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

Antarctica: Most recent evidence strongest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 23

Detailed guidance video for ToK Essay 6 May 24

Library of Alexandria: Custodians of Knowledge

What can the destruction of the Library of Alexandria tell us about whether we need custodians of Knowledge ?

The Library of Alexandria, situated in Alexandria, Egypt, was one of antiquity's most renowned centres of knowledge and scholarly activity. Founded in the 3rd century BCE under the Ptolemaic dynasty, it aimed to collect the world's wisdom. However, its destruction is shrouded in mystery and has become synonymous with the loss of invaluable knowledge. Various accounts suggest different phases of decline and destruction.

The first significant blow is thought to have occurred in 48 BCE when Julius Caesar set fire to ships in Alexandria's harbour; the flames purportedly spread to parts of the city, including the library. Additional harm was inflicted under the reign of Emperor Theophilus in 391 CE, who sought to eliminate pagan influences, and further during the decree of Theodosius that closed all pagan temples. In 642 CE, after the Islamic conquest of Alexandria, any remaining traces of the library were possibly lost forever. 

The cumulative effects of these incidents resulted in the irretrievable loss of countless ancient scrolls, texts, documents and artefacts.  

What are The ToK implications of the destruction of the library?

The Library of Alexandria could be seen as a custodian of knowledge. At the time of its first destruction It was thought to contain the greatest documented collection of human knowledge up to that point in time. It was a protective store of all that was thought to be worthy to document and store, a veritable vault of the best knowledge of human civilisation. As such, its destruction could be seen as a significant rupture in the continuum of human knowledge.

This argument could be seen as the reason why we do need custodians of knowledge, the documents in the library could have provided us with an understanding of how the ancient world operated, their tools and engineering techniques, their values and belief systems, and their social organisation. Some of this knowledge may have helped us in the subsequent 2000 yrs to avoid some of the mistakes that we’ve made, and to produce better knowledge still. Much of this was lost in the three main destructive events. 

This is the cumulative theory of knowledge, and creates a fairly compelling (if obvious) argument as to why we need Custodians of Knowledge.

However, can we develop counter-arguments, arguments that the loss of the knowledge in the library did not create significant problems, or may even have been a positive for the development of new knowledge ? In other words can we develop arguments that don’t need custodians of knowledge.

Counterarguments to the need for Custodians of Knowledge

Exclusivity.

The first argument against the positive role of the Library could be developed from the exclusivity of knowledge. It is a fair assumption that not many people had the ability to read and write in the ancient world. It wasn’t so long ago that even in today’s fully literate societies a minority of people could read and write. If these skills were also rare in the ancient world then access to the knowledge held in the Library at Alexandria would have been limited and restricted to a minority of people. Add to this that access would probably have been granted according to membership of elite groups based on religious, political or academic interests  and social class and we start to see that this knowledge would have been the reserve of an elite group. Exclusionary access to knowledge can often develop into power hierarchies which can be used to consolidate and further reproduce privilege. The challenges for the evolution of knowledge that such power hierarchies can create leads us to our second argument against the Library as a Custodian of Knowledge, that is the problem of innovation.

Innovation

If a select group of people have access to knowledge that they use to consolidate their own power we can see an inherent conservation and possible stagnation in that knowledge. There are very few pressures on knowledge to be adapted and evolved it it serves to maintain the current conditions. As such innovative ideas, or new knowledge, are far less likely to appear. If they do appear they are far less likely to be accepted into the library of ‘legitimised knowledge’. This is the gatekeepers argument of the ancient world.For example a stonemason is far less likely to have a great new idea for building pyramids if they are unable to read the established knowledge for building pyramids, and even if they did have that great new idea it is far less likely to be accepted and adopted if they are not part of the social, religious or political groups that have access to, and authorise, knowledge in the library.

This argument is that exclusive libraries can stifle the innovation of new ideas, or new knowledge.

People as knowers.

The third argument is based on the means, or location, of the storage of knowledge, in some ways it is an argument about technology. Some societies don’t have writing, these are often called oral cultures, non-literate or pre-literate cultures, some indigenous cultures fit into this category. In these societies knowledge is stored in people rather than in books, and documents. The knowledge of the society is the sum total of all the knowledge in the society. People pass knowledge to each other, and from one generation to the next using stories, music and art. These societies could be seen as having more inclusive access to knowledge than literate societies, roughly in an oral society everyone has the rights and means to access all of the knowledge. It could be argued that knowledge in such societies is far more open to innovation, evolution and fresh ideas. New knowledge will arise from the lived experiences of the people, and will be verified and legitimised through collective experiences. It could be argued that libraries take people away from the primary experience of knowledge, and therefore remove both their awareness and acceptance of new experiences, and therefore potential new knowledge. This is an argument that libraries stifle innovation.

Summary

In summary we could argue that the destruction of the library of Alexandria may have led to increased pressures for the innovation of new knowledge because the established knowledge was destroyed. This new knowledge may have been better adapted for the new conditions (such as living under the new Roman or later Byzantine Empires), and it may have led to more people both contributing to the development of this knowledge, and knowing the new knowledge.

Of course, personally I don’t believe any of this, I think that knowledge is sacred, libraries are temples of enlightenment, and that we should never destroy books nor libraries. But such are the lengths that we are willing to go to in the pursuit of counter arguments in ToK.

If you want to know more for essay 5 (or any of the other May 24 Essays), if you want detailed guidance notes then click here . These guidance notes give you knowledge arguments, counter arguments,  real world examples, evaluation points and implications.

Please feel free to contact me for help and advice with your ToK Essay (Daniel@ToKToday.com),

Enjoy your writing, Stay toktastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23

JUMBOS : What are the implications for ToK?

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

As reported on Earth.com:

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

The Orion Nebula 

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

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

Mysterious origins

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

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

ToK Implications of the discovery of JUMBOS

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

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

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

More ToK Implications arising from the discovery of Jumbos

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

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

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

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

What are the ToK implications of this new knowledge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halloween ToK Triple Bill

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

• Dracula

• Frankenstein

• Unexplained things

The ToK of Dracula and Frankenstein

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

The ToK of the unexplainable.

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

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

Enjoy your halloween season!
Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23

Why are explanations difficult?

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

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

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

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

Atlantis: A case of confirmation bias ?

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

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

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

The Lost Civilisation Hypothesis: The power of assumptions.

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

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

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

The Sphinx: accept the pre-existing knowledge base ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other links to commonly recurring ToK content includes:

• Questions without answers.

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

• Theories fitting evidence or evidence fitting theories ?

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, October 2023

ToK Exhibition: What do we know in Oct 23?

Questions that frequently arise about the ToK Exhibition include:

• Is it better for our objects to be personal?

• How do we justify the inclusion of the object in the exhibition ?

• and what's actually meant by evidence?

The best place to find definitive answers to these questions is in the TOK Subject Report. This is a report written by the TOK examiners after each exam session. It's great, it gives you the inside track on what you're actually supposed to do in the TOK exhibition (and essay). If you haven't seen it, ask your teacher for a copy. They can share it with you. The latest subject report has just come out, reporting on the May 23 exam session. What can it tell us about the ToK Exhibition ?

Q1: Do my objects have to personal to me ?

Well, let's look at what the subject report says. It says, "Examiners noted that when students choose objects that they are familiar with and interested in, they are more successful in exploring the aspects of knowledge that these objects reveal."

So the objects don't have to be personal to you, but they should be familiar to you. You should be familiar with them. Now, I read a great exhibition from Hong Kong last year. The student had used the bus that she took to school every day as one of her objects. Obviously, a bus is not personal to her. It's used by many people, but she's familiar with it. It has significance to her. It has TOK significance. And she can draw those TOK arguments out from it.

The subject report goes on to say (about the May 23 session) "Objects that were used ranged from personal to more general, and there was an interesting variety of objects. However, generic objects that were not specifically situated in time or place were challenging for students to explore successfully, as they led to generalised or sweeping assertions."

ToK Subject Report May 2023

So, we see that it's the significance of the TOK knowledge arguments that can be drawn from the object, which is more important, rather than its personal relevance to you.

Q2: "Does my exhibition have to be connected to a theme?"

Your Exhibition does not have to be connected to a them. However, it can be helpful, but it can also be harmful. This is what the subject report says about connecting your TOK exhibition to a theme:

"The guide strongly recommends that students select a theme to focus their exhibition. It was pleasing to see more students using the optional or core themes to guide their choices of objects, and this supported their links to and interpretation of the prompt.

Even so, examiners noted that some instances where the use of a theme narrowed the discussion or resulted in the repetition of the same idea across the commentaries will come back to this, and this was most evident when the themes of knowledge and religion or knowledge and technology were used."

ToK Subject Report May 2023

This is really interesting for us. They don't like it if you use the same knowledge arguments or the same knowledge point across all three objects. You've got to have different knowledge points for each object, and that will give you the higher marks. If you want to know more about this, check out all of the TOK exhibition content that I have on TOK today. You need three different knowledge arguments, one argument for each object. In some ways, the objects don't really matter. It's the knowledge arguments that you draw out for them. Okay, on to the next question.

Q3: How do I justify the inclusion of the object in the exhibition?

The subject report makes it really clear that this is the most important part of the exhibition. The chief examiner says:

"As the core of the task, justifying the contribution that the specific object makes to the exhibition requires the most attention." The subject report explains that the justification comes after linking the object to the prompt, and that the justification is, and I quote, "It's the next step in the exploration after the link. It is the stronger and more detailed explanation of the link between the object and the prompt." For that, the specific context that the object is needed. A generic object will not give any TOK arguments to talk about. The justification will discuss what it is about that that specific object in its time and place that is so interesting for the prompt."

ToK Subject Report May 2023

So here again, we've got a key thing that the specificity of the object, or whether it's personal to you or whether you're familiar with it, leads to the knowledge argument. So you can't just say, you know, "This is a football shirt." But if you say, "This is the football shirt that I was wearing when I realized that knowledge is made in collaboration with other people," then you're going to get some marks.

Q4: "What constitutes evidence?"

Okay, well, the subject report makes clear that evidence is required to support arguments and claims. It says, and I quote again,

"They," that's you students, "must not make unsupported claims. Evidence may take many forms. It may, for instance, come from external sources in their studies or beyond."

ToK Subject Report May 2023

Now, I actually think that the November 22 subject report is far clearer on what constitutes evidence. The November 22 subject report says,

"Evidence needs to be factual and not made up to suit the point." And there are many different ways to provide evidence, such as the details pulled from the objects themselves, connections between the object and something else, such as a study, a research study, documentary evidence, a news item, or an informed or expert opinion. How the evidence relates to the prompt must be clearly expressed and must be characterized as a genuine, ToK exploration".

ToK Subject Report Nov 2022

So generally, I advise students that a simple reference for a significant claim relating to their knowledge argument will suffice for evidence. Just cite a reference.

For more help, check out our free video series on how to do the TOK exhibition linked here

For even more help, check out the ToK Today blogposts which give examples of exhibition commentaries for the most popular prompts.

For even more help, check out the ToK Today blogposts which give examples of exhibition commentaries for the most popular prompts.

And for even more help, check out our full explanations of every ToK Exhibition Prompt.

Daniel, Lisbon, Oct 23

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

Barbara McClintock and the Tale of "Jumping Genes"

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

Challenging the Status Quo

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

Defying the Evidence

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

Vindication and a Nobel Prize

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

Thoughts for ToK Essay 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September

Detailed guidance video for Essay #6 May 24

Different Forms of Knowledge Have Different Forms of Evidence: Thinking about ToK Essay 6

The concept that different forms of knowledge require different forms of evidence is an approach that could be explored in ToK Essay 6 May 24. IIt could be argued that knowledge and evidence are mutually inclusive concepts, albeit in complex ways.

As such, I thought it would be useful to look at a few different types, or forms, of knowledge, and the evidence from which they are constituted. 

Scientific Knowledge

Arguably the most rigorous in its demand for evidence, scientific knowledge hinges on empirical data produced by the scientific method. Through the scientific method—observation, hypothesis, experiment, and analysis—evidence is amassed and evaluated, allowing theories to be refined or refuted.

Artistic Knowledge

In many ways, artistic knowledge could present a nice contrast. It doesn't always rely on empirical evidence, but possibly on subjective experience and intuition. The evidence here is interpretative, assessed through the emotional and intellectual response of the audience.

Emotional Knowledge

In understanding ourselves and others, emotional intelligence plays a role that is difficult to quantify. Here, evidence often comes in the form of interpersonal experiences and self-reflection, far removed from empirical scrutiny but essential to our social fabric.

Physical Knowledge

Sports and physical activities bring forth another form of knowledge, one that is gained through practice and muscle memory. The evidence for this kind of knowledge is experiential and somatic; your body "knows" how to execute a specific move, guided by countless repetitions and incremental improvements.

Philosophical Knowledge

Lastly, philosophical knowledge stands out as it frequently relies on logical reasoning and dialectics. Its evidence takes shape in compelling arguments, rigorous debate, and the careful sifting of premises and conclusions.

The types of evidence required for different forms of knowledge can range from hard data to lived experience.  It may be useful to develop arguments along these lines when considering whether the recency of evidence influences its “strength” in ToK Essay 6.

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023

Detailed guidance video for ToK Essay 6 May 24

Overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens on ToK Essay 6 May 24

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

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

The Range of Needs Fulfilled by Knowledge

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

Knowledge as the Source of Needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023

Detailed guidance video for Essay 5 May 24

Initial overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens on Essay 5 May 24

Useful for ToK Essay 5 May 24

Useful for Essay 5 May 24

Is a Custodian a Good or Bad Thing? (PT5 May 24)

The term 'custodian' carries with it a range of possible implications, both positive and negative, particularly when applied to knowledge and knowing. ToK Essay 5 May 24 asks us to consider whether we need custodians of knowledge. Obviously, this question requires us to consider the nature of the role of custodians of knowledge.

In the most conventional sense, a custodian is someone responsible for the maintenance, preservation, and safeguarding of something valuable. This can be a vital function, especially in a world where information can be manipulated or lost. In academia and research, custodians ensure that valuable insights, methodologies, and data are not only preserved but are also made accessible for future generations. In this sense, being a custodian can be seen as inherently good, as they serve to protect and propagate understanding and wisdom.

However, the term also has other, alternative, meanings in English. 'Custody' might imply restriction or containment. In a legal framework, for instance, to be 'in custody' means to be held, often against one's will. Could this be a metaphor for withholding knowledge from those who seek it? There are instances where custodians become gatekeepers, limiting access to knowledge for various reasons — be it political, economical, or ethical. This restriction can stifle innovation, perpetuate inequality, and become a tool for oppression.

So, is being a custodian good or bad?  We could consider the metaphor in terms of a role with significant responsibility, the impact of a custodian largely depends on the ethics, intentions, and methods of the individual or institution defined as such. Students developing arguments for ToK Essay 5 on the need for custodians of knowledge may want to consider  that the term 'custodian' has a range of possible definitions. It can symbolise both the preserveration, limitation and maybe even the liberation 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 5 Guidance Notes, in these notes we cover the basics on why we may, or may not, need custodians of knowledge. We also look at some of the higher level arguments on whether these needs could still be fulfilled without custodians of knowledge.. This year we have two versions of the notes: 

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

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

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

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023

Detailed guidance video ToK Essay 5 May 24

Overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens on ToK Essay 5 May 24

Useful for ToK Essay 5 May 24

Useful for ToK Essay 5 May 24

Is the Underestimator the Object or the Subject? (PT#4 May 24)

When thinking about ToK Essay question 4 ( "Why do we underestimate the challenges of the transfer of knowledge?"), I worried that students might focus on the challenges of knowledge transfer. However, the real crux of the question lies not in the challenges, but in the act of underestimating them. This (potentially knotty) twist leads me to consider who the 'object' and the 'subject' are in this question ? The keyword 'underestimate' serves as a pivot, compelling us to examine the act of underestimating and its possible underpinnings as it links to "ToK Essay 4".

Subject and Object.

A quick refresher:, the subject is usually the observer or the thinker, whilst the object is what is observed or thought about. The works of philosophers like Descartes and Kant have long grappled with the relationship between subjects and objects. Kant argued  that our knowledge of objects is shaped by our subjective experiences.

Who is Underestimating?

In the context of underestimating the challenges of knowledge transfer, the 'we'—or the subject—becomes central. The challenges, in this case, serve as the 'object'. The underestimation, then, is not an attribute of the object but a function of the subject. This human propensity to underestimate complicates the efforts to understand and manage the complex process of transferring knowledge from one context to another.

The Object of Our Underestimation

Our knowledge of any object is complex and perspective based, involving many variables from cultural to linguistic contexts. Yet, the act of underestimation stems from the subject, possibly owing to cognitive biases, limitations in understanding, or even arrogance. The question compels us to look inward and question why we, as subjects, often fail to fully grasp the complexity of the objects we engage with.

Conclusion

As students contemplating "ToK Essay 4" or anyone interested in the subject, understanding that the issue revolves around why 'we' underestimate the challenges rather than what those challenges are is the actual challenge ! It's not just about the difficulties in knowledge transfer; it's about our subjective tendency to underestimate them.

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 4 Guidance Notes, in these notes we get into why we (as either object or subject) might underestimate the challenges of transferring knowledge from one context to another . 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 202

The Various Contexts of Knowledge

If you’re writing ToK Essay 4 May 24 (Knowledge Transfer) it may be useful to think critically about the term “context”. From the historical time period of knowledge production to the cultural values of the contemporary knower, the context of knowledge can significantly shape the interpretation, use, and validation of knowledge. In this blog, we'll explore the various contexts in which knowledge exists, making it a useful resource for those looking to tackle 'ToK Essay 4' or understand the challenges of  transferring knowledge from one context to another.

knowledge has many contexts

A few of the contexts within which knowledge may exist (there are many others): 

Historical Context

Historical time periods often influence the type of knowledge that gets produced and how it is interpreted. For instance, the scientific discoveries of the Enlightenment were profoundly shaped by the intellectual climate of the time, which was committed to reason and empirical observation.

Cultural Values

The cultural background of the knower affects how knowledge is acquired, internalised, and disseminated. Culture shapes what we deem important or trivial, affecting our lens for interpreting information. 

Power Context

Knowledge isn't just neutral; it is often shaped by power dynamics. Who has the authority to produce and disseminate knowledge? These questions are crucial in understanding the credibility and legitimacy of what we 'know.'

Gender Context

From the inclusion or exclusion of women in scientific research to gender biases in literature, the role of gender cannot be dismissed when discussing knowledge. Gender context often dictates the focus and methodology of knowledge production, affecting its application and interpretation.

Language Context

Language isn't just a medium for conveying knowledge; it shapes knowledge itself. The limitations and possibilities of language play a role in how ideas are formed, communicated, and understood.

Religious Context

Religious beliefs and values can significantly impact the type of knowledge that is accepted, rejected, or modified. In religious contexts, certain kinds of knowledge may be prioritised, while others may be disregarded or even condemned.

Conclusion

ToK Essay 4 asks us to consider why we underestimate the challenges of knowledge transfer. One of teh approaches to answering this is consider the complexities of the contexts of knowledge: the ways in which these various contexts mix, and further, influence what is known and how it is known.  For students grappling with 'ToK Essay 4,' developing these knowledge arguments can offer an approach to the reasons why we might (or might not) underestimate the challenges transferring knowledge from one context to another. Considering context provides a richer, more nuanced understanding of what we know and how we come to know it.

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 4 Guidance Notes, in these notes we get into reasons why we might underestimate the challenges of knowledge transfer . 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

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

Definitions of Fresh Ideas.

An Exploration for ToK Essay 3 May 24

Is a "fresh idea" simply new, or innovative, knowledge? Is there a hidden meaning that we have to discover? What could constitute a fresh idea? We’re considering this question for Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay 3. Clearly, "fresh ideas in knowledge" can be defined in myriad ways.

One approach to defining fresh ideas is through the lens of originality. In this perspective, a fresh idea is one that is novel, breaking new ground in a particular field. It might be a groundbreaking scientific theory or an innovative solution to a long-standing problem. This type of fresh idea can gain attention for its potential to redefine what we know or how we think about a subject.

However, fresh ideas are not solely confined to groundbreaking new knowledge, or discoveries. They can also mean  new combinations of existing knowledge. Take, for example, the interdisciplinary approach to solving complex problems. Here, elements from different domains are merged to create a new, more comprehensive understanding. These fresh ideas may not be 'new' in the strictest sense, but they offer a unique viewpoint, enhancing our collective wisdom.

We could also consider the cultural dimension of ‘fresh ideas’. What might be considered a fresh idea in one cultural context may not be perceived the same way in another. This adds another layer of perspective based knowledge to our definition. Opportunities for discussions on the relativity and contextual nature of fresh ideas in knowledge production become apparent.

We could argue that fresh ideas serve as catalysts in an evolving body of knowledge. Whether through sheer originality, the recombination of existing knowledge, or cultural interpretations, fresh ideas could be the means by which AoK develops and expand. As explored in ToK Essay 3, developing one or more of these varied definitions will be central to the discussion in the essay.

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 get into what the opposing demands might be for specialised and generalised knowledge, and how we could reconcile these demands . This year we have two versions of the notes: 

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

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

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

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023

Detailed Guidance video for Essay 3 May 24

Initial overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens for Essay 3 May 24

Useful for Essay 3 May 24

What Could Be Meant by Generalization in Maths?

Insights for ToK Essay 2

The idea of generalization in AoK mathematics has certainly become more conspicuous since Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay 2 was published a couple of weeks ago. So today, we look at what could be meant by "generalisation” (I’m going to use the British spelling because I’m British) in maths? In essence, generalisation in this discipline involves applying mathematical knowledge, initially developed to solve a specific problem, to a broader range of issues. It could also involve understanding new cause-and-effect relationships using mathematical concepts, or principles, derived from previously studied cause-and-effect relationships.

In ToK Essay 2, the notion of generalisation can give rise to discussion about the nature and scope of mathematical knowledge. Does generalisation in maths lead to more 'true' or 'universal' forms of understanding, as opposed to the limited scope offered by specialisation? What are the ethical considerations, if any, when applying generalised mathematical models to real-world scenarios?

Generalisation also plays a role in understanding newly observed cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, the principles behind the spread of disease could be mathematically modelled, drawing from prior models related to diffusion or information dissemination. By leveraging existing mathematical frameworks, researchers can quickly make sense of new phenomena, making generalisation a powerful tool for both scientific inquiry and problem-solving.

As such, we start to see that generalisation in maths serves as a bridge between specific mathematical problems and broader applications. It allows mathematicians (and scientists amongst others) to extrapolate from known situations to solve new, unexplored problems. In ToK Essay 2 you can discuss the challenges and limitations of this approach alongside the value of generalisation in expanding the scope and applicability of mathematical knowledge. It not only aids in the advancement of the field but also enhances our understanding of the world through the universality of mathematics.

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 2 Guidance Notes, in these notes we get into what the opposing demands might be for specialised and generalised knowledge, and how we could reconcile these demands. This year we have two versions of the notes: 

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

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

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

Stay Toktastic my friends,
Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023

Detailed guidance video for Essay #2 May 24

Initial overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens for Essay 2 May 24

What Could Be Meant by Specialization in Maths?

A Deep Dive into Specialization for ToK Essay 2

Specialization in maths became a matter of interest to many after the publication of Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay 2 earlier this month. The concept of specialisation (I’m going to use the British spelling because I’m British) may conjure images of mathematicians buried in complex equations, but what does it really entail? In essence, specialisation in maths refers to the focus on developing specific mathematical tools and theories designed to solve particular types of problems or to advance particular subfields within mathematics.

Mathematics, as a discipline, is vast and multifaceted, covering everything from algebra and geometry to calculus and statistics. Each of these subfields can be considered a form of specialisation in maths, where experts dive deeply into specific areas to expand knowledge and solve complex problems. For example, a statistician might focus solely on the development of predictive models, while a number theorist could be engrossed in the properties and relationships of numbers in various forms.

In ToK Essay 2 discussions, specialisation in maths raises questions about the nature of knowledge itself. Does specialising in a specific area limit a mathematician's perspective, or does it offer a deeper understanding that can be generalised to other fields? Is the specialised knowledge generated 'better' or 'more valuable' than more general mathematical knowledge?

Clearly specialisation in maths is a complex and layered topic. It could mean a focused study in one of the many subfields of mathematics, or it could refer to the development of specialised tools for particular applications. What's clear is that specialisation enables mathematicians to dig deep, solve complex problems, and contribute to our understanding of both the mathematical world and the world at large. As explored in ToK Essay 2, the implications of this specialisation can have profound effects on how we understand and value knowledge in AoK Maths.

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 2 Guidance Notes, in these notes we get into what the opposing demands might be for specialised and generalised knowledge, and how we could reconcile these demands . 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, Sept 2023

Detailed guidance video for Essay 2 May 24

Initial overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens for Essay 2 May 24

Subjectivity in History:

A Valuable Lens for ToK Essay 1 Discussions

The role of subjectivity in historical knowledge is contentious both in academic history and in Theory of Knowledge (ToK) debates. Positivists argue that history should be an objective recounting of events, free from the subjective viewpoints of individuals. Those taking such a perspective may (unfairly) condemn subjectivity in history. This blogpost proposes that subjectivity could be a good thing, enriching our understanding of the past by capturing the everyday experiences of the people who lived it.

In traditional (positivist) historical narratives, the focus has often been on significant events, political manoeuvres, or extraordinary individuals. While these certainly have value, they fail to provide a comprehensive understanding of historical realities. More importantly, they leave out the daily experiences of ordinary people, which are, by nature, subjective. These experiences form the fabric of social memory and give depth to historical knowledge

Integrating subjectivity into historical accounts can humanise history. For instance, diaries, letters, and oral traditions provide subjective viewpoints that allow us to empathise with individuals from different times and places. The knowledge arising from these subjective accounts contributes to arguments for ToK Essay 1, inviting us to scrutinise the complex perspectives comprising historical knowledge, and its formation. It challenges the notion that history should be a sterile, objective discipline, asking instead whether the subjective experiences of individuals offer valuable insights that can complement 'hard facts.'

Subjectivity in history can be a vehicle for inclusivity. Historical events have affected different communities in various ways, and subjective accounts can help in exploring these nuances. For example, understanding the Civil Rights Movement isn't complete without the personal stories of those who fought for their rights or suffered from injustices. These subjective narratives can add depth to our understanding, complicating the otherwise simplified mainstream accounts.

In conclusion, whilst objectivity has its merits, subjectivity should not be hastily condemned in historical knowledge. Subjectivity offers an emotional and human dimension that objectivity often lacks, filling in the gaps of our collective memory. The discussions developed in ToK Essay 1 could suggest embracing a more holistic, nuanced view of history. The subjective content enriches our understanding and makes historical knowledge more inclusive.

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 Guidance notes for Essay 1. 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, Sept 2023

Detailed guidance video on ToK Essay 1 May 24

Initial thoughts with Gareth Stevens on ToK Essay 1 May 24

Exploring the tension between reliability and validity in AoK History

Can History be "true"?

Is Art Really Subjective?

Exploring the Dynamics of Subjectivity in ToK Essay 1

The question of whether we overly celebrate subjectivity in art is a  rephrasing of the classic objectivity vs subjectivity debate in Theory of Knowledge (ToK). On the one hand, art is often celebrated for its subjectivity, a form of knowledge in which individual interpretation apparently dominates. But do we overly celebrate subjectivity in the arts, ignoring the technical and structural frameworks that guide artistic creation?

Art, encompassing visual arts, music, theatre, literature, film, and dance, often relies on underlying structures. For instance, colour theory in visual arts provides guidelines on how colours interact and affect human perception. Similarly, musical notation sets the rules for how musical pieces should be played, offering a more 'objective' basis for evaluating the work. These structural elements suggest that art is not entirely subjective; it operates within set frameworks that have been studied, refined, and generally agreed upon.

However, the role of subjectivity cannot be entirely discounted. Take, for instance, abstract art. Here, the artist might defy traditional colour theory to evoke specific emotions or thoughts. The viewer's personal experience and interpretation then become part of the art itself. Subjectivity also extends to other art forms. In literature, the reader's interpretation can add layers of meaning that even the author might not have intended. In dance and theatre, the audience's emotional and intellectual engagement affects the perceived quality and impact of the performance.

The complexity of this relationship between structure and subjectivity highlights the multi-dimensional nature of art. While it is tempting to compartmentalise art as purely subjective or objective, doing so limits our understanding and appreciation of its richness. In ToK Essay 1 discussions, it's crucial to acknowledge that subjectivity and objectivity co-exist in artistic knowledge. Whilst we may celebrate the subjectivity that makes art resonate on a personal level, acknowledging the structural underpinnings can offer a more holistic view, providing a more nuanced answer to this classic ToK question.

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 Guidance notes for Essay 1. 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, Sept 2023

Detailed Guidance Video on Essay #1 May 24

Initial overview thoughts with Gareth Stevens on Essay 1 May 24

Exploring the tension between reliability and validity in AoK History

May 24 ToK Essay Guides: Published

ToK Essay Guides May 24

Today we have published the ToK Essay Guides for May 2024 ToK Essay Titles. Click here to purchase.

New for May 24: Foundation Notes and Complete Guides

During the last two exam sessions some students have given us feedback that the notes were too long, they said that they just wanted 'the key essentials'. However, other students have told us that they really appreciated the details in the TokToday Essay Notes. So, this year we have produced two versions of notes for each essay: The Foundation Notes and The Complete Guides.

The Difference between Foundation Notes, and The Complete Guide.

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.

More content to come.

In the next couple of weeks we will publish the video guides for each essay title, and have specialised blogposts on concepts and themes in each title. The video guides will be more specific versions of the overview videos with Gareth Stevens. There is also supplementary content on the ToKToday YouTube Channel (more to come soon !)

If you have any suggestions, or feedback on the essay titles, or essay guides, I'd love to hear it.

Daniel,
Bangkok, September 2023