What is a Knowledge Argument?
Recently, whilst coaching a student on his Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essay, I realised he was unfamiliar with the term “knowledge argument.” He hadn’t encountered the term "knowledge claim" or "knowledge issue" either, which are often used interchangeably.
Recently, whilst coaching a student on his Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essay, I realised he was unfamiliar with the term “knowledge argument.” He hadn’t encountered the term "knowledge claim" or "knowledge issue" either, which are often used interchangeably. His candid admission highlighted a common gap in understanding, so I thought it apposite to look at the essentials: what is a knowledge argument?
Understanding the Knowledge Argument
A knowledge argument is a statement about how knowledge is created, received, interpreted, or justified.
In ToK, a knowledge argument is a statement about how knowledge is created, received, interpreted, or justified. These arguments are also referred to as knowledge issues, knowledge questions, or knowledge claims. They all centre on the same concept: a statement about knowledge itself.
Examples in ToK Prompts
All ToK Exhibition and Essay prompts are essentially knowledge arguments or questions. For instance, consider Exhibition prompt #25: “How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief, and opinion?” This is a classic knowledge question. Similarly, Exhibition prompt #2: “Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?” also falls into this category. (This also happens to be the easiest ToK Exhibition prompt: click here for more details)
Essay titles follow the same pattern. For example:
Q#5 May 2024: “Do we need Custodians of Knowledge?”
Q#1 November 2023: “Are facts alone enough to prove a claim?”
These prompts are all questions about knowledge, even if they don’t explicitly mention the word "knowledge." They focus on exploring and understanding knowledge in various contexts.
The Importance of Knowledge Arguments
You might wonder why it’s crucial to understand and write knowledge arguments when the IB provides these questions anyway. The key is not just writing these arguments but also being able to explore and unpack them.
Example: Custodians of Knowledge
Take the question from May 2024: “Do we need Custodians of Knowledge?” To answer it, we need to break it down into smaller knowledge questions:
What is a Custodian of Knowledge?
What needs might they fulfil?
Focusing on the second question—what needs might Custodians of Knowledge fulfil?—we realise that in the context of ToK, these needs will be related to knowledge. Thus, we can derive several smaller knowledge questions:
Do Custodians of Knowledge preserve and protect existing knowledge?
Do Custodians of Knowledge identify and maintain knowledge gatekeepers?
Do Custodians of Knowledge define and describe the methodology of knowledge production?
Do Custodians of Knowledge define legitimate evidence of knowledge?
These smaller knowledge questions help us to explore and answer the broader question effectively.
Practical Application
By learning to write and explore knowledge questions, you can better address the big knowledge questions posed in the ToK Exhibition or Essay prompts. This skill is straightforward and invaluable, ensuring you don’t miss the centrality of knowledge questions in your work.
For more guidance on your ToK Essay click here, and for help with the ToK Exhibition click here.
Stay Toktastic, my friends!
Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024
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:
What could "sever ties with its past" mean?
This blog post accompanies the video linked here, and below.
Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #3 from the November 2024 sessions asks us to consider the phrase "Sever ties with its past", In this blog post, we will look at one way of understanding this term, and we'll also look at the phrase "benefit an area of knowledge".
Understanding the Knowledge Framework
At the heart of Essay #3 N24—and indeed central to our understanding of the terms for Essay #3—is the Knowledge Framework. This framework is an integral part of the ToK curriculum, outlining the structure of each Area of Knowledge (AoK). It comprises four main components: Scope, Perspectives, Methods & Tools, and Ethics. These elements collectively define what each AoK entails, including its objectives, methodologies, and ethical considerations.
Severing Ties with the Past
To "sever ties with its past" within an AoK can be broadly interpreted as making changes to some or all of the elements of the Knowledge Framework. This might involve altering the methodologies employed to produce knowledge or revising the foundational principles and laws outlined in the Scope. It's a phrase that suggests significant shifts in how an AoK is structured or understood. However, many other definitions of this term could be developed, it's very much open to a range of arguments.
For a comprehensive understanding of this concept, it's advisable to refer to additional resources such as the ToKToday Essay Guidance notes available from this link. These notes offer detailed explanations and examples that can help refine your definitions and approach to addressing this element in your essay.
Benefits to an Area of Knowledge
The second key phrase, "benefit an area of knowledge," invites you to consider what improvements or positive changes can occur within an AoK due to adjustments in the Knowledge Framework (if you take changes to the knowledge framework as your definition of "sever ties with its past"). Benefits might be direct enhancements to the methodologies or tools used within the AoK or they could involve broader ethical improvements stemming from shifts in perspective or approach.
Just as with understanding how ties can be severed, discussing the potential benefits requires a nuanced approach.
The beauty of the Knowledge Framework
The beauty of using the Knowledge Framework to address these questions lies in its structured approach to understanding and analysing Areas of Knowledge. By mapping out changes or benefits within this framework, you can more effectively articulate and support your arguments in the essay.
Conclusion
Both "sever ties with its past" and "benefit an area of knowledge" are terms that, once explained, can help your understanding and handling of this ToK essay. Through the lens of the Knowledge Framework, these terms gain clarity and depth. This will help in your writing of this essay. For further assistance, do not hesitate to explore additional resources such as the ToKToday Essay Guidance notes available from this link.
Ingenuity in the production of knowledge.
What Could Be Meant by Ingenuity in the Production of Knowledge?
ToK Essay #2 Nov 24 asks us to consider the role of ingenuity in the production of knowledge. This blog post introduces ways to consider both the definition of the term, and its use in ToK Essay #2 Nov 24. The development of ways to answer the question is linked in the next blog post (linked). Further, this blog post accompanies the YouTube video linked at the end.
Unpacking Ingenuity
To kick things off, let's consider ways of understanding the term "ingenuity". Whilst a stroll through the dictionary definitions of ingenuity reveals it as a capacity for invention or creativity, a knack for clever design or construction, these descriptions are insufficient when applied to the production of knowledge in a ToK Essay. For students Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #2 Nov24, it's imperative to develop a definition of ingenuity that helps, or supports, the specific knowledge arguments being presented.
Ingenuity in the production of knowledge could be thought of in the following ways:
Introducing new areas of study or focus within a particular Area of knowledge (AoK), broadening the areas of inquiry of the AoK.
Employing innovative methods and tools for knowledge production, which could include using new technologies or methodologies.
Offering fresh perspectives within a field of knowledge, consequently enriching debates or interpretations of existing knowledge.
Adopting new ethical approaches to address previously unsolvable dilemmas within the AoK / disciplines .
These are just a few of the many possible ways to understand ingenuity.
Ingenuity: Always Needed, But Never Enough
The assertion that ingenuity is "always needed, but never enough" in the production of knowledge is the focus of the question rather than merely the definition of ingenuity. This idea suggests that whilst ingenuity is indispensable, it must be complemented by other elements to fully realize the production of knowledge. These additional components might include existing principles, methods, and tools of a particular field, insights from other domains of knowledge, or even the serendipitous sparks of coincidence and chance.
This leads us to develop various alternative conditions of the prescribed title (regarding the role of ingenuity in knowledge production):
Can ingenuity alone suffice in the production of knowledge?
Is the need for ingenuity conditional, perhaps depending on the purpose of the knowledge sought or the context in which it is produced?
How do existing frameworks and principles within a field of knowledge influence the necessity for ingenuity?
Bridging the Gap with ToKToday
If you are writing ToK Essay #2 Nov24 the ToKToday Essay Guidance Notes provide structured support, detailed examples, and a comprehensive analysis to not only understand but also effectively articulate the various roles that ingenuity could play in the production of knowledge.
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:
ToK Essay #1 N24: Responsibility to acquire knowledge: vary by AoK ?
In Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay# 1 Nov 24 students are asked to consider whether the responsibility to acquire knowledge varies by Area of Knowledge (AoK). This post explores some of the ways in which this responsibility might vary by AoK, and the possible reasons for such variance.
If you want help with the core terms "the acquisition of knowledge", and "the responsibility to acquire knowledge" see the CTB (Covering The Basics) blog for this title linked.
The Variable Nature of Knowledge Acquisition
The premise that the responsibility to acquire knowledge may differ according to the AoK could be approach using three broad concepts: the scope, purpose, and application of the AoK; the contextual responsibilities of the knower within this AoK; and the methods and tools used for knowledge acquisition.
1. Scope, Purpose, and Application of the AoK
Every AoK has its own defined scope, purpose, and application, as outlined in the Knowledge Framework. These elements dictate what constitutes valid knowledge within the AoK and how this knowledge should be applied. The diversity in these areas gives rise to distinct responsibilities for knowers, contingent on the particular AoK they are engaging with. For instance, the knowledge required in the sciences may be empirical and rigorously tested, while in the arts, subjective interpretation plays a more significant role. How and why a knower is acquiring knowledge will influence whether their responsibility to acquire knowledge varies according to the AoK.
2. Contextual Responsibilities of the Knower
The responsibility to acquire knowledge is also shaped by the knower's ethical and moral obligations, which are deeply influenced by their role within the AoK. A medical professional, for example, has a heightened responsibility to stay abreast of the latest medical knowledge, a duty stemming from their direct impact on others' health and well-being. This responsibility is not only ethical but also practical, as it ensures the knower can make informed decisions within their field.
3. Methods and Tools of Knowledge Acquisition
The validity and reliability of knowledge acquisition methods vary significantly across AoKs. Relying on a rumour from social media for scientific research, for example, is vastly different from engaging with peer-reviewed studies. Each AoK employs a set of tools and methodologies best suited to its nature, which, in turn, influences the knower's responsibility towards seeking out reliable sources of information.
A brief real world example
To illustrate these points, consider the AoK of History. The controversy stirred by the UK Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, in 2014 over changes to the history curriculum underscores the responsibility to acquire knowledge. Gove's decisions impacted how history is taught, making the inclusion of black history optional. This scenario highlights a situation where the knower's context—namely, Gove's position of influence—amplifies his responsibility to acquire comprehensive historical knowledge.
Evaluation Points
AoK-Specific Approach: The responsibility to acquire knowledge might not be confined to a single AoK but could encompass multiple areas, indicating the interconnectedness of knowledge.
Universal Responsibility: Arguably, all knowers, regardless of their context or AoK, should engage critically with knowledge, reflecting the fluid and hybrid nature of modern identities.
Conclusion
The responsibility to acquire knowledge is linked to a range of ToK elements. It is deeply influenced by the AoK, the knower's context, and the methodologies employed in knowledge acquisition.
If you want more help with ToK Essay #1 check out ToKToday's Essay Guidance Notes for Essay #1, they offer comprehensive support, including detailed knowledge arguments and evaluation points tailored to this essay prompt.
Get more detailed help in the video for this title:
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.
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*.
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:
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.
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.
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
Help! Urgent help needed - ToK Essay!
I am receiving lots of messages from students across the world at the moment saying things like "Help! I need urgent help with my ToK Essay! My deadline is very soon, and I’m finding it really difficult". Please keep reaching out, I love to help you, that’s what I’m here for.
Today, on ToKToday we're going to look at what you can do if you’re worried about completing your ToK essay. Maybe you don’t know where to start, or you may have left it a little late. Here’s the ToKToday guide to saving your ToK life:
1. Planning.
No matter how little time you have left, spending some time Planning will help you to write a better essay. You have 1600 words, so think of it as an 8 paragraph essay, each para is 200 words long. A basic essay structure that will deliver for most titles is shown below:
Generic ToK Essay Structure
This is a super rough & ready essay structure designed to get you out of a last minute hole. Of course there are many other essay structures that you could use, many better essay structures, but if you’re down to the last 36 hrs before hand in time this essay structure can deliver you an essay that will pass. If you need more help with how to structure the essay see the video linked here.
In the introduction you can explain your interpretation of the prescribed title, and explain how you intend to answer the prescribed title, if there are assumptions in the title you may want to explain whether you intend to address these and why. Many students define key concepts in the Introduction, however I would recommend putting your definitions in the knowledge arguments in each AoK.
2. Knowledge Arguments
Knowledge Arguments are the central focus of your essay, these are what you will get most of your marks for. So spend time working these out before you start writing. You need at least one central knowledge argument for each AoK. You can then develop other knowledge arguments as the evaluation points for the main knowledge argument in each AoK.
If you’re struggling to find knowledge arguments then use your ToK Notes, your ToK textbook (if you have one), blogs on this site, and the ToKToday videos on YouTube.
3. Real World Examples
Lots of people get hung up on which real world examples to use. You can draw on your other DP subjects for real world examples, pull them from the things that you have studied in other DP subjects. How you use the real world example to illustrate the knowledge argument is more important than the real world example used.
4. Evaluation Points.
If you want to score more than 5 out of 10 you need to evaluate your knowledge arguments. These are best thought of as “other points of view”. Good evaluation points will constitute further knowledge arguments in your essay. If you are struggling to identify evaluation points then watch the video linked above .
5. Filling in the paragraphs.
Once you know what you are putting in each of your 8 paragraphs you have your structure. Now all that you have to do is to fill in the words around the main points in each paragraph. This is how you both speed up the writing process and improve the quality of you what you write.
6. Implications & Conclusions.
Finally you need to include a concluding paragraph that ties all of the arguments across both AoKs together. The conclusion must directly and unequivocally address the original prescribed title, this will probably require using the words from the prescribed title in your conclusion. You could also include the implications of your conclusion in this final paragraph.
More help with ToK Essay
We have lots of resources & support for you to help you to write your ToK Essay:.
We have at least 3 videos on YouTube explaining, and giving examples for, EACH ToK Essay title.
We have blog posts explaining possible different approaches for each essay title.
We have detailed Guidance Notes for each ToK Essay title.
We can also provide online coaching sessions to support you every step of the way in writing your essay.
Finally, once you have a first draft in place we can provide detailed written feedback to help you to refine your thinking and writing.
If you need help then please feel free to reach out, the more time we have to work together before your submission deadline the better we can develop your essay so please don’t leave it too late.
If you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to email me at Daniel@ToKToday.com, or use the Messenger icon on this website.
Daniel, Lisbon,
January 2024
Don't want to read? Watch the video instead:
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:
Preservation of Knowledge: Custodians of Knowledge preserve existing knowledge, enabling further evolution.
Independent Evolution: The evolution of knowledge is independent of custodians, driven by external needs.
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:
The problem of Unsubstantiated Assertions in the ToK Essay
In the midst of essay-writing season for the May session schools, a prevalent issue emerges in Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essays: the problem of unsubstantiated assertions. These are claims or statements that lack the necessary backing of argument, evidence, or analysis, and they can lower your ToK score. Understanding what they are and how to avoid them is important for a successful ToK essay.
What Are Unsubstantiated Assertions?
An unsubstantiated assertion is essentially a claim that is made without proper support. This could be in the form of lacking evidence, lacking argument, or lacking analysis. For instance, consider these examples:
“Custodians of Knowledge are widely found throughout the world”
“Fresh ideas are produced faster in the modern world than in the past”
“Historians seek objective facts”
“Scientific knowledge is more reliable than artistic knowledge”
“All knowledge is difficult to transfer from its original context”
“Maths is based on highly specialised knowledge.”
These statements, as they stand, are presented as facts without any backing. In a ToK essay, this approach is problematic.
The Problem with Assertive Statements
Students often use these kinds of statements as introductory ideas or as links between different parts of their essay. They tend to open paragraphs with them, perhaps under the impression that a narrative style requires such assertive tones. This is a misconception. The ToK essay demands critical analysis and discussion, not mere narrative.
The Solution: Changing Assertions into Propositional Statements
The solution to this problem is relatively straightforward: transform these assertions into propositional statements. This means turning them into debatable points rather than presenting them as closed facts. Let's revisit our examples:
From “Custodians of Knowledge are widely found throughout the world” to “We can consider whether Custodians of knowledge are widely found.”
From “Fresh ideas are produced faster in the modern world than in the past” to “It could be argued that fresh ideas are now produced faster than they were in the past.”
From “Historians seek objective facts” to “It is often argued that Historians seek objective facts.”
From “Scientific knowledge is more reliable than artistic knowledge” to “On initial examination, scientific knowledge appears to be more reliable than artistic knowledge.”
From “All knowledge is difficult to transfer from its original context” to “The difficulty of transferring knowledge from its original context could be measured using the following criteria:”
From “Maths is based on highly specialised knowledge” to “Whether maths is based on highly specialised knowledge partly depends upon how we define specialised knowledge.”
The Benefits of Propositional Statements
By converting an unsubstantiated assertion into a propositional statement, not only do we eliminate the issue of being unsubstantiated, but we also introduce a knowledge argument. This is the essence of the ToK essay – a critical analysis of knowledge arguments.
Further Resources
For more detailed guidance on writing your ToK essay, consider resources like the ebook "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps", or check the detailed guidance notes for each Prescribed title in this season (linked). Remember, the key to a successful ToK essay is not just in what you assert, but in how you support, debate, and analyse those assertions.
By recognising and transforming unsubstantiated assertions into propositional statements, you can significantly enhance the quality and critical depth of your Theory of Knowledge essays. Remember, it’s not just about what you know, but how you communicate and analyse that knowledge.
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23
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:
Interpreting the Prescribed Title: Offer a concise explanation of how you understand the prescribed title. This sets the context for your readers.
Outline of Your Approach: Briefly explain how you intend to answer or address the prescribed title.
Identifying Assumptions: If any assumptions arise from the prescribed title, make a brief reference to them.
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:
Overly Grandiose Statements: Avoid general statements about humanity, the world, or the universe that do not directly relate to the prescribed title.
Unsubstantiated Assertions: Ensure that your claims in the introduction are supported by evidence or logical reasoning.
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
Knowledge Arguments (or Knowledge Claims): For each Area of Knowledge (AoK) considered, formulate at least one main knowledge argument or claim.
Real World Examples: Illustrate your knowledge arguments with real-world examples, which may also include evaluation points.
Evaluation Points: Consider alternative viewpoints to your knowledge claims. These are crucial for a balanced and critical exploration.
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
Library of Alexandria: Custodians of Knowledge
What can the destruction of the Library of Alexandria tell us about whether we need custodians of Knowledge ?
The Library of Alexandria, situated in Alexandria, Egypt, was one of antiquity's most renowned centres of knowledge and scholarly activity. Founded in the 3rd century BCE under the Ptolemaic dynasty, it aimed to collect the world's wisdom. However, its destruction is shrouded in mystery and has become synonymous with the loss of invaluable knowledge. Various accounts suggest different phases of decline and destruction.
The first significant blow is thought to have occurred in 48 BCE when Julius Caesar set fire to ships in Alexandria's harbour; the flames purportedly spread to parts of the city, including the library. Additional harm was inflicted under the reign of Emperor Theophilus in 391 CE, who sought to eliminate pagan influences, and further during the decree of Theodosius that closed all pagan temples. In 642 CE, after the Islamic conquest of Alexandria, any remaining traces of the library were possibly lost forever.
The cumulative effects of these incidents resulted in the irretrievable loss of countless ancient scrolls, texts, documents and artefacts.
What are The ToK implications of the destruction of the library?
The Library of Alexandria could be seen as a custodian of knowledge. At the time of its first destruction It was thought to contain the greatest documented collection of human knowledge up to that point in time. It was a protective store of all that was thought to be worthy to document and store, a veritable vault of the best knowledge of human civilisation. As such, its destruction could be seen as a significant rupture in the continuum of human knowledge.
This argument could be seen as the reason why we do need custodians of knowledge, the documents in the library could have provided us with an understanding of how the ancient world operated, their tools and engineering techniques, their values and belief systems, and their social organisation. Some of this knowledge may have helped us in the subsequent 2000 yrs to avoid some of the mistakes that we’ve made, and to produce better knowledge still. Much of this was lost in the three main destructive events.
This is the cumulative theory of knowledge, and creates a fairly compelling (if obvious) argument as to why we need Custodians of Knowledge.
However, can we develop counter-arguments, arguments that the loss of the knowledge in the library did not create significant problems, or may even have been a positive for the development of new knowledge ? In other words can we develop arguments that don’t need custodians of knowledge.
Counterarguments to the need for Custodians of Knowledge
Exclusivity.
The first argument against the positive role of the Library could be developed from the exclusivity of knowledge. It is a fair assumption that not many people had the ability to read and write in the ancient world. It wasn’t so long ago that even in today’s fully literate societies a minority of people could read and write. If these skills were also rare in the ancient world then access to the knowledge held in the Library at Alexandria would have been limited and restricted to a minority of people. Add to this that access would probably have been granted according to membership of elite groups based on religious, political or academic interests and social class and we start to see that this knowledge would have been the reserve of an elite group. Exclusionary access to knowledge can often develop into power hierarchies which can be used to consolidate and further reproduce privilege. The challenges for the evolution of knowledge that such power hierarchies can create leads us to our second argument against the Library as a Custodian of Knowledge, that is the problem of innovation.
Innovation
If a select group of people have access to knowledge that they use to consolidate their own power we can see an inherent conservation and possible stagnation in that knowledge. There are very few pressures on knowledge to be adapted and evolved it it serves to maintain the current conditions. As such innovative ideas, or new knowledge, are far less likely to appear. If they do appear they are far less likely to be accepted into the library of ‘legitimised knowledge’. This is the gatekeepers argument of the ancient world.For example a stonemason is far less likely to have a great new idea for building pyramids if they are unable to read the established knowledge for building pyramids, and even if they did have that great new idea it is far less likely to be accepted and adopted if they are not part of the social, religious or political groups that have access to, and authorise, knowledge in the library.
This argument is that exclusive libraries can stifle the innovation of new ideas, or new knowledge.
People as knowers.
The third argument is based on the means, or location, of the storage of knowledge, in some ways it is an argument about technology. Some societies don’t have writing, these are often called oral cultures, non-literate or pre-literate cultures, some indigenous cultures fit into this category. In these societies knowledge is stored in people rather than in books, and documents. The knowledge of the society is the sum total of all the knowledge in the society. People pass knowledge to each other, and from one generation to the next using stories, music and art. These societies could be seen as having more inclusive access to knowledge than literate societies, roughly in an oral society everyone has the rights and means to access all of the knowledge. It could be argued that knowledge in such societies is far more open to innovation, evolution and fresh ideas. New knowledge will arise from the lived experiences of the people, and will be verified and legitimised through collective experiences. It could be argued that libraries take people away from the primary experience of knowledge, and therefore remove both their awareness and acceptance of new experiences, and therefore potential new knowledge. This is an argument that libraries stifle innovation.
Summary
In summary we could argue that the destruction of the library of Alexandria may have led to increased pressures for the innovation of new knowledge because the established knowledge was destroyed. This new knowledge may have been better adapted for the new conditions (such as living under the new Roman or later Byzantine Empires), and it may have led to more people both contributing to the development of this knowledge, and knowing the new knowledge.
Of course, personally I don’t believe any of this, I think that knowledge is sacred, libraries are temples of enlightenment, and that we should never destroy books nor libraries. But such are the lengths that we are willing to go to in the pursuit of counter arguments in ToK.
If you want to know more for essay 5 (or any of the other May 24 Essays), if you want detailed guidance notes then click here . These guidance notes give you knowledge arguments, counter arguments, real world examples, evaluation points and implications.
Please feel free to contact me for help and advice with your ToK Essay (Daniel@ToKToday.com),
Enjoy your writing, Stay toktastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23