Can history ever be both reliable AND valid ?

Scientific Anomalies in the production of knowledge.

If you’re writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary you may be interested in:

The Ebook : How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps

Daniel Trump 7/25/23 Daniel Trump 7/25/23

Bertrand Russell and ToK

Bertrand Russell and ToK: A Historic Connection

This is Bertrand Russell, he wrote the book on Theory of Knowledge. He actually wrote the book called Theory of Knowledge back in 1913 which brought together the ideas which created ToK as we know it. We need to talk about Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell: A Beacon in the Structuralism Movement

English philosopher Bertrand Russell was a leading light in the Structuralism movement. My last blog was an introduction to structuralism, explaining why it is key for ToK.

Bertrand Russell, ToK, and the Influences of Henri Poincare

To understand Bertrand Russell’s role in structuralism, and consequently the founding of ToK we need to go back to the work of French Mathematician Henri Poincare

Poincare laid the foundations for Epistemic structural realism, this is a perspective on the nature of scientific knowledge. Epistemic Structural realism was proposed as a compromise between scientific realism and instrumentalism, it states that our best scientific theories provide a correct account of the structure of the world, but not necessarily of its nature or ontology.

Poincaré, a mathematician and physicist, suggested that while we may not know the true nature of things, we can discern their relationships, which are more real and stable. He used mathematics as an example, stating that the relationships between mathematical entities (like numbers or geometric shapes) were more fundamental than the entities themselves.

Knowledge by Acquaintance vs Knowledge by Description: Bertrand Russell's Perspective

Bertrand Russell, in the early 20th century, advanced this idea by distinguishing between "knowledge by acquaintance" and "knowledge by description". He asserted that our direct, immediate experiences (acquaintance) were limited and that much of our knowledge was derived from the relations or structures that we could infer (description). Russell's work in logic and the philosophy of mathematics, with its focus on structural relationships, further developed the structuralist perspective.

Building upon these early ideas, John Worrall in the late 20th century proposed "Structural Realism" as a solution to the pessimistic meta-induction problem in the philosophy of science. This problem suggests that since many successful past scientific theories have been discarded, our current successful theories are likely to be discarded in the future as well. Worrall argued that while theories do change, what tends to remain are the structural aspects. So, it is the structure of the world that our theories get right, not necessarily the nature of its constituents.

James Ladyman, a contemporary philosopher, further refined this to "Ontic Structural Realism", which posits that there are no objects or entities at the fundamental level of physics, only structures.

Bertrand Russell, ToK, and the Modern Implications of Epistemic Structuralism

To appreciate this perspective, consider the transition from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics, with its focus on solid particles and forces, was replaced by a quantum field theory, with its emphasis on energy fields and probabilities. Yet, despite this dramatic change in our understanding, many of the structural aspects, like conservation laws and symmetries, persisted.

In the real world, consider how we understand social networks. We may not know the detailed personal characteristics of every individual in a network (akin to the entities), but we can often make accurate predictions based on the structure of the network – who is connected to whom, the number of connections, etc. The structure provides us with knowledge, even when the nature of individual elements remains unknown.

Epistemic structuralism has implications in many areas of knowledge. In sciences, it emphasizes the importance of relational properties, like the mathematical equations that describe natural phenomena. In social sciences, it underscores the significance of social, economic, and political structures in shaping individual experiences.

Critiquing Structuralism: Insights from Bertrand Russell and ToK

Critics, however, argue that it is nearly impossible to separate structure from the objects that constitute it, and it undervalues the role of entities in constituting the world. Despite these critiques, structuralism provides a unique perspective on knowledge production, reminding us that understanding the world often requires looking beyond individual objects or experiences, focusing instead on the relationships and structures that bind them together. We’re going to be looking at these critics in a lot more detail in the next, and final, blog in this series on structuralism.

If you’re doing your ToK Essay you may be interested in:

Scientific Anomalies in the production of knowledge.

If you’re writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary you may be interested in:

The Ebook : How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps

Daniel Trump 7/20/23 Daniel Trump 7/20/23

ToK and Structuralism: A Study of Knowledge or Relationships?

Structuralism and ToK sounds complex, let's start with a straightforward question:

Is ToK (Theory of Knowledge) the study of knowledge or is it actually the study of the relationship between phenomena? We can explore this using some illustrative examples.

Understanding the World Through Structuralism

Using the masterful drawings by Dutch artist MC Escher, we can delve deeper into these relationships. Notice the blue and white-grey fish; Do they define each other? Could one exist without the other? Are the fish at all important, or is it the relationship between them which is vital?

Similarly, look at this other illustration. The color of the animal does not accord with a specific animal, so is the shape determined by the animals around it? This brings us to the idea of structuralism, where it's the relationships between things that define them rather than the things themselves. This concept forms the backbone of much of what we learn in ToK.

Some of the people who wrote the theory of knowledge believe that it is the relationship between things which forms knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. These people are called Structuralists, and their thinking informs much of what we learn in ToK. Therefore I think we need to look at structuralism in more detail.

The Birth and Expansion of Structuralism

Structuralism emerged in the early 20th century through the work of linguists like Ferdinand de Saussure and later expanded to other fields by scholars such as Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology and Louis Althusser in philosophy. Structuralism is a way of understanding how we interpret and construct meaning from our experiences, and therefore it is one way of explaining how we produce and acquire knowledge.

Understanding Structuralism: Relationships and Structures

At its core, structuralism proposes that our understanding of reality is not based on individual elements themselves, but rather on the relationships and structures that connect these elements. De Saussure argued that language, for instance, functions not due to the inherent meanings of words, but because of the differential network of relationships between them. For example, we understand the meaning of "day" because we understand its difference from "night"

Structuralism: Binary opposite relations.

In this perspective, meaning is constituted through binary oppositions and relations, implying that the essence of any element can only be comprehended in its relation to others within a given structure. This idea rejects the notion of intrinsic meaning, emphasising instead the collective structures that underpin our understanding and knowledge. As such knowledge does not have inherent meaning, but is relative and contestable.

Structuralism and ToK: Decoding the Interconnectedness

Applying this to ToK, the structuralist view suggests that these structures are not just external, but also internalised and form a crucial part of our cognitive apparatus. ToK Essay prompts often delve into the organisation & classification of knowledge, and many ToK Exhibition questions address structuralism.

Structuralism in Areas of Knowledge

In AoK The Arts, and Optional Themes Knowledge and Language, religion and indigenous societies, structuralist ideas, as proposed by Claude Lévi-Strauss, extend to the study of cultures. These ideas lead us to focus not on the knowledge itself, but on the underlying structures that define it. Strauss proposed that cultural phenomena like myths, rituals, and social norms can be understood as systems of symbolic communication operating on structural laws. The meanings of these phenomena emerge from their position within a larger, structured set of cultural relations.

As such we’re not focussing on the knowledge itself (e.g. knowledge as objects), but we’re looking at the underlying structures on which we place, or define knowledge. You will have come across this in many of your hexagon diploma studies. For example in Language A you may have looked at textual structures, story arcs or narrative structures. In Language B you will have looked at verb structures. In Individuals and Societies & Natural Sciences you may have looked at the methodology for carrying out research, and so on. The underlying structures on which knowledge is formed and defined are all around us.

Structuralism and Its Profound Impact

Structuralism’s core tenet, that meaning and knowledge are dependent on structures of relationships, has profoundly shaped our understanding of knowledge, language, culture, and cognition. It remains a critical tool for exploring how we generate and organise knowledge, offering deep insights into the relational nature of meaning and understanding.

Looking Ahead: Exploring Structuralism Further in ToK

In the next blog in this mini-series on Structuralism and ToK, I will look at how the work of some key structuralist writers has influenced our Theory of Knowledge. In the final blog in the series, I will address the critique of structuralism, and consider some post-structuralists.

Stay toktastic my friends.

If you’re doing your ToK Essay you may be interested in:

Scientific Anomalies in the production of knowledge.

If you’re writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary you may be interested in:

The Ebook : How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps

Daniel Trump 7/18/23 Daniel Trump 7/18/23

Cause & Effect in ToK

Establishing cause and effect in ToK underpins so much of ToK, it’s at the heart of Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, Mathematics, and History. Many of the ToK Essay prescribed titles are centrally concerned with establishing cause and effect, yet causality is not one of the ToK concepts (however most of them are linked to causality). In ToK Cause and Effect is not explicitly mentioned at all in The IB ToK Study Guide, and it’s not built into the course structure as a standalone unit. So, today on ToKToday we’re going to redress that balance - we’re going to look at cause and effect in ToK.

Establishing ToK cause and effect relationships is one of the most significant challenges in the pursuit and production of knowledge. It is a fundamental aspect of reasoning, yet the problems of discerning whether A causes B, or if there are other unseen factors at play, can be difficult to untangle.

History of causation

Key epistemologists have long grappled with this issue of cause and effect in ToK. Scottish philosopher David Hume, for example, was sceptical about the idea of causality. He suggested that we can never observe cause and effect directly, only their constant conjunction (events occurring together), as such we merely infer causal relationships, rather than knowing them as objective facts.

Following Hume, Immanuel Kant posited that while we may not directly observe causality, we structure our perceptions based on ToK cause and effect. It's an a priori mental schema that allows us to make sense of the world. Without this cognitive structure, he argued, the world would be a chaotic and incomprehensible stream of experiences.

In more recent times, the philosopher Nancy Cartwright, has critiqued the assumption that laws of nature (often seen as ultimate causes in AoK Natural Sciences) universally apply. She claims that many scientific laws only hold under very specific conditions and can't be easily generalised. This raises questions about whether establishing cause and effect in ToK is as straightforward as it seems in AoK Natural Sciences, one of the fields where this approach is considered most valid.

Some of the problems of establishing cause and effect in ToK include:

Multiple variables interacting to produce an effect - this makes it difficult to isolate the specific variable combinations required to produce that effect.
Identifying the specific conditions in which certain variables are required to produce effects.
Identifying whether the relationship between variables and their effects is directly causal or merely associative.
Establishing whether the variables identified are primary, or whether they themselves are secondary, or tertiary effects etc.

Theories of knowledge production also recognise that cause and effect in ToK may not always be necessary or possible to establish. The reason is that knowledge is produced for different purposes, and its desired end determines the methods used in its production.

Paradigms & History and Cause & Effect

The philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, highlighted how scientific paradigms determine what counts as a legitimate cause or effect. Paradigms, or widely accepted scientific frameworks, shape the questions that can be asked, and thus the knowledge that can be produced. When the paradigm shifts, so too do the cause and effect relationships that were once taken for granted.

In other areas of knowledge, cause and effect relationships may be even more elusive. The AoK Human Sciences is characterised by the complexity and variability of human behaviour often makes it difficult to pinpoint singular causes.

In AoK History Historical knowledge rarely fits neatly into ToK cause and effect frameworks. The historian E.H. Carr argued that causes in history are multi-layered, and the idea of a singular cause is more of a heuristic device than an accurate representation of the past.

A few words on The Arts and cause & effect

Moreover, in AoK The Arts, knowledge production may be more concerned with evoking emotional responses, exploring aesthetic values, or generating critique, rather than establishing cause and effect. For instance, a novelist might not need to prove a causal link between a character’s upbringing and their later actions; the focus instead might be on a rich and nuanced portrayal of the character’s experience.

So, while establishing cause and effect can offer powerful explanations, and is central to much of our reasoning, it is not always the ultimate aim nor is it always possible in the production of knowledge. By recognising the limits of cause and effect can help us to better understand the complexity of the world, and to appreciate the many ways that knowledge can be produced and used.

If you want more content to help you with ToK check out the learning resources available on our student resources page. You can contact me for help with your ToK Essay or Exhibition either by Facebook Messenger on the TokToday.com website, or by emailing me Daniel@TokToday.com, more details here.

Stay toktastic my friends.

If you’re doing your ToK Essay you may be interested in:

Scientific Anomalies in the production of knowledge.

If you’re writing your ToK Exhibition Commentary you may be interested in:

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

Daniel Trump 7/13/23 Daniel Trump 7/13/23

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:

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?