Essay #1 N24:
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.
3 easy ways to teach critical thinking in ToK
In Theory of Knowledge (ToK) critical thinking is not just a buzzword but a foundational skill that can significantly impact students' understanding and their ability to score well in ToK. But what exactly does it mean to "teach critical thinking"? Many of the teachers that I work with have asked for more help with this.
Understanding Critical Thinking in ToK
Critical thinking in ToK can be distilled into two primary elements:
Evaluation of Arguments: This involves identifying the strengths and weaknesses of an argument. It's about scrutinising the evidence, reasoning, and conclusions presented.
Development of Alternative Explanations: Beyond just critiquing, critical thinking also encompasses the ability to propose different explanations or viewpoints.
While there are numerous facets to critical thinking, focusing on these two skills can significantly aid students in excelling in ToK.
Teaching Critical Thinking Through Knowledge Issues
One of the most effective ways to cultivate these critical thinking skills is by engaging with knowledge issues. A knowledge issue refers to any factor that might influence knowledge - be it in its acquisition, development, production, or evaluation. Key knowledge issues relevant to ToK include reliability, validity, selectivity, predictability, hierarchy, inference, misrepresentation, and various biases.
These issues are intrinsically linked to the 12 core ToK concepts, with each concept potentially serving as a category under which specific knowledge issues can be grouped. For instance, the concept of culture could encompass knowledge issues like misrepresentation, inference, and confirmation bias.
Practical Approaches to Teaching Knowledge Issues
Here are three effective strategies for teaching knowledge issues in the ToK classroom:
Grouping Knowledge Issues Under ToK Concepts: Start by having students categorize knowledge issues under the 12 core ToK concepts. Provide them with a list to get started, and encourage them to add their own. This activity boosts familiarity with ToK concepts and deepens understanding of knowledge issues as students discuss and justify their categorizations. For lesson materials that could be used for this activity click here.
Applying Knowledge Issues to Real-World Examples: Introduce students to a selection of knowledge issues, then present a real-world case study. Ask students to identify relevant knowledge issues and explain their relevance. This approach helps develop key ToK skills necessary for both the Exhibition and the Essay. For lesson materials that could be used for this activity click here.
Using Edward DeBono’s Six Thinking Hats: Adapt this cognitive framework to encourage alternative thinking. Assign each student or group a "hat" that represents a specific way of thinking (e.g., "Facts" for the White hat, "New Ideas" for the Green hat). Present a real-world problem for analysis through the lens of their assigned thinking direction. This activity fosters an understanding of perspective, context, and the intentions of knowledge producers and knowers.
For more in depth thoughts, and further learning materials, on teaching critical thinking in ToK click here
Conclusion
Teaching critical thinking in ToK doesn't require endless watching of TED videos, nor extensive texts. By focusing on ToK skills and creating engaging, activity-based learning experiences, teachers can effectively impart critical thinking skills. For more ideas and resources, feel free to explore further or reach out with suggestions and inquiries.
If you have any content suggestions or questions, don't hesitate to contact us at Daniel@ToKToday.com.
Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 2024
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*.
Turner and ToK
What can the artist JMW Turner teach us about the Theory of Knowledge ?
Turner's life and work, rich with philosophical undercurrents, offers us a canvas to explore the depths of knowledge itself. We can look at the meeting point between art and the development of knowledge, examining how Turner’s revolutionary brushstrokes redefined the way we perceive and acquire knowledge.
If you go to the Tate Gallery in London to see Turner's collective works you will not merely be observing a collection of amazing landscapes and portraits; you’ll also be witnessing a significant epistemological evolution.
Born in the cusp of the 18th century, Joseph Mallord William Turner emerged as a prodigious talent, his work evolving rapidly from precise topographical documentation to sublime expressions of light and colour. It's in this transition that we unearth our first epistemological theme: the breaking of conventional methods in the production of knowledge.
Transforming conventional methods in the production of knowledge
Turner's early adherence to the detailed and the delineated reflected the empirical epistemology of his time — knowledge through observation. However, his later divergence, characterised by energetic brushwork and atmospheric turbulence, suggests a radical shift. In works such as 'Rain, Steam, and Speed - The Great Western Railway', we observe a world in motion, where details succumb to the overall sensory experience. Turner shows us that knowledge is not static; it is dynamic, just as our perception of reality.
Here, Turner challenges the epistemological value placed on clarity and precision. By obscuring forms, he proposes that understanding is not merely the accumulation of clear-cut facts but also the intuitive grasp of the ambiguous and the ineffable.
The evolution of knowledge
In 'The Fighting Temeraire', the old warship being towed away for scrap, Turner juxtaposes the obsolete with the modern, the fading with the emergent. In terms of ToK, this embodies the tension between traditional and innovative methods of understanding. The ship, a repository of bygone tales and knowledge, contrasts with the tugboat — a symbol of the new industrial era’s epistemic shifts.
The interpolation of knowledge
Turner's seascapes, where light and shadow dance upon the waters, offer us a metaphor for the evolutionary nature of knowledge. Just as the sun’s rays pierce through clouds, illuminating and obscuring in turns, our cognitive landscapes are shaped by the ever-changing interplay of known and unknown, certainty and mystery.
In 'The Slave Ship', Turner’s visceral depiction of the sea’s cruelty serves not only as a moral outcry but also as an epistemological assertion. The painting's tumultuous waters invite contemplation on the nature of knowledge derived from suffering and emotional experience, revealing that ToK is not confined to rational discourse alone.
The synthesis of knowledge
Turner’s revolutionary approach also mirrors the idea of knowledge synthesis. In combining the tangible with the transcendent, the material with the spiritual, he pre-empts the interdisciplinarity that now enriches contemporary ToK and epistemology. His canvases teach us that knowledge production is not a linear path but a confluence of myriad streams.
While his contemporaries favoured a more restrained depiction of nature, Turner's revolutionary ideas and content propelled him to harness both evolution and revolution in his artistic journey. His legacy compels us to question: How do our interpretations and values shape our understanding of knowledge?
Knowledge as an existential question.
Finally, in 'Light and Colour', Turner explores Goethe's colour theory, aligning with the polymath's own epistemological explorations. This alignment of art with science and philosophy is perhaps Turner’s most profound contribution to ToK: an affirmation that knowledge is an interwoven tapestry of disparate threads, a spectrum as diverse and blended as the hues upon his canvas.
"\As we stand before Turner’s legacy, we are reminded that knowledge is not just a mirror of reality but also a lens through which we interpret the world. Turner's life and work implore us to consider the evolving nature of knowledge — to embrace the flux, the complex, and the nuanced. For in the swirling mists of his paintings, we find not just beauty, but the profound quest for understanding that defines our very being.
Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 23
ToK Games as Lesson Activities
I love using ToK games and drama when teaching ToK. In this blog I give you 5 ToK game suggestions, and a bit of the thinking ("pedagogical justification") behind the use of games.
ToK learning should be:
active rather than passive.
fun and engaging.
low stakes and low risk.
often done standing up.
short frequent changing activities.
Generally it should avoid:
reading lengthy passages of text.
watching long videos (10 mins+)
intellectual snobbery & exclusion.
Photo by kat wilcox on Pexels.com
To try to make the above happen in my ToK classroom I love using games and drama to teach ToK. I have some simple guidelines for my ToK classroom:
Every ToK lesson starts with students standing up doing an activity, usually in a circle.
No whole class activity should last more than 15 minutes.
Groupwork* increases the learning capacity of the group.
No ToK homework is required other than writing Exhibition / Essay.
*balance/combine with individual & pairwork.
2 simple ToK learning activities to use in your classroom tomorrow.
Activity 1: What am I (concepts) ?
This is a ToK version of the classic "Who am I ?" game.
Objective:
(i) To increase familiarity with ToK Concepts.
(ii) To increase understanding of ToK Concepts.
Resources: Post it notes, pens/pencils, ToK Concepts.
Process:
a) students work in pairs.
b) Each student writes a ToK concept on a Post-it note without their partner seeing what they've written.
c) Each student sticks the Post-it on their partner's forehead.
d) Each student asks their partner 5 questions to guess which concept is written on the Post-it on their forehead. (They are not allowed to use the concepts in their questions at this stage).
After 5 questions the student can have 2 guesses at which concept they are.
Eg:
Q1: "am I a concept about predicting?",
Q2: "am I a concept about variability?",
Q3: "without me would you be unsure about the future?"
etc , etc.
Guess: " Am I CERTAINTY ?"
Activity 2: ToK Knowledge Production Circle Game.
This is a ToK version of the "My mother went to market" memory circle time game. It's a sequence memory game.
Objectives:
(i) To learn the AoK.
(ii) To learn the methods of production used in an AoK, and the products of those methods of production.
Resources: none.
Process.
a) Students are in a standing, or sitting, circle.
b) The first student in the circle has to name an Area of Knowledge.
c) The next student has to remember bothe the AoK named by the first student, and they have to add to it either a method of production of that AoK, or the outcome of knowledge production of that Area of Knowledge.
d) The third student has remember the AoK of the first student, the method of production of that AoK named by the second student, and they have to add a new AoK.
e) And so the cycle continues. The first student who does not remember / misremembers an earlier step will be out.
e.g:
Student 1: "AoK Human Sciences"
Student 2: "AoK Human Sciences uses a Survey".
Student 3: "AoK Human Sciences uses a Survey, adding AoK History".
Student 4:"AoK Human Sciences uses a Survey, AoK History uses historical statistical data".
etc etc.
Obviously this game depends upon the number of students that you have in the circle etc etc.
A few closing thoughts:
The more I taught ToK the more effective I found games & drama to be as the central teaching process (far more effective than reading, writing and watching videos). More on this approach at this link.
The effectiveness of the game depends upon the ToK teacher's ability to spot the learning opportunities, and to draw out the learning from those opportunities.
The more your students play the ToK games the better they will become at them, meaning they'll learn more.
The more your students associate ToK with low risk, high fun, games the more they'll enjoy ToK...,
These games / starter activities can easily take up a lot more time than expected.
For more games:
If you're a ToK teacher, and you find these useful please feel free to let me know in the comments, and to pass them on to other ToK teachers.
Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 2023
Can history ever be both reliable AND valid ?
Whether it is possible to produce historical knowledge which is both reliable and valid was explored in my holiday reading this year. I read the book Upheaval, How Nations Cope with Crisis and Change by Jared Diamond. You may know Jared Diamond, he's the guy who wrote Guns, Germs and Steel. It's a very popular TOK book that many teachers, students, and interested people have read.
This is his second follow-up book, Upheaval. In this blog will not be going into his findings, and what he actually says about how nations cope with crisis and change. That's not really TOK, that's history or global politics. But this book is really interesting for us to understand how historical knowledge is made and how conclusions are reached when we're making historical knowledge. It is of particular relevance to solving the challenge of whether history can be both reliable and valid.
The challenge of history for historians.
Historians have some key questions to answer when creating historical knowledge:
First of all is the idea of can you establish history which is both valid and reliable. Valid means that it's an accurate description or explanation of that particular moment, or that particular event or time in history. Reliable means the conclusions that we can draw from that historical event apply in other situations. As such, if the knowledge is reliable we will be able to generalise it to other historical events.
Students often write in their TOK essays that the function of history is to learn from it so that we don't repeat the same mistakes in the future. Now whether that actually is the function of history is immaterial for this blog. But what that supposes is that the things that we learned from an earlier period could also apply in / to other periods. As such, history would have to be both valid and reliable.
Jared Diamond is a professor at UCLA, he trained as a biologist and physician. His initial training was in AOK Natural Sciences. However now he's moved more into social sciences, human sciences and history in explaining and describing human behaviour. This initial training informs his understanding of, and approaches to, methodology.
A historian explains, and justifies, his methodology
The prologue of this book is really interesting for ToK students as Prof Diamond writes about the methodology used to write the book. He explains that ideally he would use quantitative methods to establish reliable cause and effect relationships. That means he would build mathematical models, statistical models , into which he would pump lots of data, and that data would give him mathematical and statistical outcomes from which he could establish cause and effect variables.
Those statistical outcomes tend to be highly reliable, sometimes valid and sometimes less valid. Generally most ToK. students (and most people in general) prefer statistical outcomes. For example: If you're getting on a plane, you may ask is this plane safe? If someone says it's safe most of the time, well you want to know what does "most of the time" mean? What's the danger to me? And the best answer, the one which would satisfy you the most is a statistical answer. So if you were told "the plane is safe 51% of the time, 49% of the time it's not safe", then you're probably not going to get on the plane. If they say "well in testing it's safe 99.975% of the time" then you're probably going to get on the plane with a little knot in your stomach.
The challenge of quantitative methodologies in AoK History
We like statistics, we like knowledge that is characterised as a "scientific fact". However, how do we prove scientific facts in ? How can we arrive at conclusive causal facts in history? Prof Diamond explains that he would like to use quantitative methodologies to answer the research question of the book, but then he explains that it's really difficult to establish quantitative cause & effect relationships when you're answering the question "How do nations cope with crisis and change? ".
Trying to make history that is both reliable and valid.
It's really difficult to use quantitative methodologies for many reasons, incl:
there are so many different nations that you could consider.
there are so many instances of crisis and change in those nations that you could consider.
How do you even build a representative sample of nations and the crises and changes that they've gone through?
How do you operationalise variables such as crisis and change ?
How do we hold some of variables constant and manipulate others to see the effect on the dependent variable, i.e. coping with crisis and change ?
How do we establish control conditions ?
It's very difficult to apply a reliable quantitative methodological framework to a quarter of a million years of human existence ? History relies on historical evidence, such evidence is subject to selection and interpretation biases that are far less prevalent and powerful in the Human and Natural Sciences. In many ways it is far more challenging to establish reliable historic knowledge than it is to establish reliable scientific knowledge.
Prof Diamond's solution to the challenge of reliability in history.
Prof Diamond's solution to the challenge of establishing reliable historical knowledge is that he chooses just seven countries, and looks at particular instances of crisis and change in those seven countries. He chooses countries that he's lived in and that he has a lot of experience with. He also speaks the language of most of those seven countries. As such, he's chosen countries that he has a deep knowledge of. Having deep knowledge of something, or accurate knowledge of something is having valid knowledge. So, in the prologue of this book, he's saying that he is establishing reliability through the use of validity. And that's really interesting for people when they're writing about AOK history.
So if you are discussing AOK history in your TOK exhibition or your TOK essay, probably more in the TOK essay this would apply to and you're wrangling with that idea of how historians establish reliability when they're discussing cause and effect. Well, here's a real life situation that you could cite. Jared Diamond's book, Upheaval How Nations cope with crisis and change.
Context relevant variable identification in historical knowledge.
Prof Diamond takes the instances of crisis and change in those seven countries and the looks at the vast range of variables which affect those crises and changes.
Some of those variables include pre-existing conditions, changes in the global conditions and global dynamics, changes in the geopolitics globally, the historical cultural antecedents, the historical cultural context, and the global historical context of those nations. It could also include the individual actors at their moments of crises and change, the aims of those actors etc. There are just so many variables involved and they're different for each nation and they're different in each instance of crisis and change in that nation. Prof Diamond puts all of those variables together to try to establish a high level of validity. Clearly the conclusions reached are from one commentator's perspective despite drawing upon a vast range of evidence to build this highly valid picture, As such, it is recognised that this highly valid picture may not be entirely valid, but it may be the best that we can can do given current methods and technology. But maybe it's only reliable for that nation and in that instance, maybe it is of limited generalisability.
I hope that that's given you some ideas if you're writing about AOK history and the challenge of establishing knowledge that is both valid and reliable in historiography. In a future blog we will explore the differences between a narrative historical explanation and a statistical methodological historical explanation (e.g economic history).
We have lots of resources to help ToK Students with the ToK Essay and ToK Exhibition. For example we have exemplar exhibitions, videos on how to how to do your TOK exhibition. For the ToK Essay we've got explanations of the essay prompts, a video series on how to do the TOK essay. And we've got lots of notes that can help you to avoid the biggest mistakes in the TOK essay. You can start exploring here.
You can get in touch with me, daniel@toktoday.com. I always welcome suggestions on how to improve the site, improve the resources and to produce new resources.
Daniel, Bangkok, September 2023
Can History be "true"?
Are reason & emotion different forms of knowledge in ToK ?
ToK students often view Reason and Emotion as being oppositional forms of knowledge. Of course research by a number of Psychologists, including Damasio, show that Reason & Emotion are often mutually inclusive processes in both decision making, and in a wider sense of understanding our world.
Most [apparently] rational decisions are just a set of perceived choices which are shaped by an emotionally experienced end point.
If emotion shapes reason (and vice versa) the possible consequences for decision making are significant, consider:
decision making in emergency situations such as natural or human disasters.
decision making in potentially risky contexts such as use of substances, or interpersonal behaviours.
decision making in policy setting contexts such as military intervention, or welfare spending.
Are emotions a form of knowledge ?
To look at the relationship between emotion and reason it’s useful to be able to explain emotion both in structure, form and function. I really like the first few chapters of Daniel Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence for explaining why and how emotions developed, and how they are structured. Essentially Goleman argues that emotions predate the development of modern sensory systems as such they constitute our pre-sensorial understanding of the world. Goleman explains that the word emotion comes from the Latin word motus meaning to move. Before the development of modern senses the stimulation of the limbic system would have made the organism move, that is to move away from danger, towards food, towards protection, and towards the opportunity to reproduce.
As such ToK students comparing emotion and reason have a way of showing the interrelationship between various Areas of Knowledge. If you take a neuro-evolutionary approach you can describe how the various lobes of the Cerebrum developed as a mutually inclusive process of the development of the various of organs of sensory perception. Roughly the Occipital Lobe developed as there was increased need to process data from the eyes, the Parietal lobe to deal process taste, and skin pressure, the Temporal Lobe for hearing, the Frontal lobe for speech and smell. The emphasis here is on the interpolation of the senses, and most importantly that sensory perception is built upon emotion.
Reason in ToK: an oversimplification?
This realisation then leaves us open for a wonderfully interesting discussion about the relative strengths of different types of knowledge in understanding and decision making. A rather cliched example that I pose my students is the decision about whom to date / marry: is this best made using reason or emotion as a form of knowledge ? Of course the answer to that question is culturally specific, do we marry the person we love, or grow to love the person we marry ? This can be easily seen as a reason vs emotion debate, but could be developed to a more sophisticated discussion around cultural influences on cognitively, and biologically based experiences. Which leads us to the issue of Neuroplasticity.
Neuroplasticity: is that reason or emotion?
Recent findings on Neuroplasticity turn the whole emotion / reason / perception etc debate upside down and inside out. If you are yet to hear about, or understand, the process of neuroplasticity click here for a far better explanation than I can give.
Lutz et al 2005 have shown that regular meditation causes structural changes to the brain of the meditator, improving functioning and increasing the number of Amygdala connections. Maguire et al 2006 found that London cab drivers had far more develop posterior hippocampi in comparison to London taxi drivers. both pieces of research used fMRI to investigate the brains of their subjects (the use of reason as a WoK…,). Both pieces of research found that the environment has a major influence on the structures which mediate emotion and reason. As such, the research would seem to suggest that rather than treating emotion and reason as separate types of knowledge we could look at them as being mutually integrated types of knowledge which are heavily influenced by the environment.
So emotions have reason based causes?
Let’s go back to the biological basis of emotion so oft described in the theories of emotion. Wedekind (1995) has shown that romantic attraction has a genetic basis in the major histocompatibility gene combination that a person carries (read more here). Again, the research shows an integration of emotion and reason as types of knowledge. However, in this case the ‘reason’ can be seen as an internal biological process of reasoning, akin to natural selection.
Further research from a range of researchers suggests that the hormone Oxytocin is the basis for bonding, attraction and love. If we can understand an emotional experience (such as love) as a biological process is it appropriate / correct to separate reason and emotion as types of knowledge ? does one not subsume the other ? Which subsumes which ? now becomes the crucial question.
Reason in ToK: The basis of scientific knowledge?
Whilst it could be argued that Scientific biological knowledge is based upon reason (ie establishing cause and effect, tested using experimental processes etc). It could also be argued that the motivation to establish this knowledge is in itself based upon emotion. The emotions in question here would be those associated with status, survival, self fulfilment. The more we look at ‘why humans seek to find things out’ the harder it becomes to dismiss the dominant role of human emotions.
For students who want to extend their depth of analysis this paper looks at the role of cognitive biases in disrupting emotions associated with motivation in patients who suffer depression and anxiety disorders. As such the paper shows a mutually integral relationship between emotion, reason and perception as types of knowledge.
If you’re preparing your ToK Exhibition, or deciding which ToK Exhibition prompt to use be sure to check out our range of ToK Exhibition e-books - ToK Exhibition prompts explained. They give you step by step ways of developing knowledge arguments for each ToK Exhibition prompt, and examples of objects that you could use. You can pick up the e-book of all prompts explained, or get an e-book for just 5 of the prompts, and we even have e-books explaining just the individual most popular prompts - whichever best suits your needs.
Daniel, Lisbon, Aug 2023
Bertrand Russell and ToK
Bertrand Russell and ToK: A Historic Connection
This is Bertrand Russell, he wrote the book on Theory of Knowledge. He actually wrote the book called Theory of Knowledge back in 1913 which brought together the ideas which created ToK as we know it. We need to talk about Bertrand Russell.
Bertrand Russell: A Beacon in the Structuralism Movement
English philosopher Bertrand Russell was a leading light in the Structuralism movement. My last blog was an introduction to structuralism, explaining why it is key for ToK.
Bertrand Russell, ToK, and the Influences of Henri Poincare
To understand Bertrand Russell’s role in structuralism, and consequently the founding of ToK we need to go back to the work of French Mathematician Henri Poincare
Poincare laid the foundations for Epistemic structural realism, this is a perspective on the nature of scientific knowledge. Epistemic Structural realism was proposed as a compromise between scientific realism and instrumentalism, it states that our best scientific theories provide a correct account of the structure of the world, but not necessarily of its nature or ontology.
Poincaré, a mathematician and physicist, suggested that while we may not know the true nature of things, we can discern their relationships, which are more real and stable. He used mathematics as an example, stating that the relationships between mathematical entities (like numbers or geometric shapes) were more fundamental than the entities themselves.
Knowledge by Acquaintance vs Knowledge by Description: Bertrand Russell's Perspective
Bertrand Russell, in the early 20th century, advanced this idea by distinguishing between "knowledge by acquaintance" and "knowledge by description". He asserted that our direct, immediate experiences (acquaintance) were limited and that much of our knowledge was derived from the relations or structures that we could infer (description). Russell's work in logic and the philosophy of mathematics, with its focus on structural relationships, further developed the structuralist perspective.
Building upon these early ideas, John Worrall in the late 20th century proposed "Structural Realism" as a solution to the pessimistic meta-induction problem in the philosophy of science. This problem suggests that since many successful past scientific theories have been discarded, our current successful theories are likely to be discarded in the future as well. Worrall argued that while theories do change, what tends to remain are the structural aspects. So, it is the structure of the world that our theories get right, not necessarily the nature of its constituents.
James Ladyman, a contemporary philosopher, further refined this to "Ontic Structural Realism", which posits that there are no objects or entities at the fundamental level of physics, only structures.
Bertrand Russell, ToK, and the Modern Implications of Epistemic Structuralism
To appreciate this perspective, consider the transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics, with its focus on solid particles and forces, was replaced by a quantum field theory, with its emphasis on energy fields and probabilities. Yet, despite this dramatic change in our understanding, many of the structural aspects, like conservation laws and symmetries, persisted.
In the real world, consider how we understand social networks. We may not know the detailed personal characteristics of every individual in a network (akin to the entities), but we can often make accurate predictions based on the structure of the network – who is connected to whom, the number of connections, etc. The structure provides us with knowledge, even when the nature of individual elements remains unknown.
Epistemic structuralism has implications in many areas of knowledge. In sciences, it emphasizes the importance of relational properties, like the mathematical equations that describe natural phenomena. In social sciences, it underscores the significance of social, economic, and political structures in shaping individual experiences.
Critiquing Structuralism: Insights from Bertrand Russell and ToK
Critics, however, argue that it is nearly impossible to separate structure from the objects that constitute it, and it undervalues the role of entities in constituting the world. Despite these critiques, structuralism provides a unique perspective on knowledge production, reminding us that understanding the world often requires looking beyond individual objects or experiences, focusing instead on the relationships and structures that bind them together. We’re going to be looking at these critics in a lot more detail in the next, and final, blog in this series on structuralism.
For extra help with your ToK Essay or Exhibition, we have loads of resources available on from our student support page, including ToK coaching, written feedback and the ever-popular e-book, How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps.
If you’re doing your ToK Essay you may be interested in:
The Ebook : How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps
3 Tips for choosing your ToK Essay Title.
Scientific Anomalies in the production of knowledge.
If you’re writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary you may be interested in:
Linking the object to the Prompt,
Cause & Effect in ToK
Establishing cause and effect in ToK underpins so much of ToK, it’s at the heart of Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, Mathematics, and History. Many of the ToK Essay prescribed titles are centrally concerned with establishing cause and effect, yet causality is not one of the ToK concepts (however most of them are linked to causality). In ToK Cause and Effect is not explicitly mentioned at all in The IB ToK Study Guide, and it’s not built into the course structure as a standalone unit. So, today on ToKToday we’re going to redress that balance - we’re going to look at cause and effect in ToK.
Establishing ToK cause and effect relationships is one of the most significant challenges in the pursuit and production of knowledge. It is a fundamental aspect of reasoning, yet the problems of discerning whether A causes B, or if there are other unseen factors at play, can be difficult to untangle.
Establishing ToK cause and effect relationships is one of the most significant challenges in the pursuit and production of knowledge. It is a fundamental aspect of reasoning, yet the problems of discerning whether A causes B, or if there are other unseen factors at play, can be difficult to untangle.
History of causation
Key epistemologists have long grappled with this issue of cause and effect in ToK. Scottish philosopher David Hume, for example, was sceptical about the idea of causality. He suggested that we can never observe cause and effect directly, only their constant conjunction (events occurring together), as such we merely infer causal relationships, rather than knowing them as objective facts.
Following Hume, Immanuel Kant posited that while we may not directly observe causality, we structure our perceptions based on ToK cause and effect. It's an a priori mental schema that allows us to make sense of the world. Without this cognitive structure, he argued, the world would be a chaotic and incomprehensible stream of experiences.
In more recent times, the philosopher Nancy Cartwright, has critiqued the assumption that laws of nature (often seen as ultimate causes in AoK Natural Sciences) universally apply. She claims that many scientific laws only hold under very specific conditions and can't be easily generalised. This raises questions about whether establishing cause and effect in ToK is as straightforward as it seems in AoK Natural Sciences, one of the fields where this approach is considered most valid.
Some of the problems of establishing cause and effect in ToK include:
Multiple variables interacting to produce an effect - this makes it difficult to isolate the specific variable combinations required to produce that effect.
Identifying the specific conditions in which certain variables are required to produce effects.
Identifying whether the relationship between variables and their effects is directly causal or merely associative.
Establishing whether the variables identified are primary, or whether they themselves are secondary, or tertiary effects etc.
Theories of knowledge production also recognise that cause and effect in ToK may not always be necessary or possible to establish. The reason is that knowledge is produced for different purposes, and its desired end determines the methods used in its production.
Paradigms & History and Cause & Effect
The philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, highlighted how scientific paradigms determine what counts as a legitimate cause or effect. Paradigms, or widely accepted scientific frameworks, shape the questions that can be asked, and thus the knowledge that can be produced. When the paradigm shifts, so too do the cause and effect relationships that were once taken for granted.
In other areas of knowledge, cause and effect relationships may be even more elusive. The AoK Human Sciences is characterised by the complexity and variability of human behaviour often makes it difficult to pinpoint singular causes.
In AoK History Historical knowledge rarely fits neatly into ToK cause and effect frameworks. The historian E.H. Carr argued that causes in history are multi-layered, and the idea of a singular cause is more of a heuristic device than an accurate representation of the past.
A few words on The Arts and cause & effect
Moreover, in AoK The Arts, knowledge production may be more concerned with evoking emotional responses, exploring aesthetic values, or generating critique, rather than establishing cause and effect. For instance, a novelist might not need to prove a causal link between a character’s upbringing and their later actions; the focus instead might be on a rich and nuanced portrayal of the character’s experience.
So, while establishing cause and effect can offer powerful explanations, and is central to much of our reasoning, it is not always the ultimate aim nor is it always possible in the production of knowledge. By recognising the limits of cause and effect can help us to better understand the complexity of the world, and to appreciate the many ways that knowledge can be produced and used.
If you want more content to help you with ToK check out the learning resources available on our student resources page. You can contact me for help with your ToK Essay or Exhibition either by Facebook Messenger on the TokToday.com website, or by emailing me Daniel@TokToday.com, more details here.
Stay toktastic my friends.
If you’re doing your ToK Essay you may be interested in:
The Ebook : How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps
If you’re writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary you may be interested in:
Linking the object to the Prompt,
What can Taylor Swift teach us about Theory of Knowledge ?
A video version of this blog can be found at this link.
Some may say that the narrative songwriting, and self expressive style of Taylor Swift doesn’t necessarily lend itself to ToK, but there’s a lot about ToK that we can learn from Taylor Swift.
1. Ownership of knowledge.
As every Swiftie will know, Taylor's first six albums were bought by Scooter Braun’s Ithaca holdings for $300m in June 2019. Scooter Braun know owns the master rights, including publishing and royalties accrued. Taylor has since re-recorded the first 5 of the 6 albums sold. These re-recorded albums are known as “Taylor’s versions”.
This closely ties with the ToK theme of Ownership of Knowledge - who owns knowledge, how did they come to own it, and what does it mean to own knowledge ?
The legal ownership of Taylor’s music is described in a written laws and contracts. In ToK we can have wider definitions of the concept of ownership of knowledge.
We could argue that Taylor will always own the first 6 albums regardless of the legal ownership because she wrote them, the ideas will be forever hers, the creative imagination of the lyrics came from her, and therefore will always, inherently, be hers.
However, we could also argue that Taylor’s audience, the community of knowers known as “swifties” own the music as they have ascribe a communal, cultural and collective meaning to her work.
Finally, we could argue that you - the individual listener - the individual knower owns this music because you interpret it in your own way, you give it your individual meaning, you have a unique perspective on this music - and therefore you own your knowledge of the music.
Let’s move onto the second thing that we can learn about ToK from Taylor Swift:
2. Ethical issues arising from knowing & knowledge production.
What do the following songs have in common?:
Only The Young,
Miss Americana & The Heartbreak Prince,
The Man
Look what you made me do
You need to calm down
It’s a broad selection from a range of points in her career, but there is a common ToK theme in all of these songs, let’s precis the key message in each song:
Only The Young - Taylor is disappointed by the results of the 2018 midterms, and sees the hopes of young people being let down.
Miss Americana & The Heartbreak Prince - Taylor expresses disillusionment at the state of America under Trump
The Man - Taylor challenges the double standards and sexism that she faces in her life
Look what you made me do - Taylor takes on her enemies and critics.
You need to calm down - Taylor responds to online haters & homophobes, and shows her support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Well, all of these songs are about principles, honesty, virtuous behaviour and hope for a better society. These songs link very closely to the ToK theme of the ethical issues arising from knowing and knowledge production.
In these songs Taylor doesn’t just describe the ills of society, but she takes a stance, and makes a decision that she will take action to improve things (Taylor’s CAS programme), for example in Only The Young she says: “Don’t say you’re too tired to fight / It’s just a matter of time / Up there’s the finish line / So run, and run, and run.”
A theme that runs through all of Taylor’s songs is that it is our responsibility to make the changes that we want to see in our personal lives, and in wider society. This directly links to the ToK theme of whether knowledge is discovered, or is knowledge created ? Taylor is clearly a rationalist (rather than an empiricist) - she’s saying we don’t discover the world, we create our world.
3. Bias in the acquisition and production of knowledge.
OK, let’s move on to our third Taylor ToK Theme, let’s consider Taylor’s monumental song The Story of Us from her third studio album Speak Now, recorded in 2010.
Lyrics: "Now I'm standing alone in a crowded room and we're not speaking / And I'm dying to know is it killing you like it's killing me, yeah / I don't know what to say, since the twist of fate when it all broke down / And the story of us looks a lot like a tragedy now."
Taylor Swift, The Story of Us
"The Story Of Us" - captures the theme of misunderstanding and the inability to see things from the same perspective within a relationship.
Now, as usual Taylor is developing her personal narrative, but the story of us is interesting because she’s extending her narrative to firstly recognise that her now ex-boyfriend has a different perspective, and she would like to know what that perspective is.
The Story of Us is, about perspective, congruence and incongruence, alignment and misalignment of perspective.
Similarly in ToK we are interested in perspective, congruence, incongruence, alignment and misalignment of knowledge. We're learning from Taylor - what does her future hold for her?
4. The relationship between new knowledge, pre-existing knowledge & historical knowledge.
As mentioned earlier Taylor has re-recorded all of her music that was sold in 2019, and she has spoken out about her personal feelings about the sale of her music. This echoes a common theme in her lyrics about how the past affects the present, and possibly the future.
If we look at "Long Live" from Taylor's album "Speak Now" she deals with exactly this theme of how the past influences the present and potentially the future. The song reflects on the past memories, the joy of the present, and the hope for the future.
Lyrics:
Past: "I had the time of my life fighting dragons with you" (This suggests past challenges and victories.)
Present: "Long live the walls we crashed through / I had the time of my life, with you" (This indicates the present experiences and the joys she is currently feeling.)
Future: " (The lyrics suggest hope for the future, that the memories they create now will be there to support them in future times of need.)
This is also a core theme in ToK - we look at how past knowledge affects present knowledge and future knowledge development. Linked with this we consider how current knowledge is shaped by its historical development, and whether new knowledge is better than old knowledge.
5. Is the world created or discovered ?
Moving on to Taylor Theme no. 5, let’s consider the song "Dear John" - In this song, Taylor Swift ponders whether her love could have changed someone who was set in his ways. She questions whether she was just naive to think she could have made a difference.
Lyrics: "And I'll look back in regret how I ignored when they said, / 'Run as fast as you can.' / Dear John, I see it all, now it was wrong / Don't you think 19 is too young to be played by your dark twisted games, when I loved you so?"
This links to the ToK question of whether the world is created or discovered ? (the philosophical question of empiricism vs rationalism). This is exploring the question of whether we go out & find the world, or is the world created in our heads ? or It could just be the ways in which the physical world is interpreted and categorised that is internal. Or it could be the meanings that we attach to physical world knowledge that are internal.
Handing this back to Taylor, in the her reflections on Kanye West’s interruption of her acceptance speech at the 2009 VMAs Taylor asks Kanye (or all of us):
“Wasn't it easier in your lunchbox days? / Always a bigger bed to crawl into / Wasn't it beautiful when you believed in everything / And everybody believed in you? / It's alright, just wait and see / Your string of lights is still bright to me / Oh, who you are is not where you've been / You're still an innocent."
This is Taylor wondering whether people can change, or if they were always a certain way, and she makes the point that people can learn and grow from their mistakes.
In ToK terms this is Taylor exploring the empiricist vas rationalist question, and coming down on the side of rationalism, which places her in the same school as Descartes, Kant, Socrates, Plato Spinzoa, Locke and Hume.
Which neatly takes us on to today’s final point of ToK learning that we can develop from Taylor’s work.
6. Free Will vs Determinism
In the song Mine Taylor says:
"You made a rebel of a careless man's careful daughter / You are the best thing that's ever been mine."
In this song I think that she is delving into the idea of choosing to love despite the chances of it ending in heartbreak.Taylor seems to be making a conscious decision to love and be in a relationship even though her past and external circumstances might dictate otherwise.
What’s this got to do with ToK? I hear you cry.
Well, the previous point of Taylor’s Tok learning was a consideration of whether the world is discovered or created. Taylor decides that it is created. A created world gives us a lot more freedom of choice to create the world as we wish it to be. On the other hand, a world that we discover has already been created, and predetermined by someone, or something else.
This is the free-will vs determinism debate, it’s both a natural continuation of the empiricism vs rationalism debate, and it’s at the heart of why we study ToK. To what extent are we free to know the world as we choose, and on the other hand to what extent is the world pre-configured for us?
To give the final word on this to Taylor.
"White Horse" - In the song “White Horse” Taylor seems to discuss the conflict between the dream of an ideal, almost predestined love (a fairy tale love story that might be considered a form of determinism) and the reality of making conscious decisions in a relationship. In this case, she decides to no longer pursue a relationship that doesn't live up to her expectations, exercising her free will.
She sings: "I'm not a princess, this ain't a fairy tale / I'm not the one you'll sweep off her feet / Lead her up the stairwell / This ain't Hollywood, this is a small town / I was a dreamer before you went and let me down / Now it's too late for you and your white horse, to come around
If this blog has inspired you to choose Taylor Swift, or any other element of popular culture as an object pick up a copy of Every Exhibition Prompt Explained (or a range of prompts) from this link.
If you have any suggestions for further artists, or objects from popular culture, that you would like to see analysed using ToK please leave a comment below, or email me at Daniel@ToKToday.com
Daniel, Lisbon, June 2023
If you're looking for more ToK on Popular Culture check out:
For more help with the ToK Exhibition:
What can Halo Infinite teach us about ToK ?
“What’s The Point In Saving Humanity If We’re Gonna Give Up Our Own?”
Miranda Keyes, Halo
So said Miranda Keyes in The Halo Computer game series, she could have been asking the same question in a Philosophy lesson, or maybe even a ToK lesson.
The IB asks students of ToK to consider how ToK manifests itself in their everyday lives.
Today Halo Infinite is the best selling computer game in the world, therefore it’s a fair assumption to make that Halo Infinite may be in the everyday life of some ToK students.
Therefore, it may be useful for some of our students to consider how ToK manifests itself in the Halo Series.
A video version of this blog can be found here
Moral choices and ethical dilemmas.
A central lesson from ToK that players will find in Halo Infinite is the exploration of moral choices and ethical dilemmas. The Halo series often presents players with complex situations where they must make decisions that have significant consequences for the game's characters and the overall story. These choices can raise questions about the nature of morality, the concept of right and wrong, and the implications of one's actions.
Similarly in ToK we consider the ethical issues raised by the production, application and evolution of knowledge in each Area of Knowledge. We consider issues such as the overall benefit of knowledge against the ethical problems of producing that knowledge. There is a big debate currently being held about the ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which paradoxically is one of the core subjects of the Halo Series.
Moral Relativism in Halo
One of the underlying themes of the Halo series is Moral relativism, the idea that morality is subjective and based on context. This has two main articulations. Firstly it’s that in one situation someone / something can be immoral, whilst in another context that same thing can be positively moral. Cortana goes from being good in Halo 4 to being bad in Halo 5.
The second aspect of moral relativism concerns the relative morality of different behaviours and characters. Something may be bad, but not as bad as something else, and vice versa.
The Covenant Conflict itself the conflict between humanity and the Covenant is an example of moral relativism. From the perspective of humanity, the Covenant is seen as an aggressor and a threat, leading to justified defensive actions. However, from the perspective of the Covenant, their actions are guided by religious beliefs and the pursuit of their own version of a righteous path. This moral conflict reflects the idea of moral relativism, as both sides have different justifications for their actions, based on their respective cultures and beliefs.
Likewise in ToK we consider the role of values in shaping culture, and culture shaping context. We look at the role of the perspectives of knowers and knowledge communities in shaping what we know, how we know, why we know, how we interpret this knowledge and how we act on such knowledge.
The purpose and function of knowledge
Another theme in the Halo series that we also find in ToK is the purpose or function of knowledge, that is why knowledge is produced, and how that purpose / function influences the type of knowledge produced.
For an example of this in Halo we can return to Cortana:
Cortana's purpose influences her character arc and evolution. Initially, her primary function is to assist Master Chief, but over time, she develops self-awareness and a desire for self-preservation. In the later games, Cortana's purpose expands beyond her original function as she becomes more autonomous and demonstrates emotions and a sense of agency.
The problem of the causal direction of knowledge.
Linked to the purpose & function of knowledge is the knowledge issue of the causal directionality of knowledge. This is whether A causes B or does B cause A. An example in the ToK world might come from AoK Human Sciences, specifically Economics: Does our knowledge of say income redistribution cause income redistribution patterns, or did income redistribution patterns give us models (knowledge) of income redistribution?
An example of the problem of causal directionality of knowledge in Halo Infinite is raised by The Weapon, the AI created to imitate & trap Cortana. The weapon doesn’t know the reasons for its mission to trap Cortana. This raises the question whether Cortana caused the creation of the Weapon, or does the existence of the weapon change our knowledge of Cortana?
The law of Unintended Consequences.
This conveniently links to another parallel between the Halo world and the ToK World - that of the law of unintended consequences. This is when knowledge is created for a particular purpose, but it is applied in unexpected and unintended ways. A great example of this is the Cobra Effect seen in 19th century India.
In the Halo world we see this with the AI disease known as Rampancy. According to the Halopedia Rampancy is: a terminal state of being for artificial intelligence constructs in which the AI behaves contrary to its programming-imposed constraints. Traditionally, this is linked with the AI developing a longing for godlike power and contempt for its mentally inferior makers.
Other ToK knowledge issues that we find in Halo:
The relationship between historical knowledge, pre-existing current knowledge, and the development of new knowledge - such as Cortana's repurposing and re-application of the legacy machines Guardians Custodes.
The nature of knowledge itself - is it just routinised, high data, high efficiency like dumb AI (like the Personal AI Fret) or is it creative, problem solving, able to synthesise knowledge to make new knowledge & use imagination to fill gaps in knowledge ? (like Smart AI such as Cortana).
Serendipity vs intentional production of knowledge: eg How Atriox came across legacy Forerunner technology on the ark, allowing Atriox to contact Escherim to arrange for his return
In Halo Infinite we find the central ToK idea of the relationship between The knowledge of the knower and the shared knowledge of the community of knowers / networked knowledge. eg how Cortana was created from Dr Halsey's brain
There are also many classic Narrative and textual structures that we analyse in ToK, and Language A that we also find in The Halo Series. At the most obvious level we have classic story arcs of Overcoming The Monster, The Quest, Voyage and Return, and Rebirth.
If you have been inspired to use The Halo Series as one of your objects in your ToK Exhibition then be sure to pick up a copy of my ebook Every ToK Exhibition Prompt explained. Not only will you get a full explanation of every ToK Exhibition prompt, but also knowledge claims that you can use to ensure that you get high marks in your Exhibition.
If you would like further blog posts / videos on the ToK of The Halo Series, or you have suggestions for other games, films, books or music that you would like to see analysed using ToK please let me know.
Daniel, Lisbon, June 2023
Fallacies in ToK
In ToK we are concerned with questions such as how knowledge is acquired, the nature of truth, and the extent of our knowledge. One of the key challenges in ToK is identifying and avoiding fallacies – errors in reasoning that can lead us to false conclusions. In this blog post, we will explore the main types of fallacies found in ToK.
1. Ad Hominem Fallacy
The ad hominem fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. In ToK, this fallacy might take the form of dismissing an argument because of the person making it rather than addressing the merits of the argument. For example, if someone argues that climate change is real, and someone else dismisses the argument by saying that the person making the argument is a liberal, that would be an ad hominem fallacy.
2. Straw Man Fallacy
The straw man fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer misrepresents the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack. In ToK, this might occur when someone misrepresents an opposing view in order to make their own view appear stronger. For example, if someone argues that atheism is the belief that there is no god, and an atheist argues that atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god, the theist would be committing a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting the atheist's position.
3. Appeal to Authority Fallacy
The appeal to authority fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer cites an authority figure in order to support their argument, without providing any further evidence or argumentation. In ToK, this might occur when someone argues that a particular belief is true simply because an expert or authority figure says it is true. However, this is not a valid argument, as experts and authority figures can also be wrong or biased.
4. False Dilemma Fallacy
The false dilemma fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer presents only two options as though they are the only options, when in fact there may be other possibilities. In ToK, this might occur when someone argues that either science or religion can provide us with the truth about the world, ignoring the possibility that both may be useful in different ways.
5. Circular Reasoning Fallacy
The circular reasoning fallacy is a type of fallacy in which the arguer uses the conclusion of the argument as one of the premises. In ToK, this might occur when someone argues that a particular belief is true because it is supported by scripture, and then uses the belief in scripture as evidence for the truth of the belief. This is not a valid argument, as it simply assumes the truth of the conclusion.
In conclusion, fallacies can be a major obstacle to gaining knowledge and understanding in ToK. By being aware of the most common types of fallacies, we can better identify them and avoid them in our own reasoning and arguments. This, in turn, can help us to arrive at more accurate and well-supported conclusions about Knowledge acquisition and production.
Daniel, Lisbon, March 2023
Are all swans white? (Falsification)
The Principle of Falsification in Theory of Knowledge
The Falsification Principle is a method used in science to test the validity of scientific statements or theories. It was first introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, who argued that scientific knowledge must be testable and falsifiable, meaning that it must be possible to demonstrate that it is false. In other words, a scientific statement or theory can only be considered true if it is possible to prove it false.
To illustrate the Falsification Principle, let us consider the statement "all swans are white". If this statement is true, then every swan that has ever existed or will exist must be white. However, this statement can be falsified if just one black swan is found. The discovery of a black swan would prove that the statement "all swans are white" is false, as it would contradict the statement's claim that all swans are white. This example demonstrates the power of the Falsification Principle, as it shows how a single observation can disprove a theory or statement.
The Falsification Principle is important for establishing objective knowledge in science because it provides a way to test scientific statements and theories. By attempting to falsify a theory, scientists can determine whether it is true or not. If a theory withstands numerous attempts at falsification, it becomes more likely to be true. This process of testing and refining scientific knowledge helps to establish a strong foundation of objective knowledge that can be relied upon for future research.
One of the key benefits of the Falsification Principle is that it prevents scientists from making unfalsifiable claims. An unfalsifiable claim is one that cannot be proven false, and therefore cannot be tested using the scientific method. For example, the claim that "God exists" is unfalsifiable, as it is not possible to prove that God does not exist. Since this claim cannot be tested, it falls outside the realm of science.
The Falsification Principle also helps to prevent scientists from making unjustified claims. By requiring that scientific statements and theories be testable and falsifiable, the Falsification Principle ensures that human and natural scientists do not make claims that cannot be supported by evidence. This helps to maintain the integrity of scientific research and ensures that scientific knowledge is based on sound evidence.
In conclusion, the Falsification Principle is an important tool in AoK Human Science and Natural Science for establishing objective knowledge. By requiring that scientific statements and theories be testable and falsifiable, the Falsification Principle ensures that scientific knowledge is based on sound evidence and prevents scientists from making unfalsifiable or unjustified claims. The example of "all swans are white" demonstrates how the Falsification Principle can be used to test scientific statements and theories, and how it can help to establish a strong foundation of objective knowledge in science.
Daniel, Lisbon, March 2023
Further related posts can be found at:
What is Technology?
Many of the explorations of knowledge questions in the Knowledge & Technology unit of ToK start with the question: "well, what do we mean by technology ?". So, I thought it would be useful to put together a blog which summarises 4 main approaches to how we can think of technology in its relationship with knowledge.
These approaches are very much umbrella approaches - they are rough ideal types to help us to explore that relationship between tech and knowledge, remember the focus is on knowledge, not tech.
The "tech is tool" approach.
The argument here is quite simply that technology is a tool that we use to solve human problems. This is obvious when we look at modern technologies such as the internet, cars, the printing press etc. It then also becomes apparent when we consider technologies from pre-industrial era such as smelting metals, wattle and daub etc.
This approach quickly takes us into non-physical technologies such as mathematics is a technology which allowed us to solve the problem of navigation through map-making, art is a technology which allows us to solve problems of expression and social cohesion etc. Arguably, language is the ultimate technology which allows for all other technological (& therefore knowledge) innovation. This approach has been well explained in the books by Yuval Noah Harari (particularly Sapiens: A brief history of Humankind).
Among the many writers who have taken the "tech is tool" approach are Plato and Rousseau who both argued that technology had a rather negative effect on knowledge and humanity. In Phaedrus Plato argued that that the use of writing had a negative impact on people's ability to remember and think critically. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, wrote about the dangers of technological progress in his work "Discourse on Inequality." He argued that the development of technology had led to the development of private property, which had in turn led to social inequality.
On the other hand, Francis Bacon and Karl Marx, are writers who, in taking the "tech is tool" approach see technology as a positive benefit to the pursuit of knowledge, and the development of humanity. Bacon saw science and technology as being a single unified entity. He argued that science was the best way to uncover universal ordered truths from the disordered chaos of nature. Marx saw technology as a means by which proletarian labour (& bourgeois extraction of it) is quantified, and therefore is a necessary stage for the realisation of socialism. As such, Marx was positive about the influence of technology on the pursuit of knowledge.
I think that this approach is implied, and assumed, in the knowledge questions included in the ToK Study Guide for Knowledge and Technology. This approach may be all that is required of the ToK learner. However,
However, there are some concerns with this approach, concerns which are both general for us as learners, and specific to ToK:
Did these problems, which technology apparently solves, come before the technology or did technology create these problems ? (the problem here is one of causation - what is the cause of an object ?)
If the problems are antecedent to the technology, and technology is the solution to them, then are technology and knowledge actually separate entities ?
If technology and knowledge are intertwined then is there any non-technological knowledge ?
Wider ontological problems arising from the above - if knowledge is a requisite for existence, then is technology also a requisite for our existence ? Are we defined by solving problems ? Is consciousness essentially a task focussed process (Heidegger).
Concerns #1 & #2 conveniently segue into our second approach.
The "Some knowledge is tech" approach.
This approach argues that the knowledge which gives rise to the technology developed to solve the problems that we face is in itself technology. Knowledge such as language (incl. digital coding languages), religion, scientific theories, artistic arrangement etc all give rise to specific technologies which help us to solve a set of problems.
In this approach we start to understand technology as a set of practices rather than merely as a set of objects. Both the object (artifact) and the practices (processes) are seen as being technology. The object itself might be termed "instrumentality" as it was produced to (instrumentally) change the environment - ie to solve a problem. The practices which brought the artifact into being might be termed "productivity" as they gave us an object which, at some point, gave us increased control of our environment for a required purpose. The effect of this categorisation on the acquisition and production of knowledge will be explored in greater detail in subsequent blogs.
This approach also opens the door to a consideration of the social environment within which needs arise, and knowledge develops in order to meet those needs. Of course, this brings a sharp focus on what we define as 'needs', and who has the attendant power to solve that which they define as 'needs' (a quick sub-question: a lot of technology serves 'improvement' - is improvement fulfilment of a 'need' ?). And again, we have significant problems of causation here - what is the order of causation ? Is causation a necessary, or merely, sufficient requirement for the acquisition and production of knowledge ? etc
Overall, this approach also poses a number of challenges for our theory of knowledge:
Is the technology causal to the knowledge or vice versa ? (think about examples - this is more problematic than it first appears).
Both knowledge and technology can be thought of as evolutionary (and sometimes revolutionary) - does knowledge cause technology to evolve, or vice versa ? , and if so, how ?
Do we produce some knowledge which is not to solve problems ? , and if so what, and why ?
A range of ontological questions arising from #3: are we solely a problem solving being ? what about non-problem solving behaviours ? (do they even exist in this definition?). Is consciousness contingent on
Challenge #3 conveniently segues into our next approach.
The "all knowledge is tech approach".
If we accept that technology is a tool to solve problems, and that we accept that that which is known about the world is acquired, pursued and produced to solve problems then we arrive at the position that all knowledge is technology. Conversely, all technology is knowledge (however, this is a little more obvious, and a little less overwhelming). This approach gives rise to some very significant challenges:
Is there any knowledge which is not technology ? We can unpack this question by positioning problems as time, person and situation specific. ie we know things but may not be using them to solve a problem at that moment in time. Someone, somewhere else, may have used that knowledge to solve a problem, and once created this knowledge has been passed to me. This gives rise to a second problem:
Why do we have knowledge which does not solve problems for us ? If we accept that all knowledge can be categorised as technology, and that technology solves problems for us, then why do we know things which don't solve problems for us ?
Our now familiar ontological questions are now even stronger - if all knowledge is technology, and knowledge is a necessary requirement for our existence then this approach inevitably leads to the position that to being human is being technology, or put another way that a human being is technology itself.
And so we, conveniently, segue into our final approach.,
The "we are the tech - unified being approach".
OK, so now we need to work a little out of the realms of conventional ToK, but only to give us better ways to explore some of the ToK KQs posed in the optional theme Knowledge and Technology. Some writers have argued that our very existence, - our very human 'being', is one and the same as technology. Put simply we are technology. This approach, as the culmination of the 3 earlier arguments, aggregates those arguments to posit our 'being'ness as constituting a problem solving set of processes. This is often characterised as consciousness - the idea that consciousness is a referenced intention in the world.
This approach really helps us to start to answer questions about the role of technology in changing our pursuit of knowledge. Rather than tech merely improving, or impeding, our pursuit of knowledge technology reveals the world, and therefore is our very consciousness, our very awareness of the world - it neither improves nor impedes, but in its role as revelation is consciousness itself. This will really help us when we get to questions concerning artificial intelligence, and the biological integration of technology.
However, like the other 3 approaches, this approach poses some significant challenges for our understanding of the role of technology in the pursuit of knowledge:
1. Ethical issues - If tech & being human are one & the same thing, but there is unequal access to tech then is there also unequal access to the experience of being human ?
2. Continuum issues- where does the individuality of the knower begin, and the external universality of tech end ?
3. Categorisation & Organisation issues - why do we bother to have a separate category of knowledge called 'technology' at all ?
Hold Up!! - some of that has nothing to do with ToK!
"Some of those points above appear to be way beyond the scope of ToK". When we start to consider ontological questions such as the nature of existence, the requisite conditions for existence, and the nature of consciousness it appears that we are going well beyond the requirements of the ToK course. However, I believe that we can only tackle some of the technology KQs by considering some of the questions which might (conventionally) be asked by people who we label as existentialists, phenomenologists and ontologists. This will become far clearer when we get to the post on Artificial Intelligence.
Hold Up!! - again!
"Your 4 approaches are all based on one premise. They're all based on, and developments of Approach #1 - that technology is a tool to solve a problem".
Yes - this is a legitimate challenge to the framework outlined here. An equally valid approach would be to start from an entirely different premise, maybe that technology is not caused by problem solving, that technology is caused by, and defined by something entirely different. However, that's a big undertaking - maybe one that I will need to explore in another blog.
Closing thoughts.
We can use these definitions to help us to start to explore some of the knowledge questions in ToK Optional Theme Knowledge & Technology. We will look at 3 broad areas:
How does technology change our pursuit of knowledge?
Is Artificial Intelligence changing our understanding of knowledge?
Ethics and technology.
Those blogs are coming up in the next few weeks - I hope you come back to read them then!
Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 2023
Of further interest on Knowledge & Technology is:
We need to talk about Pune, India.
Women in STEM lesson (for teaching perspectives)
Did Photography change painting?
Bibliography and References.
Bimber, Bruce, 1990, “Karl Marx and the Three Faces of Technological Determinism”, Social Studies of Science, 20(2): 333–351. doi:10.1177/030631290020002006
Franssen, Maarten, and Gert-Jan Lokhorst. “Philosophy of Technology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, 2009, plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/.
Plato. Plato's Phaedrus. Cambridge :University Press, 1952
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on Inequality. 1755. Aziloth Books, 2013.
Weeks, Sophie. 2008. “The Role of Mechanics in Francis Bacon’s Great Instauration”, in Zittel, C., Engel, G., Nanni, R. & Karafyllis, N.C. (eds.), Philosophies of Technology: Francis Bacon and his Contemporaries. Brill. pp. 133-195.
Yuval Noah Harari. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. 2011. Random House Uk, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190207-technology-in-deep-time-how-it-evolves-alongside-us
ToK Essay Titles as Philosophy..,
I know that ToK is not Philosophy, and I know that it's bad form to use the term 'philosophy' when talking about ToK, and I know that you don't have to be a philosophy teacher / student to teach / learn ToK.
BUT
there do seem to be some interesting philosophy parallels, and I'm interested in philosophy - so here goes...,
Q1: Is replicability necessary?
I'm certainly seeing Black Swans and White Swans (thank you Mr Popper), but I'm also asking - maybe this is the classical logic of truth functions in philosophy. (remember those afternoons in Logic 101 pondering that if all men wear a blue hat, Sam wears a blue hat, is Sam a man?)
or is it an ends vs means question (without the ethical - moral implications)?
Q2 - Is the explained or unexplained more important?
Is this Schrodinger's Cat?
or is this Rumsfeld's Known Knowns, Known Unknowns and unknown unknowns?
Is it Realism vs Anti-realism?
Or is it Empiricism vs Rationalism, are all of the questions empiricism vs rationalism?
Q3 - Do bubbles matter ?
I'm imagining a tree falling in an empty forest without anyone there to see, or maybe hear it.
Or am I hearing aSocratic dialogue on the relationship between ignorance and evil, and the involuntary nature of evil acts ?
Or is this Plato's and Pareto's Elite Theory ?
Q4 - Are we astonished that so little knowledge can give us so much power?
I'm seeing angels dancing on a pinhead, but that's not actually philosophy, nor ToK.
I'm seeing more map metaphors and low hanging fruit metaphors.
Is this the Process Philosophy vs Substance Metaphysics? Sort of Dewey & James vs Quine & Schaffer?
Q5 - Are visual representations helpful in the communication of knowledge.
Do I see the metaphor of the map sailing back over the horizon..., oh long lost metaphor how we have missed you! Where did you go?
Or maybe it's about Structuralism, Semiotics, Sign and Symbol - Levi-Strauss come forth and elucidate, illuminate and educate!
Q6 Does methodology determines knowledge produced?
This is empiricism - rationalism, it's got to be that old chestnut- is knowledge discovered, or is it constructed ? Judging by views on my videos this is the least popular ToK Question this year, yet in my opinion it's the easiest question posed. Maybe our ToK students love a challenge !
Maybe it's Foundationalism vs Coherentism, I'm sort of drawn to the idea that it's about the degree and form of justification required to consider something as knowledge.
End thoughts
I apologise if I have missed some glaringly obvious philosophical question, my excuse is that my degree is in Economics, not Philosophy. If I have missed some obvious philosophy I would love for you to add your thoughts and insight in the comments section.
I initially posed this post as a bit of fun, however as a ToK teacher I have always found it useful to look at some of the philosophy behind the questions. It helps me to give more advice to students on the sorts of sub-questions that could extend their thinking. It also helps me to guide them in developing counterclaims.
If you want to watch my videos on the M23 titles they can be found at this link.
If you want a guide on how to write the ToK Essay - check out our e-book (linked).
If you want to know about the ToK of the individual Essays check out the blog posts (there's one for each essay)
If people are interested I can put together a post going into more detail on the philosophical questions mentioned in this post, just let me know.
Enjoy your ToK writing and thinking,
Daniel,
Lisbon, Dec 22
Art and Ethics
A lesson for DP1 Students on Art & Ethics which can be placed within Area of Knowledge The Arts, and any of the optional Themes, particularly Knowledge and Language, and Knowledge and Politics.
Lesson Objectives.
By the end of this lesson you should have:
Considered the relationship between artistic freedom and ethics.
Considered issues of denotation and connotation of knowledge.
An introduction to 3 of the main schools of Ethics.
Starter Activity.
Here we introduce 3 of the main schools of ethics.
Group Learning.
Each group will be given a case study.
Your objective is to prepare a short presentation (maximum 4 slides) answering the following 2 questions:
What are the ethical issues arising from the production, or display, of this artistic knowledge?
Is it possible to resolve these ethical issues ?, if so, how
Your Presentation should have the following slides:
Context (e.g. what is the artwork?, who was the artist?, When was it created? etc).
Controversy. (e.g. What & why was there controversy associated with this artwork? What were the ethical issues? etc)
Justification ? (e.g. Is the artwork justifiable in either artistic or ethical terms?)
Resolution ? (e.g. Is it possible to resolve an artistic & ethical conflict? and if so how?)
Group 1: Fountain (1917) by Marcel Duchamp
Resources:
Context & reasons for controversy from The Tate Gallery, London.
Short video explanation of controversy.
Extra hint: Part of the ethical issue here is about Gatekeepers & the context of art.
Group 2: Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn (1995) by Ai Weiwei
Resources:
Clear explanation of what & why.
Context & a short explanation of controversy from The Guggenheim.
The case for Ai Weiwei's piece Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn (Video)
Extra Hint: the ethical issues here relate to duplicitous values.
Group 3: My Bed (1998) by Tracey Emin.
Resources:
Context & Controversy (4 min read)
Tracey Emin explains the origin of My Bed, and its meaning to her (video).
Extra hint: The ethical issues here partly concern what the work means to the artist (connotation) vs how others interpret the work (denotation).
Group 4: Piss Christ (1987) by Andres Serrano
Resources:
Context & explanation by Andres Serrano
Context & controversy from Artland Magazine
Andres Serrano explains the piece in The Guardian
Extra hint: One of the ethical issues that the artist draws is between popular culture, meaning and that which is defined as art.
Group 5: Helena (2000) by Marco Evaristti
Resources:
Quick video explaining the work.
Explanation of the work, and intention of Marco Evaristti
Evaristti's explanation of his work (search down for "Helena).
Extra hint: The role of the viewer (or audience) is, arguably, the focus of this work.
Group 6: Statue of Edward Colston (1895) by John Cassidy
Resources:
Wikipedia article giving outline.
Guardian article giving context & controversy.
Interesting video of the outcomes of the controversy.
Extra hint: The issue of whether we should judge the past by the standards of today is salient here.
Group 7: The Parthenon Marbles (5th Century BCE) by Phidias
Resources:
Video explaining the Parthenon Marbles and the controversy.
Wikipedia article giving an overview
Extra hint(s): There are ethical issues concerning originality, and cultural appropriation here.
Balloon Game - Ethics & ToK version starter activity.
Most DP Students will have played the Balloon Game / Shipwreck Game by the time they reach DP. I think it's a great icebreaker, and pastoral activity to play with students of all ages.
In this starter activity we 'up-cycle' it so that it has a ToK twist, we use it as a game to introduce students to the 3 main ethical schools (Virtue Ethics, Deontology and Utilitarianism).
Why introduce ethics in this way ?
Ethics are a subset of the Knowledge Framework for all Areas of Knowledge ( a welcome change from the previous version of the ToK Syllabus). ToK students don't have to know the details of ethical schools, nor be able to explain ethical thought in any detailed way. They only need to know what the ethical issues are that could pertain to any of the Areas of Knowledge. However, rather than teaching the specific ethical issues arising from each area of knowledge it makes far more sense to give students a basic grounding in the main schools of ethics so that they can apply them to the AoKs.
The Balloon Game - Ethics in ToK version.
The Ethics in ToK Balloon Game Handout
The game is pretty straight forward. I put the students into groups, and allocate a school of Ethics to each group to make their decisions.
The PDF version of the file can be downloaded here.
An interesting aside...,
The words 'ethical' and 'ethics' are often in school's Mission/Vision/Values statements. I think they're alluding to some form of virtue ethics. As a ToK teacher I want my students to develop a more precise use of language relating to knowledge. So, I always ask my students to ask "what type of ethics are we referring to ?" when they see it in the school values statements. When we think about it a school aspiring to be deontological will do things very differently to a school aspiring to be utilitarian etc. I know it's a bit pedantic, but a spot of pedantry when it comes to how we behave towards each other may not be a bad thing !
Have a great day,
Daniel,
Lisbon, November 2022.
For more on Ethics you can check out this very clear BBC Site, and there's a lot of good content on the ToK2022 site.