What is a Knowledge Argument?

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

Understanding the Knowledge Argument

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

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

Examples in ToK Prompts

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

Essay titles follow the same pattern. For example:

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

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

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

The Importance of Knowledge Arguments

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

Example: Custodians of Knowledge

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

1. What is a Custodian of Knowledge?

2. What needs might they fulfil?

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

• Do Custodians of Knowledge preserve and protect existing knowledge?

• Do Custodians of Knowledge identify and maintain knowledge gatekeepers?

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

• Do Custodians of Knowledge define legitimate evidence of knowledge?

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

Practical Application

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

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

Stay Toktastic, my friends!

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

What Makes a Good Object for the ToK Exhibition?

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

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

Rule 1: Is Your Object Specific?

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

Example: Personal & Specific Object

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

Example: Non-Personal & Specific Object

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

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

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

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

Example: Family Bible

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

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

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

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

Example: Edison’s Light Bulb

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

Example: Dr John Snow’s Hand Pump

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

Conclusion

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

1. Is your object specific?

2. Does your object demonstrate a specific knowledge argument?

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, June 24

What is the Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompt?

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

The Quest for the Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompt

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

1. Closed-ended Three-part Structure:

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

3. Abstract vs. Concrete:

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

5. Complex (Abstruse) vs. Clear Wording:

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

Ranking the Prompts

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

The Five Hardest ToK Exhibition Prompts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Five Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

How I assess the ToK Exhibition Commentary

Introduction

May Session schools are currently deep into Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Exhibition time. Students are busy writing their commentaries, whilst teachers are occupied with assessing these commentaries. Some teachers have sought support and advice on evaluating the ToK exhibition, so I decided to share my approach to assessing the ToK Exhibition.

This blog post can also be watched as a video at this link, and below

Understanding Global Impression Marking

According to the International Baccalaureate (IB), Global Impression Marking should be used to assess the ToK Exhibition and Essay. But what exactly is Global Impression Marking? The ToK Subject Guide from the IB describes it as “a process of holistic or global judgement rather than an analytical process of totalling the assessment of separate criteria. The assessment instruments present five described levels of performance. These levels are to be seen as global and holistic descriptors rather than as a checklist of necessary characteristics. When marking, the aim is to find the descriptor that conveys most accurately the level attained by the student. It is not necessary for every single aspect of a level descriptor to be met for a mark in that level to be awarded.”

For more detailed information, you can refer to the ToK Subject Guide from the IB.

The Four-Part Structure for ToK Exhibition Commentary

The May 2023 ToK Subject Report outlines a four-part structure for the Exhibition commentary, which I find very useful. These sections are:

1. Identification of the object and its real-world context

2. Explanation of the link between the object and the prompt

3. Justification for the contribution of the object to the exhibition

4. Supporting evidence and references to the prompt

When assessing each object, I consider these four criteria, although I do not give them equal weighting. Generally, I believe that Criteria A-C are more important than D. If a student has adequately addressed A-C, they have likely covered D as well. Criterion C is particularly crucial because justification is necessary for awarding 5-10 marks. As a rough rule of thumb, I allocate approximately 25% of the marks to Criteria A and B, 40% to Criterion C, and 10% to Criterion D. However, I do not write down this weighting; I keep it as a nominal guide in my mind.

Assessing the Commentary

As I read through each commentary, I look for content that can be awarded marks under each of the four criteria. I might keep a rough scorecard for each object, though I do not average these scores. Instead, I use them as a guide to find the descriptor that best fits the commentary according to the marking bands. After applying the four-part structure, I place each object on the assessment rubric and try to find the midpoint between the descriptors to determine an overall marking band.

According to the IB’s instructions for placement within the band:

• Upper mark: Awarded if the student’s work demonstrates the qualities described in that level to a great extent, and may be close to achieving marks in the level above.

• Lower mark: Awarded if the student’s work demonstrates the qualities described to a lesser extent, and may be close to achieving marks in the level below.

Tips to Avoid Moderation Reductions

1. Consistency is Key: Consistency in assessment is almost as important as accuracy. Internal moderation of the commentaries is crucial. This process should involve all ToK teachers who taught the exhibition and, if possible, other ToK teachers who did not teach the exhibition to provide impartial assessments.

2. Teacher’s Comments: Every ToK Subject Report emphasises the importance of the teacher’s comments. They should not be mere cut-and-paste extracts from the assessment instrument but should use the language from it. I use the four-part structure for comments and combine these categories with the qualitative descriptors from the assessment instrument. Crafting detailed comments takes time (around 30-45 minutes per student), but it is worth it to avoid moderation of marks.

Conclusion

Assessing the ToK Exhibition is not rocket science; it is a meticulous process that requires attention to detail and consistency. I hope this guide has been useful for those less experienced in assessing the exhibition. If you have any more requests for content from ToKToday, please get in touch with me at Daniel@TokToday.com.

Stay toktastic, my friends!

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

Choosing Objects for the Exhibition: The big debate.

Should students choose their objects before the prompt, or should they choose the prompt before their objects, in the IB ToK Exhibition ?

Quote from many IB ToK Teachers !

IB has been quite clear that students should choose their objects before they choose the prompt for their ToK exhibition. However, I have always argued that students should choose the prompt, and write knowledge arguments, before they choose their object. In this blog post I will run through IB’s argument, explain my concerns with it. I will then explain why I recommend choosing the prompt before the  object.

IB’s recommended approach.

IB have always recommended that students choose their objects before they choose the prompt for their ToK Exhibition. The reason for this recommendation is the driving question of the ToK exhibition, namely that students ‘reflect upon how ToK manifests itself in the world’ around them. In theory, I totally agree with this approach. Of course, I hope that my students can identify knowledge issues, knowledge arguments, and knowledge problems arising from the physical world around them. If students see knowledge issues arising from the objects around them ,and use this for their ToK exhibition, they will develop more informed and holistic Tok discussions. As such, in theory, I am entirely in agreement with the IB’s recommendation. However, as we shall see later, even the IB acknowledges that there are problems with this approach.

Prompt & Knowledge arguments BEFORE objects.

I recommend that students both choose a prompt, and write three knowledge arguments, before they choose objects for their ToK Exhibition. My recommendation is the exact opposite of the IB’s recommendation, and is born from the experience of doing the exhibition with students in the past couple of years. My experience of letting students choose objects first is that when they come to write their commentary they often find that the objects don't fully link to, nor illustrate, the prompt and knowledge arguments. They then have to go back and change their objects to more appropriate ones. Now, of course, this could be a deficiency in my teaching, I'm clearly not able to develop the desired reflective capacity of my students. therefore, if you are in anyway like me, and wish to find the most effective way to optimise teaching time for Theory of Knowledge, then you may also want to front-end the process by fitting knowledge arguments to objects, as I do.

In order to access the higher marks in the ToK Exhibition students have to justify the inclusion of each specific object in the exhibition. The May 23 subject report says that this is a “stronger and more detailed explanation of the link between the object and the prompt” (pg 11). In reality this is a specific knowledge argument linking that specific object to the prompt. Therefore, a shortcut to getting into the higher Mark range is for students to identify these knowledge arguments at the beginning of the exhibition process. This is why I advocate writing knowledge arguments before choosing objects. 

Specificity is the real issue.

On page 15 of the May 2023 subject report IB do recognize that choosing the prompt first can also lead to valid and high scoring marks. they say students may start with a prompt which they find particularly interesting and have ideas about the objects that they will choose. entry points are equally valid what matters is the thinking that goes with them.

On reading successive subject reports and notes for examiners we find that the important issue to do with the objects chosen for the Tok exhibition is specificity. The IB are recommending choosing objects first because they think that if students choose the prompt first  they are more likely to choose generic objects and write generic commentaries. In the last few Subject Reports they have explained in some detail the difference between a generic use of an object and a specific use of an object. Just search for the words Family Bible in the May 2023 subject report to find this example, or click on this blog post for a full explanation of what is meant by a specific object.

Summary.

If your students can easily see the ToK issues manifest in the world around them ask them to choose objects before a prompt to write object specific commentaries.

If your students find it challenging to see the ToK issues manifest in the world around them, ask them to choose prompts and write knowledge arguments before  choosing specific objects to write specific commentaries.

The specifically important point is the specificity of the specific objects specific to the specific prompt.

Stay specific my friends,
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

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

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

We will cover:

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

2. Ways of avoiding / dealing with these problems.

3. Wider approaches to answering this question.

Problems / anomalies that are specific to this prompt.

Problem part 1: defining communities of knowers.

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

Recommendation #1:

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

Problem part #2: misinterpreting the prompt.

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

Recommendation #2:

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

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

Some of the wider ways of answering this prompt.

focus on 'belong'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Slow and Fast Evolution of Knowledge

A Dual Perspective for ToK Essay 3 May 24

If we think of the term “adopt” in the title of ToK Essay 3 May 24 as “evolve” we can develop strong evaluative arguments for this essay.. Sometimes, knowledge seems to evolve (progress?) at an astonishing rate, while at other times, it appears remarkably slow to adopt new ideas. Why is this so?

Let’s first address why knowledge might evolve quickly. Rapid advances often occur when there's an accumulation of research, technology, and collective willpower. A clear recent example is the development of COVID-19 vaccines, where global efforts and unprecedented funding led to quick breakthroughs. Furthermore, the internet has facilitated the fast dissemination of ideas, allowing people across the world to collaborate and innovate at breakneck speeds. Here, the keyword is not just "fast" but "accelerated," underlining the confluence of various factors that propel knowledge forward.

Conversely, there are instances when knowledge is slow to adopt new frameworks. One reason could be resistance from established institutions or authorities. The classic ToK example is Galileo's heliocentric model which faced fierce opposition from the Church, slowing its acceptance despite strong scientific evidence. Another contributing factor might be the complexity of the subject matter itself. Take, for example, the intricacies of quantum mechanics; despite being a century-old theory, it still presents challenges that researchers are grappling with. 

In the context of ToK Essay 3, this duality raises important questions. What are the ethical implications of rapidly evolving knowledge? Can quick advances lead to unforeseen negative consequences? On the flip side, when knowledge is slow to adopt new ideas, is society missing out on potential benefits? Could the reluctance to change be more harmful in the long run?

ToK Essay 3 offers us a far wider range of knowledge options than just those presented here if we think of it in terms of the evolution of 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 3 Guidance Notes, in these notes we fully develop the metaphor of evolution as a way to explain why we might be slow to adopt ideas. 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

Dracula and ToK: A Deeper Look into Theory of Knowledge

The Nexus of Dracula and ToK

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

Dracula through the Lens of Natural Sciences

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

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

Science and power (over mind & matter)

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

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

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

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

Deciphering Dracula in the Human Sciences

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

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

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

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

Unfolding Dracula in the Realm of the Arts

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

ToK Resources (indirectly linked to Dracula and ToK)

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

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

Are reason & emotion different forms of knowledge in ToK ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are emotions a form of knowledge ?

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

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

Reason in ToK: an oversimplification?

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

Neuroplasticity: is that reason or emotion?

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

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

So emotions have reason based causes?

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

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

Reason in ToK: The basis of scientific knowledge?

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, Aug 2023

Understanding Intuition in the Context of ToK

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

How Intuition and Emotions Fit Into ToK

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

AoK Natural Sciences: Defining Intuition

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

Neuro-Psychology and Intuition in ToK

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

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

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

Knowledge Questions about Sensory Perception in ToK

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

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

• Why did visual perception become the primary human sense?

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

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

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

The Importance of Intuition in ToK

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

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

Intuition's Neurological Basis and its Impact on ToK

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

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

ToK Exhibition Preparation

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

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

Stay TokTastic my friends,
Daniel, August 2023

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

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

The Little Prince: An Unusual ToK Resource

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

Getting to Know The Little Prince

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

The Construction of Knowledge: The Little Prince's Voyage

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

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

The Interpretation of Knowledge: Seeing with the Heart

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence and Claims: The Snake’s Riddle

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

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

Ethical Dilemmas: Taming the Fox

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

Conclusion: The Little Prince and ToK

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

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

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

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

Daniel, August 2023

What's the problem with history in ToK ?

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

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

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

An example of the problem of historical knowledge.

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

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

Relativist & Absolutist Approaches to History

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

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

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

Evaluation of relativist and absolutist approaches to History

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, July 2023

Help with ToK Essay:

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

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

Choosing your ToK Essay Question

Help with ToK Exhibition

Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes

What can Taylor Swift teach us about ToK?

How do I structure my ToK Exhibition Commentary?

What can Frankenstein teach us about ToK ?

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

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

Frankenstein: (V.) brief synopsis

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

Culture & Context for ToK

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

William Blake: a visionary thinker

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

Frankenstein: Sciences vs The Arts?

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

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

Frankenstein and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

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

Frankenstein & The Ethics of knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

More ToK help?:

What are the Examiners thinking? (ToK Exhibition)

How to write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps

What can Taylor Swift teach us about ToK?

Basic mistakes in the ToK Exhibition

Do the objects need to be personal ?

A frequent question I get asked is "Do the objects in my ToK Exhibition need to be personal to me?"

The answer is "No, but…,"

Why do people think ToK Exhibition objects have to be personal?

Nowhere in the IB marking scheme for The Exhibition does it say that the objects have to be personal to the student. The marking scheme does say that the objects have to have “Specific Real World Contexts”, and this gives us a clue as to why people think that the objects have to be personal. Let’s dig deeper..,

ToK Subject Report is a report written by the IB Tok Examiners (it’s a treasure trove of information - you should check it out), the Subject Report in May 2022 says:

Teachers should encourage their students to find objects from the real world rather than look for some generic image found online or elsewhere. This is basic to a successful exhibition so of utmost importance. Objects were sometimes detached from the candidate’s own experience as a knower or were too general to be successful (‘the bible’, ‘an iPhone’). This did not allow for the specificity required to explore the prompt and made clear the problem with generic images of objects. Candidates generally did well when they chose personal objects (a household object, an heirloom) or objects which were meaningful to them (a book they had read or studied, a statue or monument of a person they had studied in history or place they had visited, something from the news which they were interested in).

ToK Subject Report, IB, May 2022

So personal can be good, but not essential ?

It then goes on to say:

Images of objects that lacked in specificity led to unfocused commentaries. “Specific” here relates to the particularity, uniqueness, or singular nature of the object. Although a personal context can make an object more specific it is not the only way of doing so. Also, the specificity has to have a reason—there is no difference between “a bible” and “the bible from which my grandmother used to read to me when I was a child” unless the candidate uses the specificity of the object in its context to make some TOK related point.

ToK Subject Report, IB, May 2022

So, it’s not the ‘personal’ aspect of the object which is important, it’s the specificity of the object which is important. And the specificity has to relate to a ToK Knowledge point. If you want to know more about that then watch the next video in this series.

What makes an object "specific" ?

Let’s just look in a bit more detail at what is meant by a specific object:

Let's have a look at an example arising from an actual prompt, the prompt is “are some types of knowledge more useful than others” ? I'm going to look at the claim that the usefulness of knowledge depends on context if you don't know what I mean by claim then watch the next video in this series. So we're looking at the claim that the usefulness of knowledge depends on context and our object is a cactus and we've used the cactus because we're arguing that knowledge of which Cactus can provide water is more useful in a desert than a city, in this case the desert and the city are “context”.  On the other hand we could use the Saguaro cactus that children who were lost in the Australian desert in 1968 used to get water from.

I think that you can see that the Saguaro cactus example is a lot more specific than the first generic cactus. 

In this case your personal cactus, sitting on your window ledge at home, would not be a better object than the Saguaro Cactus because your personal cactus is not as specific to the prompt as the Saguaro Cactus.

If you need more help with your Exhibition check out the resources at this link, including the very popular Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained.

This is the third blog in this ToK Exhibition Mini Series. The other posts are:

#1: Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes

#2: Linking the object to the Prompt

Other ToK Exhibition Resources can be found at:

3 simple steps to write up 1 object for the ToK Exhibition.

What are the examiners thinking ? (ToK Exhibition)?

What can Taylor Swift teach us about ToK?

Link Object to The Prompt

ToK Exhibition Mini Series #2/4

Link ToK Exhibition Objects to the prompt.

What’s the most basic thing to get right in the ToK Exhibition ?

The first thing that moderating examiners are looking for when they assess your ToK exhibition is whether you have made a link between the object and the prompt. This link needs to be explicit and direct, and is best made frequently during the commentary.

Let’s briefly consider those words:

Explicit means using the word link, I am going to write “the link between my object and the prompt is”.

Direct means that I am going to use the words from the prompt in my answer.

If you do this then there is less chance that the examiner will overlook the link you make, and more chance that you are awarded the  marks. I know this sounds obvious, but you'd be amazed how many Exhibition Commentaries that I see where the student has not clearly made the link between the object and the prompt. Linking the ToK Exhibition Object to the prompt is crucial for scoring 2+ marks in the Exhibition.

Examples of direct and explicit links between the object & prompt.

Let’s have a look at some examples.

The first prompt is:  Why do we seek knowledge?

The object is: The Natural History Museum in London.

I am going to write : “The link between the Natural History Museum and the prompt is that the museum demonstrates that one of the reasons that we seek knowledge is to resolve unanswered questions”.

OK, maybe it’s a little cumbersome, so maybe we could refine it to:

“The Natural History Museum demonstrates that one of the reasons that seek knowledge is to resolve unanswered questions”.

It’s up to you whether you go with something cumbersome or more refined. Personally, I like to see the word link / linked in there as it reduces any potential equivocation on the part of the examiner.

The important point is that we have the words from the prompt in the answer. The prompt asks “why do we seek knowledge?”, so I have the words “seek knowledge” in my answer - I know it sounds ridiculously obvious, but lots of ToK students are not doing it, maybe they don’t do it because it seems so obvious, obviously.

Another example linking ToK Exhibition object to the prompt

Let’s look at another example:

The prompt is What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge?

The object is The Dragon’s Back Hiking Trail in Hong Kong.

I am going to write: “The link between the Dragon’s Back Hiking trail and the relationship between personal experience and knowledge is that it demonstrates that experience can lead to the formation of knowledge”.

Again, it’s a little cumbersome, but the Exhibition is not an exercise in refined prose, it’s an exercise in showing how ToK manifests itself in the world around us.

If you want more help with your Exhibition we have lots of resources available at this link, including the very popular Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained. Link in the video description.

The next blog in this series will be on choosing objects,.

For more blogs on the ToK Exhibition check out:

Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes (Blog 1/4 of ToK Exhibition Mini Series)

What are the Examiners thinking ? (ToK Exhibition)

How do I structure my ToK Exhibition Commentary?

Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes

I have been helping students from around the world with their ToK Exhibition Commentaries, here are 4 (very) Basic Mistakes that I see in a few ToK Commentaries:

Basic Mistake #1 : Insufficient Theory of Knowledge content.

ToK is about Knowledge. Write about Knowledge. The word “knowledge” should appear frequently in your commentary. I know it sounds super obvious but I do see commentaries that don't have the word ”knowledge” in them, it's very unlikely that you're writing about knowledge if you're not using the word knowledge.

Basic Mistake #2: Not answering the prompt

Some commentaries that do not address the prompt. These are commentaries that just ignore the question, or they treat the prompt as a stimulus for creative writing. A few common examples are: commentaries for the prompt “How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief & opinion ?” often just define knowledge, belief and opinion. That’s not the question, the question is how can we distinguish between the 3 concepts i.e. how can we determine the differences? It requires comparative writing not descriptive writing.

Basic Mistake #3: Changing the wording of the prompt.

The third mistake that I sometimes see is that the student has changed the wording of the prompt.

You must answer the prompt as written by IB. Don’t change the wording of the prompt.

For example, commentaries responding to the Prompt: “Are some types of knowledge more useful than others ?” often rewrite it as “Are some types of knowledge more important than others ?”, and students responding to the prompt “what makes a good explanation ?” describe good and bad explanations without focussing on what characteristics make them good & bad explanations.

Basic Mistake #4: Changing the meaning of the prompt.

The final mistake that I sometimes see is where the student has changed the meaning of the prompt. For example students answering the Prompt: “Why do we seek knowledge ?” sometimes respond to “How do we seek knowledge ?”. Another example is students responding to the prompt “Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds?” change the meaning to “When can we justify seeking knowledge unethically ?”

There’s a difference, it’s a subtle difference, but it’s a difference all the same,

If you want more help  with your Exhibition we have lots of other resources available, including the very popular ebook Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained.

Click here for more ToK Exhibition Resources.

In the next blog in this series we will look at how to link the objects with the prompt.