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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Arguments supported by examples

• Implications

• Awareness of & evaluation of different points of view. 

• Limitations of arguments

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

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

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

9. AoK History should consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay ToKTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon Feb 24

Watch this post as a video:

Implications in ToK Essay: What are they?

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

Understanding Implications in Theory of Knowledge Essays

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

Defining Implications

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

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

Oxford English Dictionary

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

Illustrating Implications with a Simple Example

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

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

• Observation: Abigail has taken an umbrella with her.

• Implication: It is raining.

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

• Abigail thinks that it is raining.

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

• Abigail believes it will rain before she returns.

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

Applying Implications to a Real ToK Essay

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

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Exploring Implications

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

Further Resources and Assistance

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 24

Help! Urgent help needed - ToK Essay!

 I am receiving lots of messages from students across the world at the moment saying things like "Help! I need urgent help with my ToK Essay! My deadline is very soon, and I’m finding it really difficult". Please keep reaching out, I love to help you, that’s what I’m here for.

Today, on ToKToday we're going to look at what you can do if you’re worried about completing your ToK essay. Maybe you don’t know where to start, or you may have left it a little late. Here’s the ToKToday guide to saving your ToK life:

1. Planning.

No matter how little time you have left, spending some time Planning will help you to write a better essay. You have 1600 words, so think of it as an 8 paragraph essay, each para is 200 words long. A basic essay structure that will deliver for most titles is shown below:

Generic ToK Essay Structure

This is a super rough & ready essay structure designed to get you out of a last minute hole. Of course  there are many other essay structures that you could use, many better essay structures, but if you’re down to the last 36 hrs before hand in time this essay structure can deliver you an essay that will pass. If you need more help with how to structure the essay see the video linked here.

In the introduction you can explain your interpretation of the prescribed title, and explain how you intend to answer the prescribed title, if there are assumptions in the title  you may want to explain whether you intend to address these and why. Many students define key concepts in the Introduction, however I would recommend putting your definitions in the knowledge arguments in each AoK.

2. Knowledge Arguments

Knowledge Arguments are the central focus of your essay, these are what you will get most of your marks for. So spend time working these out before you start writing. You need at least one central knowledge argument for each AoK. You can then develop other knowledge arguments as the evaluation points for the main knowledge argument in each AoK.

If you’re struggling to find knowledge arguments then use your ToK Notes, your ToK textbook (if you have one), blogs on this site, and the ToKToday videos on YouTube.

3. Real World Examples

Lots of people get hung up on which real world examples to use. You can draw on your other DP subjects for real world examples, pull them from the things that you have studied in other DP subjects. How you use the real world example to illustrate the knowledge argument  is more important than the real world example used.

4. Evaluation Points.

If you want to score more than 5 out of 10 you need to evaluate your knowledge arguments. These are best thought of as “other points of view”. Good evaluation points will constitute further knowledge arguments in your essay. If you are struggling to identify evaluation points then watch the video linked above .

5. Filling in the paragraphs.

Once you know what you are putting in each of your 8 paragraphs you have your structure. Now all that you have to do is to fill in the words around the main points in each paragraph. This is how you both speed up the writing process and improve the quality of you what you write. 

6. Implications & Conclusions.

Finally you need to include a concluding paragraph that ties all of the arguments across both AoKs together. The conclusion must directly and unequivocally address the original prescribed title, this will probably require using the words from the prescribed title in your conclusion. You could also include the implications of your conclusion in this final paragraph. 

More help with ToK Essay

We have lots of resources & support for you to help you to write your ToK Essay:.

• We have at least 3 videos on YouTube explaining, and giving examples for, EACH ToK Essay title.

• We have blog posts explaining possible different approaches for each essay title.

• We have detailed Guidance Notes for each ToK Essay title.

We can also provide online coaching sessions to support you every step of the way in writing your essay.

Finally, once you have a first draft in place we can provide detailed written feedback to help you to refine your thinking and writing.

If you need help then please feel free to reach out, the more time we have to work together before your submission deadline the better we can develop your essay so please don’t leave it too late. 

If you have any questions or suggestions please feel free to email me at Daniel@ToKToday.com, or use the Messenger icon on this website.

Daniel, Lisbon,
January 2024

Don't want to read? Watch the video instead:

ToK Essay May 24 FAQs

Introduction to ToK Essay May 24 FAQs

I've been receiving many questions about the May 24 Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essays. As such I compiled this blog post to address the most frequently asked questions, provide insights, and offer guidance for students embarking on their ToK essays. Here's a detailed breakdown of the most common questions, along with my advice.

Q1: Are we allowed to use examples from WW1 or WW2 in the essay?

A recurring question from students in Europe and the Americas is the appropriateness of using World War I or World War II examples in their essays. The ToK Subject Report of May 23 clarifies that while there's no explicit restriction from the IB on such examples, they must be relevant and sufficiently justify the point being made. Importantly, examples drawn from personal studies or experiences are highly recommended, as they allow a deeper understanding and better analysis.

Q2: Do I have to use perspectives in my essay ?

The command term 'Discuss' requires that you give a critical exploration of various viewpoints. The November 22 ToK Subject Report emphasises evaluating different perspectives, not just stating them. It's essential to consider and justify multiple points of view in your essay, including your own, provided they are supported by evidence.

Q3: Can I argue the opposite of the Question ?

Can you argue contrary to the prescribed title? Yes, but with a caveat. You must explore a range of viewpoints, including those aligned with the prescribed title. The IB stresses showing awareness of diverse opinions, allowing complete agreement, agreement with reservations, or total disagreement, backed by evaluative reasoning.

Q4: What's the difference between Counterclaim and Evaluation?

The distinction between a counterclaim and an evaluation is pertinent to the current ToK curriculum. Previously, essays focused on counterclaims, but now the emphasis is on evaluation points. This approach allows for a more nuanced discussion of both the strengths and weaknesses of a claim.

Q5: Do I have to include examples for every Knowledge Claim?

This question primarily concerns the essay structure used. Whilst the IB doesn’t prescribe a specific structure, examples are essential for illustrating main claims and significant evaluation points. The key is to use examples effectively and in balance with the essay's word limit, focusing more on how they illustrate knowledge claims rather than on lengthy descriptions.

Conclusion and Additional Resources

This blog post aims to clarify the most common queries about the ToK Essay for May 24. For more detailed guidance, including essay structures and effective example usage, consider exploring my e-book "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps".

For detailed guidance notes on each Prescribed Title in May 24 session click here.

Stay tuned for more FAQs in future posts and feel free to reach out with your questions at Daniel@TokToday.com or through the ToKToday website and Facebook page.

Daniel, Lisbon, Jan 24

Evaluation in ToK Essays: Understanding Different Points of View

Introduction to Evaluation in ToK Essays

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

The Essence of Evaluation

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

Examples of Different Points of View

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

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

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

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

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

Developing Different Points of View

Different points of view in a ToK essay can include:

• Contrasting relationships to the main claim.

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

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

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

Structuring Your ToK Essay

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

• Claim in AoK 1:

• Real-world example

• Different PoV1

• Real-world example

• Different PoV 2 (and possibly 3)

• Claim in AoK 2:

• Real-world example

• Different PoV 3

• Real-world example

• Different PoV 4 (and possibly 5)

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

Conclusion and Additional Resources

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

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

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

Stay ToKTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch the video on YouTube!:

Unpacking ToK Essay Titles

Introduction to Unpacking Essay Titles

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

What Does Unpacking the PT Mean?

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

Examples of Unpacked ToK Essay Titles (May 24 Session)

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

Unpacking as a Prelude to the Thesis Statement

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

Further Resources

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

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

Stay Toktastic!
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch on YouTube:

The problem of Unsubstantiated Assertions in the ToK Essay

In the midst of essay-writing season for the May session schools, a prevalent issue emerges in Theory of Knowledge (ToK) essays: the problem of unsubstantiated assertions. These are claims or statements that lack the necessary backing of argument, evidence, or analysis, and they can lower your ToK score. Understanding what they are and how to avoid them is important for a successful ToK essay.

What Are Unsubstantiated Assertions?

An unsubstantiated assertion is essentially a claim that is made without proper support. This could be in the form of lacking evidence, lacking argument, or lacking analysis. For instance, consider these examples:

1. “Custodians of Knowledge are widely found throughout the world”

2. “Fresh ideas are produced faster in the modern world than in the past”

3. “Historians seek objective facts”

4. “Scientific knowledge is more reliable than artistic knowledge”

5. “All knowledge is difficult to transfer from its original context”

6. “Maths is based on highly specialised knowledge.”

These statements, as they stand, are presented as facts without any backing. In a ToK essay, this approach is problematic.

The Problem with Assertive Statements

Students often use these kinds of statements as introductory ideas or as links between different parts of their essay. They tend to open paragraphs with them, perhaps under the impression that a narrative style requires such assertive tones. This is a misconception. The ToK essay demands critical analysis and discussion, not mere narrative.

The Solution: Changing Assertions into Propositional Statements

The solution to this problem is relatively straightforward: transform these assertions into propositional statements. This means turning them into debatable points rather than presenting them as closed facts. Let's revisit our examples:

1. From “Custodians of Knowledge are widely found throughout the world” to “We can consider whether Custodians of knowledge are widely found.”

2. From “Fresh ideas are produced faster in the modern world than in the past” to “It could be argued that fresh ideas are now produced faster than they were in the past.”

3. From “Historians seek objective facts” to “It is often argued that Historians seek objective facts.”

4. From “Scientific knowledge is more reliable than artistic knowledge” to “On initial examination, scientific knowledge appears to be more reliable than artistic knowledge.”

5. From “All knowledge is difficult to transfer from its original context” to “The difficulty of transferring knowledge from its original context could be measured using the following criteria:”

6. From “Maths is based on highly specialised knowledge” to “Whether maths is based on highly specialised knowledge partly depends upon how we define specialised knowledge.”

The Benefits of Propositional Statements

By converting an unsubstantiated assertion into a propositional statement, not only do we eliminate the issue of being unsubstantiated, but we also introduce a knowledge argument. This is the essence of the ToK essay – a critical analysis of knowledge arguments.

Further Resources

For more detailed guidance on writing your ToK essay, consider resources like the ebook "How to Write the ToK Essay in 6 Easy Steps", or check the detailed guidance notes for each Prescribed title in this season (linked). Remember, the key to a successful ToK essay is not just in what you assert, but in how you support, debate, and analyse those assertions.

By recognising and transforming unsubstantiated assertions into propositional statements, you can significantly enhance the quality and critical depth of your Theory of Knowledge essays. Remember, it’s not just about what you know, but how you communicate and analyse that knowledge.

Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Writing an Effective Introduction for Your ToK Essay

Why consider the ToK Essay Introduction ?

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

What to Include in Your ToK Essay Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

What to Avoid in the Introduction

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

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

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

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

The Debate Around Definitions

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

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

Seeking Exemplars

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

Additional Resources

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Stay TokTastic.
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 2023

Mastering ToK Essay Structure: A Comprehensive Guide

Introduction to ToK Essay Structure

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

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

Essential Elements of ToK Essays

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Components for Enhanced Essays

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

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

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

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

Common ToK Essay Structure

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

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

Alternative Structure for Deeper Analysis

Some students opt for a different approach:

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

Conclusion

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

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

Stay TokTastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, Dec 23

Watch the YouTube video:

Overview notes on ToK Essay #4 May 24 on the Challenges of Transferring Knowledge Across Contexts

Understand the Complexity of the Question

1. Recognise the nuance in the question's wording. The focus isn't merely on what the challenges are, but whether they are underestimated. Also note that the question may seem open-ended, yet requires a response to the specific yes/no closed ended prompt.. 

Define 'Original Context'

2. Ensure that you consider various ways of what could be meant by 'original context'. This could refer to an area of knowledge, a cultural setting, or some other type of context.

Explore Cross-Disciplinary Transfer

3. One approach could be to consider the value and challenges when knowledge is transferred from one area of knowledge to another. Explore the impact on both the original and recipient contexts.

Discuss Cultural Implications

4. You could extend the discussion to include the transfer of knowledge between cultures. This offers rich opportunities for exploring how knowledge is shaped and limited by its original cultural context.

Provide Case Studies

5. Use real-world examples to clarify the complexities involved. Mention specific cases, such as the failure of certain designs when transferred from one culture to another, to illustrate the point. 

Relate to Other Subjects

6. Leverage what is learnt in other courses. For instance, if studying Language A, discuss how language and terms may change meaning or lose their significance when taken out of their original cultural or linguistic context.

Identify the Challenges

7. Explore the challenges involved in transferring knowledge. These could include application, interpretation, and disruption of pre-existing knowledge.

Establish Criteria for 'Underestimating'

8. Develop a framework or criteria for what constitutes 'underestimating the challenges'. Discuss whether the underestimation is a factor if the main issue is either disruption or positive evolution of knowledge.

Consider Unintended Consequences

9. Discuss examples where the transfer of knowledge led to unintended negative outcomes. Utilise these cases to further examine the notion of 'underestimating challenges'.

Delve into the Nature of Challenges

10. Conclude by summarising the various types of challenges and whether they are generally underestimated or not. This could also include discussing the criteria by which one might make this judgement.

By following these guidelines, you can provide a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of the complexities involved in transferring knowledge from its original context to different areas or cultures.

If you want to know more for essay 4 (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.

Overview notes for Essay #5 May 24: Custodians

 Defining the Topic

1. Consider the various possible meanings of 'custodians of knowledge.' This term is ambiguous, so a working definition is crucial. Consider the idea that a custodian needs to have a pro-active role in the protection of knowledge.

2. Examine the 'needs' that may require custodians of knowledge. This will form the basis for arguing for or against their necessity.

 Investigating Areas of Knowledge

3. Look at bottom-up processes in areas of knowledge such as science, mathematics, and the arts. Consider how gatekeepers like renowned journals affect these areas.

4. Examine the role of individuals who become synonymous with specific kinds of knowledge (e.g., Freudian analysis, Jungian psychology).

 Multi-Dimensional Approach

5. Consider various forms of custodianship. These could range from official scientific bodies to smaller networks of individuals and communities.

6. Investigate both positive and negative impacts of custodianship in specific areas of knowledge. For example, do they maintain reliability or do they hinder innovation?

 Role of Curators and Regulators

7. Assess the role of 'curators' of knowledge, such as art gallery owners or journal editors. They decide what knowledge gets exposure and therefore can be seen as a form of custodian.

8. Explore the regulatory aspects of custodianship. Use examples from educational systems or governmental bodies that oversee quality and accuracy.

 Nuanced Perspectives

9. Address the essay's apparent 'closed-ended' nature. Though it may seem to ask for a simple 'yes' or 'no,' it requires a nuanced exploration.

10. Examine the potential for custodians to not only maintain existing knowledge but also to identify flaws and encourage growth or change.

 Strengths and Weaknesses

11. Evaluate the efficacy of custodians in enabling the development of knowledge. Are there alternatives to traditional forms of custodianship?

 Contemporary Relevance

12. Use modern examples where external forces have challenged established custodians. This could include indigenous knowledge systems, innovations in arts, or breakthroughs in sciences.

 Structuring the Essay

13. Start with a thesis statement, but remain flexible. The research may lead to unforeseen conclusions, and these should be embraced.

14. Clearly define the focus and method of the essay. This will help navigate the essay's complexities.

 Genuine Inquiry

15. Make the essay a result of a 'genuine intellectual journey.' Despite the workload, aim to delve deeply into the topic and enjoy the process of intellectual exploration.

 Balancing the Workload

16. Acknowledge the challenge of undertaking an extensive intellectual journey given the academic workload, but see it as an opportunity for genuine learning and growth.

These guidelines are intended to facilitate a comprehensive yet focused essay that thoroughly investigates the concept of 'custodians of knowledge' within two areas of knowledge.

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.

Overview notes for Essay#6 May 24: too quick to assume most recent evidence is strongest?

Understand the Key Terms

1. Clarify 'Strength': Examine the term 'strongest' and explore what it might mean in different areas of knowledge. Are we discussing validity, reliability, or other criteria? 

2. Remember that the focus of the essay is on the consequences (both positive & negative) of being too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is the strongest.

Structure and Scope

3. Choose Areas of Knowledge: Decide on which areas of knowledge to focus on in addition to natural sciences, maybe consider the arts. Each AoK offers unique perspectives on the nature of 'strong' evidence.

4. Acknowledge the Assumption: Note that the essay question contains an assumption that the most recent evidence is often considered the strongest. Is this assumption universal or specific to certain domains?

Natural Sciences

5. Role of Technology: In the natural sciences, technology can play a significant role in acquiring new evidence. Does the recentness of the evidence make it stronger because it's enabled by newer, possibly better, technology?

6. Dominant Paradigms: Does new evidence strengthen or weaken existing scientific paradigms? Evidence that aligns with well-established views may be more readily accepted. The paradigm within which we operate may affect the speed and validity of the assumptions that we make about evidence.

Arts

7. Nature of Evidence in Arts: Understand that 'evidence' in the arts might not be as straightforward as in natural sciences. Is it the work itself, the reception, or both? How does this affect the consequences of making a fast assumption about the strength of the evidence ?

8. Cultural Shifts: Consider how shifts in artistic styles and norms can offer counter-arguments. For example, revolutionary moments in art genres can become dominant very quickly, suggesting newness can be powerful. Does such a fast shift mean that quick assumptions about the strength of evidence are valid ?

Cognitive Biases

9. Confirmation Bias: Keep in mind the role of confirmation bias. Are we more likely to accept new evidence that aligns with our existing beliefs?

10. File Drawer Problem: Be aware of the tendency to ignore a bulk of evidence that supports a known fact, while focusing on the single new piece of evidence that suggests something different.

Source and Process

11. Evaluate the Origin: Consider who produced the evidence and the methodology used. High-status knowledge producers may generate 'stronger' evidence. The source of the evidence may affect the consequences of making a fast assumption about the strength of the evidence.

12. Funding and Motivation: Recognise that research in natural sciences is often influenced by funding, which can skew the types of evidence considered to be 'strong'.

Conclusions

13. Complexity and Nuance: Recognise that the issue is complex. Whether new evidence is 'stronger' may depend on a host of factors including the area of knowledge, methodology, and social factors like status and funding. As such the consequences of making a fast assumption about the strength of the evidence will vary.

By incorporating these guidelines, one can offer a nuanced discussion that spans multiple areas of knowledge, exploring the complexities involved in evaluating the strength of 'new' versus 'old' evidence.

If you want to know more for essay 6 (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.

Overview suggestions for writing ToK Essay 1 May 24 on Subjectivity in Arts and History

Overview suggestions for writing ToK Essay 1 May 24 on Subjectivity in Arts and History

These are a collection of possible suggestions.

• You can’t do all of them.

• You shouldn’t follow them as a “recipe”.

• Pick and choose, accept and reject as best suits YOUR essay.

Understanding the question.

1. Begin by dissecting the essay title and understanding key terms like 'subjectivity'.

2. Identify the scope of the essay by noting that it requires a discussion focused on arts and history.

3. Examine the implications of phrases like 'unfairly condemned' to gauge the level of critique expected.

Defining Subjectivity

1. Challenge common preconceptions that arts are purely subjective while history aims for objectivity.

2. Introduce and explore the nuances that both fields have aspects of objectivity and subjectivity.

The Arts: Beyond Pure Subjectivity

1. Trace the historical evolution of the role of subjectivity in arts, especially in visual arts.

2. Discuss the impact of technology, like photography, on the emphasis of subjectivity in arts.

3. Examine objective frameworks in arts such as rules of composition, musical notation, and colour theory.

4. Explore cultural relativism by highlighting how arts in non-Western cultures may have different emphasis on objectivity and subjectivity.

History: More than Just Facts

1. Investigate how history has been interpreted through artistic lenses like literature, drama, and folklore.

2. Compare formal historical accounts with anecdotal, first-hand accounts to challenge the notion of objectivity.

3. Address the politicisation of history and how it brings in subjectivity.

4. Mention contemporary issues like the decolonisation of the curriculum and critical race theory as ways subjectivity plays into historical narratives.

Balancing Objectivity and Subjectivity

1. Contemplate the value of having both objective and subjective elements in arts and history.

2. Suggest that the two perspectives often complement each other, offering a fuller understanding of issues.

Concluding Thoughts

1. Recapitulate key arguments and insights.

2. Make a final judgement on whether subjectivity is overly celebrated in arts and unfairly condemned in history.

3. Provide future implications of this assessment, referencing ongoing societal and academic debates.

Extra Tips

1. Clearly signpost the essay's direction in the introduction.

2. Use contemporary and historical examples to support arguments.

3. Narrow the focus to avoid being overly broad or generic.

4. Be open to challenging conventional wisdom and preconceptions.

5. Consider how perceptions may have differed in different times or cultures to deepen the discussion on subjectivity.

Far more detailed notes to help you with your ToK Essay can be found in The ToK Today Essay Guidance Notes for Essay 1 May 24.

The Complete Guide click here

The Foundation Guide click here

Overview suggestions for Essay#2 May 24 on Reconciling Specialisation and Generalisation in Knowledge Production

These are a collection of possible suggestions.

• You can’t do all of them.

• You shouldn’t follow them as a “recipe”.

• Pick and choose, accept and reject as best suits YOUR essay.

Introduction

1. Clearly define the terms 'specialisation' and 'generalisation', probably within the knowledge arguments. The essay should explicitly communicate to the examiner what is meant by each term.

2. Discuss the assumption that specialisation and generalisation are in opposition. Examine whether this is a valid assumption or not.

Structure of Arguments:

1. Explore the role of inductive and deductive reasoning in the process of knowledge generation. Clarify how these reasoning types connect with specialisation and generalisation.

2. Examine the implications of specialisation and generalisation in different areas of knowledge. For instance, discuss their role in mathematics and one other area like human sciences or natural sciences.

 Focus on Specific Areas:

1. Discuss the importance of classification systems in human sciences. Explain how these systems allow for the movement from specialised to generalised knowledge.

2. Address the concepts of validity and reliability. Discuss how specialised knowledge tends to offer validity, whereas generalised knowledge aims for reliability. 

 Understanding Demands:

1. Contemplate the different demands that specialisation and generalisation impose on knowledge seekers. 

2. Evaluate the necessity of integrating specialised and generalised knowledge, arguing that the two are part of a continuum rather than being in binary opposition.

 Real-World Examples:

1. Use examples from various disciplines like psychology, economics, or geography to illustrate points about the competition between validity and reliability.

2. Mention historical instances like the paradigm shift from Miasma theory to Germ theory to underscore the interplay between specialised and generalised knowledge.

 Conclusion:

1. Summarise how specialised knowledge and generalised knowledge are not necessarily in opposition but are, in fact, mutually inclusive.

2. Discuss the concept of paradigm shifts as examples where a piece of specialised knowledge could significantly impact a generalised theory.

By following these guidelines, the essay should provide a comprehensive understanding of how specialisation and generalisation can be reconciled in the production of knowledge.

If you want to know more for essay 2 (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.

Overview Suggestions for Essay#3 May 24 on the Adoption of Fresh Ideas

Understand the Question's Key Concepts

1. Begin by understanding the term "exciting" in the context of the development of knowledge. Exclude everyday connotations, like amusement parks or rollercoasters, and focus on what is methodologically exciting for areas of knowledge.

Explore the Need for Verification

2. Discuss the inherent need for verification over time for new ideas. Mention how fresh ideas need to be verified rigorously, especially when livelihoods are based on a pre-existing paradigm.

Culture and Institutional Resistance

3. Consider the role culture plays in areas of knowledge. Highlight how certain forms of institutionalised knowledge, like universities, tend to preserve and replicate themselves in their existing form.

4. Use the term "culture" explicitly, as it is one of the 12 TOK concepts, to discuss the inherent inertia within academic or institutional settings. Discuss how areas of knowledge may be slow to evolve due to these institutional constraints.

Real-world Examples

5.. Bring in real-world examples for richer discussion. For instance, consider how Punk Rock initially faced resistance before becoming mainstream. Use this as an analogy to explain how areas of knowledge are often slow to adopt fresh ideas.

Discussion of Opposing Views

6. While discussing the slow adoption of new ideas, also consider and rebut the counterargument that areas of knowledge are not, in fact, slow to adopt fresh ideas.

Integrate TOK Concepts

7. Integrate TOK concepts like "knowledge frameworks," "verification," and "paradigms" to bolster arguments.

Explore Underlying Themes

8. End with an exploration of underlying themes like the evolution of knowledge, the dichotomy between validity and reliability, and how areas of knowledge balance these conflicting demands. 

By following these guidelines, you can aim for a well-rounded discussion that addresses the complexities involved in the adoption of fresh ideas in areas of knowledge.

If you want to know more for essay 3(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.

Turner and ToK

What can the artist JMW Turner teach us about the Theory of Knowledge ?

Turner's life and work, rich with philosophical undercurrents, offers us a canvas to explore the depths of knowledge itself. We can look at the meeting point between art and the development of knowledge, examining how Turner’s revolutionary brushstrokes redefined the way we perceive and acquire knowledge.

If you go to the Tate Gallery in London to see Turner's collective works you will not merely be observing a collection of amazing landscapes and portraits; you’ll also be witnessing a significant epistemological evolution.

Born in the cusp of the 18th century, Joseph Mallord William Turner emerged as a prodigious talent, his work evolving rapidly from precise topographical documentation to sublime expressions of light and colour. It's in this transition that we unearth our first epistemological theme: the breaking of conventional methods in the production of knowledge.

Transforming conventional methods in the production of knowledge

Turner's early adherence to the detailed and the delineated reflected the empirical epistemology of his time — knowledge through observation. However, his later divergence, characterised by energetic brushwork and atmospheric turbulence, suggests a radical shift. In works such as 'Rain, Steam, and Speed - The Great Western Railway', we observe a world in motion, where details succumb to the overall sensory experience. Turner shows us that knowledge is not static; it is dynamic, just as our perception of reality.

Here, Turner challenges the epistemological value placed on clarity and precision. By obscuring forms, he proposes that understanding is not merely the accumulation of clear-cut facts but also the intuitive grasp of the ambiguous and the ineffable.

The evolution of knowledge

In 'The Fighting Temeraire', the old warship being towed away for scrap, Turner juxtaposes the obsolete with the modern, the fading with the emergent. In terms of ToK, this embodies the tension between traditional and innovative methods of understanding. The ship, a repository of bygone tales and knowledge, contrasts with the tugboat — a symbol of the new industrial era’s epistemic shifts.

The interpolation of knowledge

Turner's seascapes, where light and shadow dance upon the waters, offer us a metaphor for the evolutionary nature of knowledge. Just as the sun’s rays pierce through clouds, illuminating and obscuring in turns, our cognitive landscapes are shaped by the ever-changing interplay of known and unknown, certainty and mystery.

In 'The Slave Ship', Turner’s visceral depiction of the sea’s cruelty serves not only as a moral outcry but also as an epistemological assertion. The painting's tumultuous waters invite contemplation on the nature of knowledge derived from suffering and emotional experience, revealing that ToK is not confined to rational discourse alone.

The synthesis of knowledge

Turner’s revolutionary approach also mirrors the idea of knowledge synthesis. In combining the tangible with the transcendent, the material with the spiritual, he pre-empts the interdisciplinarity that now enriches contemporary ToK and epistemology. His canvases teach us that knowledge production is not a linear path but a confluence of myriad streams.

While his contemporaries favoured a more restrained depiction of nature, Turner's revolutionary ideas and content propelled him to harness both evolution and revolution in his artistic journey. His legacy compels us to question: How do our interpretations and values shape our understanding of knowledge?

Knowledge as an existential question.

Finally, in 'Light and Colour', Turner explores Goethe's colour theory, aligning with the polymath's own epistemological explorations. This alignment of art with science and philosophy is perhaps Turner’s most profound contribution to ToK: an affirmation that knowledge is an interwoven tapestry of disparate threads, a spectrum as diverse and blended as the hues upon his canvas.

"\As we stand before Turner’s legacy, we are reminded that knowledge is not just a mirror of reality but also a lens through which we interpret the world. Turner's life and work implore us to consider the evolving nature of knowledge — to embrace the flux, the complex, and the nuanced. For in the swirling mists of his paintings, we find not just beauty, but the profound quest for understanding that defines our very being.

Daniel, Lisbon, Nov 23

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.

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