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

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

The historical development of knowledge.

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

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

• periods of debate or contest.

• periods of integration or increasing cohesion

• periods of upheaval

• periods of denial

• periods of acceptance

• periods of lapsed, suppressed or repressed knowledge.

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

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

ToK Themes (Optional)

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

Choosing Objects - Developing Knowledge Arguments.

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

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

A note on specificity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ToK Subject Report May 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object 1: mRNA Vaccine Certificate (Thailand 2021)

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

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

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

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

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

Photo: (University of Sydney, 2020)

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

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

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

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

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Speculation Significant?

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

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

Defining Hypothesis and Speculation

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

The Significance of Their Differences

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

Evidence and Knowledge Production

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

The Criteria for Significance

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluating the knowledge argument and its Implications

Questioning the Premises

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

The Role of Evidence

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

Conclusion

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

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

Watch the accompanying video on YouTube:

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

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

This blogpost accompanies the video linked here, and below.

Understanding Severance in the Context of AoK

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

The Knowledge Framework and Cultural Shifts

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

Real Life Example: The Shift in Visual Arts

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

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

Implications and Evaluations

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Watch on YouTube:

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.

Stages for Teaching the ToK Essay

Teaching the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essay is a challenging yet rewarding endeavour that requires careful planning and thoughtful instruction. The ToK essay is a critical component of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Programme, demanding students to reflect on the nature of knowledge and how we know what we claim to know. Drawing on my experience of guiding students through the ToK essay in 22 exam sessions, I've distilled my approach into five key stages that have proven effective. These stages are designed to optimise the teaching process for the ToK essay, ensuring both teachers and students are well-prepared for this intellectual undertaking.

1. Planning Not Writing

The most crucial insight I've gained is the importance of prioritising planning over writing. Students should devote a significant portion of their time to unpacking the essay titles, exploring the concepts, and crafting knowledge arguments. This preparatory stage is vital for a successful essay, making the writing process smoother and more productive. I advocate for a planning-to-writing time ratio of roughly 80:20, encouraging students to engage deeply with their ideas before committing them to paper. This approach ensures that students are thoroughly thinking through their arguments and structuring their essays coherently before they begin the actual writing.

2. Delay Choosing Titles

A common mistake students make is rushing to select their essay title. Delaying this choice until later in the planning phase allows students to broaden their understanding of ToK concepts and apply these insights to various prescribed titles (PTs). This strategy enhances their conceptual flexibility, enabling them to craft more nuanced and comprehensive essays. By postponing the selection of essay titles, students can explore a wider range of ideas and approaches, ultimately choosing a title that resonates with their insights and understanding of ToK.

3. Problematizing Concepts, Knowledge Issues & Knowledge Arguments

To achieve high marks in the ToK essay, students must adopt an analytical, evaluative, and critical stance towards ToK concepts and the knowledge framework. Many students begin with a settled view of ToK, which can limit their ability to critically engage with the essay's demands. By problematising ToK concepts and encouraging critical examination of knowledge issues—such as reliability, validity, and falsifiability—students can develop a more sophisticated and questioning approach to knowledge. This critical engagement is essential for constructing compelling arguments and achieving excellence in the ToK essay.

4. Groupwork Teamwork

Given the typical class size for ToK, individualised teacher support for each student's essay can be challenging to provide. Leveraging the power of group work can offer peer support, advice, and guidance. Establishing writing groups for students tackling the same prescribed titles can foster a collaborative learning environment while adhering to academic integrity rules. Promoting the essay as a collaborative process can alleviate individual anxiety and ensure a supportive learning community where all students progress together.

5. The Draft Deadline Is the Big Deadline

Emphasising the draft deadline as the primary milestone can significantly impact the quality of the final essays. By treating the draft deadline with greater importance than the final submission deadline, most of the "heavy lifting" can be completed early on. Some schools celebrate this stage with a Draft Deadline party, highlighting its significance. A well-developed draft sets the stage for refining essays from middle to higher mark bands, focusing on enhancement rather than basic completion.

These five stages offer a comprehensive approach to teaching the ToK essay, providing a framework for students to develop their ideas thoughtfully and critically. For teachers embarking on this educational journey, these strategies can facilitate a more engaging and effective learning experience, helping students to navigate the complexities of the ToK essay with confidence.

Teachers can get a free teaching schedule overview at this link.

If you are a teacher who would like help with delivering the ToK Essay, or you're a student who would like help writing your ToK essay, please contact me: Daniel@TokToday.com

Stay ToKTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 2024

Teaching Schedule for the ToK Essay

This is an overview schedule of foci and activities for teaching the ToK Essay, showing the monthly timing for both May and November Exam Sessions.

A few items of note:

• The schedule sets aside 5 months for the completion of the essay. I know that some teachers may dedicta eless time to the essay, but as a critical pass/fail component of the Diploma I dedicate substantial time to the essay.

• Students spend most of the time unpacking & exploring the prescribed titles. This is essential ToK learning, counting towards the 100 hours of time scheduled for ToK.

• The Draft Deadline is the effective end point of the process. If undertaken carefully there should be very little for students to do after the Draft submission.

For more information see this blogpost.

You can download a PDF version of the teaching schedule at this link.

What are the examiners thinking about the ToK Essay in 2023 ?

The Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Subject Report is written by examiners after each exam session, it is a reflection on what examiners have seen in the work submitted for the exam session. The report includes details on common mistakes made, and recommendations for avoiding those mistakes in the future. As such the ToK Subject Report is the most definitive document for understanding “what the examiners want”. I strongly recommend close reading of the TOK Subject Report for all ToK teachers. The ToK Subject Reports can be found in the Programme Resource Centre of MyIB.

In this blog post I summarise some of the pertinent and interesting points about the ToK Essay arising from the May 23 ToK Subject Report. I will publish a similar post about The Exhibition in a couple of days. I have written similar posts about previous ToK Subject Reports in the past (linked & linked). 

What do we learn about the ToK Essay from the May 23 ToK Subject Report ?

1. Students need to address all parts of the prescribed title. Don’t ignore parts of the question, this affects coherence of the answer (top of P5.)

2. Precise and direct reading of question is important (e.g Q2 M23 “For artists & natural scientists” many students did not consider artists & natural scientists, they just considered ‘for the general public’.).

3. A stepped approach to build an argument is most effective for complex essays that contain multiple elements (eg #4M23: "Do you agree that it is "astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power" (Russell)? Discuss with reference to the NS & one other AoK"). This essay requires students to deal with each element in turn, and to develop knowledge arguments relating to each. Contrasting claims / counterclaims / evaluation points are particularly important in complex essays (eg #4 M23, bottom of pg 6/top of 7).

4. Visual representations (eg charts & graphs) are now appropriate in ToK essays (Essay 5 M23).

5. Focus on writing a critical exploration of the PT (the driving question) rather than on a descriptive essay. A critical exploration includes: 

• Arguments supported by examples

• Implications

• Awareness of & evaluation of different points of view. 

• Limitations of arguments

6. Use of “points of view” rather than counterclaim. Points of view allows for a more nuanced range of points than a counterclaim. Points of view do not necessarily contradict, nor cancel out, the initial claim.

7. Examples should be explicitly connected to the knowledge argument and shown to justify a point.

8. Examples drawn from the student’s own studies, or own life, generally make better examples because it is easier for the student to analyse them and to understand the implication of the example (para 3, Pg 8).

9. AoK History should consider:

• The history of events that are at least 10 yrs old.

• The history of events that have been investigated by historians (rather than e.g. by journalists).

• The process of the production of historical knowledge rather than the event itself.

10, Geography & Economics are often used well as Human Science disciplines.

11. The Planning & Progress Form is of increasing importance as an academic integrity check given the growth of AI etc.

OK - this is just a very brief summary of some of the main points. Some of these points are included because they are surprising, or new, to me. If you want more details on the subject report I recommend downloading it from the Programme Resource Centre. A similar summary of points about the ToK Exhibition in the May 23 Subject Report will be out soon.

Stay ToKTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon Feb 24

Watch this post as a video:

Implications in ToK Essay: What are they?

Implications in the ToK Essay: A Guide to Achieving High Marks

Understanding Implications in Theory of Knowledge Essays

Achieving high marks in your Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay is a significant milestone. A crucial element that can help you score between 9 and 10 marks is the inclusion of implications in your arguments. Many students struggle to understand what these implications are. This post aims to clarify 'Implications' and guide you on how to effectively incorporate implications into your ToK essays.

Defining Implications

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an implication is defined as

"the action of implying; the fact of being implied or involved, without being plainly expressed; that which is involved or implied in something else."

Oxford English Dictionary

In simpler terms, think of an implication as the potential "so what?" outcome of an argument. It’s what could logically follow from the premises you have established.

Illustrating Implications with a Simple Example

To understand this better, let's consider a straightforward, non-ToK example:

• Argument: Abigail ALWAYS takes an umbrella with her when it is raining.

• Observation: Abigail has taken an umbrella with her.

• Implication: It is raining.

This example shows the direct implication. However, we can delve deeper and consider other implications such as:

• Abigail thinks that it is raining.

• It was raining when Abigail decided to take the umbrella, but it might not be now.

• Abigail believes it will rain before she returns.

These examples illustrate how a single observation can lead to multiple implications.

Applying Implications to a Real ToK Essay

Consider the ToK essay topic: "To what extent is the production of knowledge determined by methodologies?" (#6 May 23)

Suppose the essay concludes that methodologies have less influence on knowledge production than the context of the knowledge and the intentions of the producer. Several implications can be drawn from this conclusion:

1. Methodology Variability: The methodologies of knowledge production can be varied or altered according to the needs of the knowledge producer with little effect on the knowledge produced.

2. Defining Areas of Knowledge: Areas of knowledge and subject disciplines should not be defined solely by the methodology used to produce knowledge within that discipline or AoK.

3. Contextual Nature of Knowledge: Knowledge is primarily contextual, and when taken out of its context, it may lose its meaning, regardless of the methodology used to produce it.

The Importance of Exploring Implications

Exploring implications allows for a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the argument. It shows a critical engagement with the topic and can significantly enhance the quality of your ToK essay.

Further Resources and Assistance

If you need more help with your ToK essay, consider exploring other videos under the ToK Essay tab on the ToKToday YouTube channel, or purchase the e-book "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps" for detailed guidance.

ToKToday is dedicated to helping you excel in your ToK essays. Remember to like, subscribe, and share for more insightful content on Theory of Knowledge.

Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 24

How can we know current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge? (Exhibition prompt 13)

Guidance notes for Prompt 13 are available from this link.

These notes include:

1. An overview explanation of the prompt.

2. Examples of three knowledge claims for the prompt.

3. Suggestions for the types of object that would be appropriate for each knowledge claim.

4. How to structure the ToK Exhibition Commentary.

Knowledge arguments before objects.

I recommend writing knowledge arguments BEFORE you choose objects. I know it’s tempting to choose objects first, but if you can write 3 knowledge arguments first not only will your objects be easier to choose, but it will be far easier to "access the higher mark bands, and we all want higher scores."justify the inclusion of each particular object in the exhibition" (required for the higher mark bands).

Unpacking the prompt

How can we know that current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge?

The first terms that jump out are current and past. When is current current and when does it become past ? So, current & past can be relative terms.  The next term that interests me is improvement. We could define an ‘improvement’ in knowledge in many different ways, for example:

• The current knowledge is more functional than past knowledge, that means it has more uses or usability.

• The current knowledge could be more effective than past knowledge.

• The current knowledge could be more ethical than past knowledge. That’s contentious, so I think we’ll come back to that one.

• The current knowledge might fulfil the intention of the knowledge producer better than past knowledge. This can also be contentious when we consider who produces knowledge & why. 

• The current knowledge could produce more unexpected benefits than previous knowledge. I like this idea, it gives us a window to serendipitous knowledge production.

• The current knowledge could allow for more synthesis across various Areas of Knowledge than past knowledge.

These are all various ways in which we could define improvement in knowledge, there are many other ways, you can devise your own measure of improvement.

The common mistake with prompt 13

A common mistake is interpret the prompt as asking whether current knowledge is an improvement over past knowledge. However, the prompt is actually asking how can we know whether current knowledge is an improvement over past knowledge. As such, we need to focus on ways in which we might know about improvement in knowledge. 

Ways in which we might "know" about improvements in knowledge.

A few ways in which we know things include:

• we have evidence for it

• we are able to measure it

• it is observable to us

• we have experienced it

• we are able to compare current knowledge with past knowledge

There are many many different ways to know things and I'm sure that some of you will be able to come up with better ways of knowing than I can.

Knowledge Arguments

To write the knowledge arguments we're just together the two important parts of the prompt: how we know things, and ways to define improvements.

Knowledge Argument 2 is slightly contentious because some would argue that we can only assess ethics by the standards of the time in which you live. One of the counter-arguments to this is to focus on the methodology of assessment rather than the context of assessment. So, I’ve written this KA to use reason as the means or methodology by which we know.

Knowledge Argument 3 may also be a little contentious by taking the line that we may not know something, this is a small risk that should be OK because we’ve already shown 2 ways in which we can know something, so now I’m taking a more critical approach to the question. I’m also drawing upon the core unit in ToK Knowledge and The Knower. 

Choosing Objects

IB strongly recommend that you choose things that are of significance to you. These could be things that you have studied in your DP, or things that you are personally interested in. I have chosen 3 things that I am interested in, but you will probably have different interests, so you should choose different objects to mine.

Knowledge Argument 1: We know that current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge when objective evidence demonstrates current knowledge to be more effective than past knowledge.

The object that I’ve chosen to demonstrate this KA is a scientific epidemiological report from the US Centre for Disease Control on the control of the viral disease Smallpox through the use of the Smallpox vaccine. The report gives quantitative objective statistical evidence of the vastly reduced incidence of smallpox arising from use of the vaccine.

Knowledge Argument 2: The second knowledge argument is that We know that current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge if it is reasoned to be more ethical by contemporary standards of ethics.

I’ve chosen The European Convention on Human Rights to demonstrate this. The convention arises from a contemporary understanding of ethics arising from the use of reason as a way of knowing during the 18th & 19th century period of European Enlightenment. My argument being that reason as a way of knowing allows us to know that current knowledge is an improvement over past knowledge. 

The third knowledge argument is  that we may not know that current knowledge is an improvement upon past knowledge if our knowledge of improvement is mainly derived from the experience of the knower.

The object that I’ve chosen to illustrate this argument is a modern documentary film made about Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. The documentary compares the experience of current forms of entertainment with the experience of watching plays at Shakespeare’s Globe in the sixteenth century. My argument being that if we measure improvement of knowledge in terms of the experience of the knower then we can’t be certain that the experience of contemporary forms of entertainment are necessarily an improvement of past forms of entertainment. Experience is an individual phenomenon which cannot be satisfactorily compared across time, place, nor other contexts. 

Make it personal and specific

You will probably develop different knowledge arguments, and use different objects to mine. But I just wanted to show you how to unpack this prompt, some different ways to think about the prompt, and ways in which to move from knowledge arguments to objects. Making the objects relevant and significant to you is an important part of the ToK Exhibition

Stay Toktastic my friends.
Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 2024

Effective Note-Taking and Study Skills in ToK

A subscriber asked me to talk about the best ways to take notes in ToK. It sounds pretty straightforward, but as ever with ToK there's more to this seemingly simple question than first meets the eye.

Introduction to Note-Taking in ToK

In Theory of Knowledge (ToK) classes, students often grapple with the best methods to take notes. Note-taking preferences can vary widely due to individual student preferences, teaching strategies, and available resources. This blog post aims to distil some universal principles of effective note-taking in ToK, We will look at the link between ToK note-taking and ToK Study Skills.

The Purpose of Note-Taking in ToK

The first question to consider is: Why are you taking notes in your ToK lesson? The immediate answer might be to help remember the content. However, this leads to further question: Why do you want to remember ToK content, and is note-taking the best way to do so?

Is Traditional Note-Taking the Best Method?

While traditional note-taking methods like the Outline, Cornell, and Box methods are popular, it's essential to find what works best for you. Experimentation is key. For instance, some students may find success with flow charts, while others might prefer a more visual approach like a bullet journal pictorial, even using digital tools like an iPad.

For details of various note taking strategies try this page, or this page.

The Active Processing of Content

The crucial aspect of any note-taking method is that it involves active engagement with the content. This semantic processing, as opposed to rote memorisation, significantly enhances content retention.

Why Remember ToK Lesson Content?

This brings us back to the fundamental question: Why are you trying to remember the content of ToK lessons? While a common goal is to excel in ToK assessments like the Exhibition and Essay, it's important to recognise that ToK is not just about content. It's about developing a set of skills - thinking, analytical, writing, and research skills.

Retaining and Developing ToK Skills

The best way to retain and develop the skills learned in ToK lessons is through practice and reflection. This involves actively applying ToK principles to your Diploma Programme subjects and reflecting on your strengths and areas for development. Questions like "What am I good at?" and "What do I need more practice on?" are vital.

The ToK Reflection Journal

A highly recommended tool is the ToK reflection journal. This journal is a space for students to regularly reflect upon their learning, link it to previous knowledge, plan future learning paths, and more. The format of this reflection can vary - written journals, audio recordings, or pictorial bullet journals - the key is frequent and honest reflection.

Conclusion and Further Engagement

In conclusion, whilst traditional note-taking methods have their place, the essence of effective learning in ToK lies in actively processing information and focusing on skill development through practice and reflection. For those seeking more guidance or wishing to suggest content for future discussions, feel free to reach out via email (Daniel@TokToday.com) or use the Facebook Messenger icon on this website.

By embracing these principles of note-taking and study skills in ToK, students can significantly enhance their understanding and application of ToK concepts, leading to a more profound and insightful engagement with the subject.

Stay Toktastic,
Daniel, Dec 2023

Watch on YouTube:

Evaluation in ToK Essays: Understanding Different Points of View

Introduction to Evaluation in ToK Essays

A subscriber asked me to explain what IB mean by "Different points of view" (aka "evaluation", or "counterclaims") in the ToK Essay. This is a fairly detailed exploration of what evaluation means in the context of the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay. "Different points of view" (ie evaluation) is a critical component for achieving a high score, especially for marks 5 or higher in the IB ToK Essay Marking Scheme. This post aims to explain 'different points of view', which is central to writing a nuanced and well-argued ToK essay.

The Essence of Evaluation

In ToK essays, 'different points of view' / evaluation refers to exploring varied perspectives on a main knowledge claim. Previously termed as 'counterclaim', the International Baccalaureate (IB) now focuses on a more nuanced approach, moving away from binary arguments to encompass contrasting perspectives. I often use the term 'evaluation' to refer to different points of view as students will be used to using the term evaluation in group 3 subjects like Economics and Psychology.

Examples of Different Points of View

Let's consider an example from the May 2024 essay topic on Custodians of Knowledge. Suppose the main claim is: "We don’t need Custodians of Knowledge because they suppress the evolution of knowledge." Different points of view, or evaluation points, on this claim could include:

1. Preservation of Knowledge: Custodians of Knowledge preserve existing knowledge, enabling further evolution.

2. Independent Evolution: The evolution of knowledge is independent of custodians, driven by external needs.

3. Co-evolution with Knowledge: Custodians are a byproduct of knowledge evolution, developing alongside it.

Commenting on the relative strength of these arguments and linking them to the prescribed title helps you to develop 'Implications', which helps your essay to be placed in a higher marking band.

Developing Different Points of View

Different points of view in a ToK essay can include:

• Contrasting relationships to the main claim.

• Additional factors influencing the relationship described by the main claim.

• Flaws in the causality, or direction of causality, indicated by the main claim.

These perspectives can be developed through the four pillars of knowledge: Acquisition, Production/Construction, Evolution, and Evaluation. By questioning how knowledge in your essay was acquired, produced, evolved, and evaluated, you can effectively develop diverse viewpoints.

Structuring Your ToK Essay

The number of different points of view in your essay depends on your essay's structure and question. A typical structure might look like this:

• Claim in AoK 1:

• Real-world example

• Different PoV1

• Real-world example

• Different PoV 2 (and possibly 3)

• Claim in AoK 2:

• Real-world example

• Different PoV 3

• Real-world example

• Different PoV 4 (and possibly 5)

Whether the main claim in Areas of Knowledge (AoK) 1 and 2 should be the same depends on your essay's approach. A different claim in AoK 2 can provide more evaluatory ("different points of view") material.

Conclusion and Additional Resources

Understanding and effectively incorporating different points of view is essential for a high-quality ToK essay. It demonstrates critical thinking and the ability to engage with complex ideas from multiple angles. For more detailed guidance and examples on ToK essay structures and writing strategies, refer to the e-book "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps" and the detailed guidance notes for this season's essays.

By adeptly evaluating different points of view, your ToK essay can transcend from a mere presentation of ideas to a critical exploration of knowledge, enhancing both its depth and academic rigour.

If you have suggestions for further blogposts/videos get in touch: Daniel@TokToday.com, I'd love to hear your ideas.

Stay ToKTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch the video on YouTube!:

Unpacking ToK Essay Titles

Introduction to Unpacking Essay Titles

I'm reading lots of essays from May 24 students at the moment, a common challenge that I see students face is effectively unpacking the Prescribed Title (PT) in their Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essays. Unpacking the PT is a crucial step in the essay-writing process, and this post aims to guide you through this task to improve the clarity and coherence of your essay.

What Does Unpacking the PT Mean?

Unpacking the PT involves explaining your interpretation of the essay title at the start of the essay, typically in the introductory paragraph. Although the ToK Essay marking rubric doesn't explicitly require this, it significantly aids the examiner in understanding the direction and focus of your essay. It sets the stage for a "clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title." (ToK Essay Assessment Instrument, IB 2020)

Examples of Unpacked ToK Essay Titles (May 24 Session)

To illustrate, let’s examine unpacked versions of three titles from the May 2024 session:

Unpacking as a Prelude to the Thesis Statement

The unpacking of the title should lead into your thesis statement, which is the main argument of your essay. It provides a wider perspective on your more focused thesis statement. Ideally, this unpacking should form the opening sentence or sentences in the introduction of your essay.

Further Resources

For more detailed insights into crafting your ToK essay introduction, refer to the earlier video on this topic. Additionally, the ebook "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps" and the detailed guidance notes for each Prescribed title in this season offer invaluable assistance in navigating the complexities of ToK essays.

In conclusion, unpacking the Prescribed Title at the beginning of your ToK essay is a critical step that frames your argument and provides clarity to your exploration of the essay title. By carefully defining and contextualising your approach to the title, you set a solid foundation for a coherent and critically engaged essay.

Stay Toktastic!
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch on YouTube:

Writing an Effective Introduction for Your ToK Essay

Why consider the ToK Essay Introduction ?

As we progress through the essay writing season, a key question arises for students engaged in Theory of Knowledge (ToK) assignments: What should be included in the introduction of a ToK essay? As I read ToK essays from across the globe, it's evident that writing a compelling introduction is a common challenge. This post will guide you through the essentials of writing an effective introduction for your ToK essay.

What to Include in Your ToK Essay Introduction

The International Baccalaureate (IB) doesn't prescribe a specific approach for the introduction of your ToK essay. The primary goal of your introduction is to engage directly with the prescribed title and set the stage for your essay. Consider including the following elements:

1. Interpreting the Prescribed Title: Offer a concise explanation of how you understand the prescribed title. This sets the context for your readers.

2. Outline of Your Approach: Briefly explain how you intend to answer or address the prescribed title.

3. Identifying Assumptions: If any assumptions arise from the prescribed title, make a brief reference to them.

4. Thesis Statement: Your introduction should include a central claim or thesis statement. This acts as the guiding argument for your essay.

What to Avoid in the Introduction

Certain elements do not contribute to earning marks and can be omitted from your introduction:

1. Overly Grandiose Statements: Avoid general statements about humanity, the world, or the universe that do not directly relate to the prescribed title.

2. Unsubstantiated Assertions: Ensure that your claims in the introduction are supported by evidence or logical reasoning.

3. Rhetorical or Further Questions: These often do not add value to your introduction and can be left out.

The Debate Around Definitions

Whether to include definitions in the introduction is a matter of personal preference. Here's a recommendation:

• Place Definitions in the Body: Discussing definitions as part of the knowledge arguments in the essay body allows for more flexibility. If definitions are set in the introduction, you're bound to them throughout the essay, which could limit your argumentative scope.

Seeking Exemplars

For examples of excellent introductions, consult your ToK teacher. The IB provides exemplar essays that showcase effective introductions. These model answers can be invaluable in understanding what makes a successful introduction.

Additional Resources

For more in-depth guidance, consider picking up my e-book, "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps" (linked).

Alternatively you could pick up the individual detailed guidance notes for the essay that you have chosen. These Guidance Notes give you step by step advice on how to answer each essay question.

Conclusion

An effective introduction sets the tone for your entire essay. It should engage with the prescribed title directly, clearly outline your approach, and establish your central thesis. By focusing on these key elements and avoiding common pitfalls, you can craft an introduction that not only captures attention but also lays a solid foundation for your arguments.

Stay tuned for our next discussion on addressing unsubstantiated assertions in ToK essays.

Stay TokTastic.
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 2023

Mastering ToK Essay Structure: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction to ToK Essay Structure

December is the busy essay writing season for May session schools! I've been reading ToK Essays from students all over the world in which I am frequently seeing problems of structuring the ToK Essay effectively. This post aims to address the often-asked question, "How do I structure my ToK Essay?"

The International Baccalaureate (IB) doesn't prescribe a single structure for the ToK Essay. They require that you “provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title” (IB ToK Essay Assessment Instrument, 2020) Achieving this requires a well-thought-out structure that fosters clarity, coherence, and critical exploration. Let's break down the essentials that every ToK Essay should include, regardless of the chosen title or structure.

Essential Elements of ToK Essays

1. Knowledge Arguments (or Knowledge Claims): For each Area of Knowledge (AoK) considered, formulate at least one main knowledge argument or claim.

2. Real World Examples: Illustrate your knowledge arguments with real-world examples, which may also include evaluation points.

3. Evaluation Points: Consider alternative viewpoints to your knowledge claims. These are crucial for a balanced and critical exploration.

4. Implications: Reflect on the implications of your arguments and any conclusions you reach.

These four elements are non-negotiable in any ToK Essay.

Additional Components for Enhanced Essays

• Definitions of Key Concepts: Best integrated within your knowledge arguments.

• Thesis Statement: A sentence summarizing the essay’s main argument. Typically found in the introduction, it helps organise your arguments and maintains coherence.

• Unpacking the Prescribed Title (PT) in the Introduction: Offer your interpretation and explanation of the essay question here.

For a more detailed exploration, refer to my e-book, "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps" linked here

Common ToK Essay Structure

A widely used structure, found in about 75-80% of ToK Essays, looks like this:

This structure is effective for most Prescribed Titles and can lead to high scores.

Alternative Structure for Deeper Analysis

Some students opt for a different approach:

This structure cleverly uses the Knowledge Argument against PT in AoK 2 as evaluation points for the argument supporting PT in AoK 1. This method allows for a more in-depth comparative analysis and potentially higher scores.

Conclusion

Remember, the optimal structure for your ToK Essay is one that enables you to “provide a clear, coherent and critical exploration of the essay title”. For further assistance with essay structures and content, consult my e-book "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps" or detailed notes for each ToK Essay this season (links in the video description).

Embarking on your ToK Essay journey with a clear understanding of its structure is key to success. Happy writing, and remember, the path to knowledge is as much about the journey as the destination!

Stay TokTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch the YouTube video:

Antarctica: Most recent evidence strongest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 23

Detailed guidance video for ToK Essay 6 May 24

JUMBOS : What are the implications for ToK?

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

As reported on Earth.com:

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

The Orion Nebula 

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

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

Mysterious origins

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

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

ToK Implications of the discovery of JUMBOS

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

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

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

More ToK Implications arising from the discovery of Jumbos

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

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

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

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

What are the ToK implications of this new knowledge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halloween ToK Triple Bill

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

• Dracula

• Frankenstein

• Unexplained things

The ToK of Dracula and Frankenstein

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

The ToK of the unexplainable.

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

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

Enjoy your halloween season!
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23

Why are explanations difficult?

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

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

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

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

Atlantis: A case of confirmation bias ?

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

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

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

The Lost Civilisation Hypothesis: The power of assumptions.

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

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

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

The Sphinx: accept the pre-existing knowledge base ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other links to commonly recurring ToK content includes:

• Questions without answers.

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

• Theories fitting evidence or evidence fitting theories ?

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, October 2023

The Most Recent Evidence Could Be Very Wrong (PT#6 May 24)

Barbara McClintock and the Tale of "Jumping Genes"

Anecdotally, the phrase "the most recent evidence is strongest" often guides our understanding. But what if the most recent evidence is actually wrong? This question could be discussed in ToK Essay 6, including the seminal work of geneticist Barbara McClintock and her discovery of "jumping genes," or transposons.

Challenging the Status Quo

In the mid-20th century, the prevailing genetic theory posited that genes were static entities, fixed in place on chromosomes. The most recent evidence, comprising years of research and experiments, strongly supported this theory. Into this orthodoxy stepped Barbara McClintock, equipped with her work on maize (corn) genetics. Her findings suggested something revolutionary—that genes could "jump" from one location to another on the chromosome.

Defying the Evidence

McClintock's research faced overwhelming scepticism. After all, the most recent evidence seemed to directly contradict her claims. She discovered that during the process of cell division, certain genes changed their position, thereby altering the cell's genetic instructions. This dynamic rearrangement, far removed from the static model, was not only groundbreaking but also counter to every piece of prevailing evidence in genetics at the time.

Vindication and a Nobel Prize

Initially, her work was so contrary to existing paradigms that it took decades for the scientific community to catch up. It wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that more advanced technology and new forms of evidence verified her claims. In 1983, McClintock was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for her work on transposons, finally vindicating her years of isolated research.

Thoughts for ToK Essay 6

This story could be a useful real world example for ToK Essay 6. It reminds us that evidence is not a static concept. What is considered the "most recent evidence (strongest)" today could very well be discredited tomorrow. Barbara McClintock's journey demonstrates the scientific courage required to challenge prevailing evidence and push the boundaries of what we consider to be the most accurate knowledge.

Find out more about this essay title in the overview discussion with Gareth Stevens.

This is just a start of the type of overview that you can find in our ToK Essay 6 Guidance Notes, in these notes we cover the basics of the relationship between the recency of evidence and its strengths. We also look at some of the higher level arguments on the different types of evidence, and how this changes what we might define as its ‘strengths’. This year we have two versions of the notes: 

The Foundation Notes fully unpack the title, explore different ways to approach the concepts in the title, and explain a number of knowledge arguments that could be used. These notes are 4,000-5,000 words.

The Complete Guide has all of the same content as The Foundation Notes, and in addition has fully explained real life examples to illustrate each knowledge argument.The Complete Guide also has evaluation points and implications for each knowledge argument. These notes are 8,000-11,000 words.

You can find essay guidance notes for all of the essay titles at this link.

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September

Detailed guidance video for Essay #6 May 24

Do We Need Knowledge, or Is Knowledge the Need? (PT 5 May 24)

When it comes to the role of custodians of knowledge, a key question we must ask is: What needs do these custodians fulfil? This leads us to a deeper, more complex question: Do we need knowledge, or is knowledge itself the need? This blog post starts to explore this question, focusing on the dual elements of need and custodians of knowledge. 

The Range of Needs Fulfilled by Knowledge

Knowledge serves a multitude of functions, and custodians of knowledge, arguably, play a key role in this dynamic. From solving tangible problems to making informed decisions, knowledge fulfils practical needs. Here, custodians of knowledge step in as protective stewards, managing, preserving, and disseminating this vital resource. But the need for knowledge extends beyond these pragmatic demands. Knowledge also meets abstract needs, such as emotional solace and existential fulfilment. When custodians of knowledge safeguard the collective wisdom of humanity, they are helping to fulifll a rich spectrum of human needs.

Knowledge as the Source of Needs

Interestingly, it’s possible that the need for knowledge might be born from knowledge itself. The more we learn, the more gaps we identify, perpetuating a cycle where the pursuit of knowledge generates new needs. Here, the role of custodians of knowledge becomes paradoxical. In fulfilling our need for knowledge, they may inadvertently create more needs that then require further custodianship.

So, do we need custodians of knowledge? Considering the dual nature of needs that knowledge fulfils and creates, the role of custodians of knowledge remains pivotal. Whether knowledge serves as a means to fulfil needs or as the originator of those very needs, custodians of knowledge continue to be indispensable figures. They navigate the complex interplay between the need for knowledge and the needs that knowledge itself can generate.

In sum, the relationship between need and knowledge is a nuanced one, made even more complex by the role of custodians of knowledge. As we further explore the need for knowledge and what needs custodians fulfil, we gain a deeper understanding of this intricate balance.

Find out more about this essay title in the overview discussion with Gareth Stevens.

This is just a start of the type of overview that you can find in our ToK Essay 5 Guidance Notes, in these notes we cover the basics on why we may, or may not, need custodians of knowledge. We also look at some of the higher level arguments on whether these needs could still be fulfilled without custodians of knowledge. This year we have two versions of the notes: 

The Foundation Notes fully unpack the title, explore different ways to approach the concepts in the title, and explain a number of knowledge arguments that could be used. These notes are 4,000-5,000 words.

The Complete Guide has all of the same content as The Foundation Notes, and in addition has fully explained real life examples to illustrate each knowledge argument.The Complete Guide also has evaluation points and implications for each knowledge argument. These notes are 8,000-11,000 words.

You can find essay guidance notes for all of the essay titles at this link.

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023

Detailed guidance video for Essay 5 May 24

Initial overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens on Essay 5 May 24

Useful for ToK Essay 5 May 24

Useful for Essay 5 May 24