How do I get an A in the ToK Exhibition?
This is Exhibition Mini Series blog 4/4
So you want to get an A in the ToK Exhibition ?
Well, first up- you can’t get an A, it’s marked out of 10, so you could get 9 or 10/10, which would be like getting an A - pedantic, I know !
If we look at the IB marking scheme for the ToK Exhibition in the 9-10 mark band (the 'A' Band) it says:
“There is a strong justification of the particular contribution that each individual object makes to the Exhibition”
IB ToK Exhibition Assessment Instrument
What does that even mean ? Particularly after you have linked the object to the prompt, and explained how the object demonstrates the prompt. How are you then meant to justify the inclusion of that particular object, it seems like it’s just a repeat of the points made earlier.
Does the May 2022 Subject Report explain this better ?
Well let’s look at the oracle of ToK knowledge (The Subject Report) to find out what the examiners are looking for.
The Subject Report is the report written by the ToK examiners after each exam session, it has the “inside track” on what the examiners are looking for, it’s super useful, and it's an open document that students should read..,
The May 2022 Subject Report says:
Some candidates seemed unsure about what to write for the justification (of the object) and a few may have thought of this aspect as being more difficult than it really is. The justification requires no more than to express what each object uniquely brings or adds to the discussion. It is not justifying the points made but why that object is interesting for the exhibition.
IB ToK Subject Report May 2022
OK - but that’s sort of what we’ve already done when we explained the link between the object and the prompt.
Does the November 2022 Subject Report explain this better ?
The November 2022 report says:
Consideration of the contribution that the object makes to the exhibition lies at the heart of the Exhibition task. It is at this point that the candidate has an opportunity to maintain the connection with the knowledge that the object illustrates and the specifics of the prompt. Candidates must remember that they need to explain why their particular object helps unpack or illustrate some interesting point in relation to the prompt which is what is meant by a justification of the “particular” contribution each object makes.
IB ToK Subject Report Nov 2022
Is that any clearer than the May 2022 report ?, maybe not.
But, don’t give up hope because I have a solution for you. This is a solution that my students have used, and it works.
Looking back at the marking scheme, and the Nov 22 Subject Report, there’s a word that provides a clue as to what they’re looking for. That word is “particular”, they want to know the “particular” contribution of this “particular” object, i.e different from the other 2 objects. This is what they’re calling “justification”
How do I make objects 'particular' ?
I recommend that you write 3 knowledge claims BEFORE you choose your objects, 1 knowledge claim for each object.
A knowledge claim is just a perspective on the prompt.
Let's apply this to an example.
Let’s take the prompt Who Owns Knowledge ? Now, we can have 3 perspective (or “knowledge Claims” on this prompt:
Knowledge Claim 1: Knowledge Producers own knowledge.
Knowledge Claim 2: Knowers own knowledge.
Knowledge Claim 3: The context ‘owns’ knowledge.
Now that we have 3 knowledge claims we can identify a specific object for each.
My object for knowledge claim 1 (that the knowledge producer owns knowledge) is Jimi Hendrix. It can be argued that he owns the knowledge (his music) that he produced.
An object for knowledge claim 2 that the knower owns knowledge is The Jimi Hendrix Fan Club. This knowledge community celebrates and promotes Jimi’s music, and therefore we can argue that they own it.
The object for knowledge claim 3 that the context owns music is The Woodstock Festival. This festival was held in Woodstock New York, 18th August 1969. Jimi’s performance at this festival not only symbolised his career and fame, but now symbolises the 1960’s. It is argued that the context of this festival owns the knowledge of Jimi Hendrix’s music.
And so, there we have it. 3 specific objects that make 3 different & therefore particular contributions to the exhibition. The justification for their inclusion is in their particular contributions.
I’ll have 10/10 please Mr or Ms Examiner!
If you need more help with your Exhibition we have lots of resources available at this link. This includes the very popular e-book Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained.
For more help check out my other blogs in this mini-series on the Exhibition:
Basic mistakes in the ToK Exhibition
Linking the object to the Prompt
Do the objects need to be personal?
Other ToK Exhibition resources include:
How do I structure my ToK Exhibition Commentary?
Do the objects need to be personal ?
A frequent question I get asked is "Do the objects in my ToK Exhibition need to be personal to me?"
The answer is "No, but…,"
Why do people think ToK Exhibition objects have to be personal?
Nowhere in the IB marking scheme for The Exhibition does it say that the objects have to be personal to the student. The marking scheme does say that the objects have to have “Specific Real World Contexts”, and this gives us a clue as to why people think that the objects have to be personal. Let’s dig deeper..,
ToK Subject Report is a report written by the IB Tok Examiners (it’s a treasure trove of information - you should check it out), the Subject Report in May 2022 says:
Teachers should encourage their students to find objects from the real world rather than look for some generic image found online or elsewhere. This is basic to a successful exhibition so of utmost importance. Objects were sometimes detached from the candidate’s own experience as a knower or were too general to be successful (‘the bible’, ‘an iPhone’). This did not allow for the specificity required to explore the prompt and made clear the problem with generic images of objects. Candidates generally did well when they chose personal objects (a household object, an heirloom) or objects which were meaningful to them (a book they had read or studied, a statue or monument of a person they had studied in history or place they had visited, something from the news which they were interested in).
ToK Subject Report, IB, May 2022
So personal can be good, but not essential ?
It then goes on to say:
Images of objects that lacked in specificity led to unfocused commentaries. “Specific” here relates to the particularity, uniqueness, or singular nature of the object. Although a personal context can make an object more specific it is not the only way of doing so. Also, the specificity has to have a reason—there is no difference between “a bible” and “the bible from which my grandmother used to read to me when I was a child” unless the candidate uses the specificity of the object in its context to make some TOK related point.
ToK Subject Report, IB, May 2022
So, it’s not the ‘personal’ aspect of the object which is important, it’s the specificity of the object which is important. And the specificity has to relate to a ToK Knowledge point. If you want to know more about that then watch the next video in this series.
What makes an object "specific" ?
Let’s just look in a bit more detail at what is meant by a specific object:
Let's have a look at an example arising from an actual prompt, the prompt is “are some types of knowledge more useful than others” ? I'm going to look at the claim that the usefulness of knowledge depends on context if you don't know what I mean by claim then watch the next video in this series. So we're looking at the claim that the usefulness of knowledge depends on context and our object is a cactus and we've used the cactus because we're arguing that knowledge of which Cactus can provide water is more useful in a desert than a city, in this case the desert and the city are “context”. On the other hand we could use the Saguaro cactus that children who were lost in the Australian desert in 1968 used to get water from.
I think that you can see that the Saguaro cactus example is a lot more specific than the first generic cactus.
In this case your personal cactus, sitting on your window ledge at home, would not be a better object than the Saguaro Cactus because your personal cactus is not as specific to the prompt as the Saguaro Cactus.
If you need more help with your Exhibition check out the resources at this link, including the very popular Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained.
This is the third blog in this ToK Exhibition Mini Series. The other posts are:
#1: Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes
#2: Linking the object to the Prompt
Other ToK Exhibition Resources can be found at:
3 simple steps to write up 1 object for the ToK Exhibition.
Link Object to The Prompt
ToK Exhibition Mini Series #2/4
Link ToK Exhibition Objects to the prompt.
What’s the most basic thing to get right in the ToK Exhibition ?
The first thing that moderating examiners are looking for when they assess your ToK exhibition is whether you have made a link between the object and the prompt. This link needs to be explicit and direct, and is best made frequently during the commentary.
Let’s briefly consider those words:
Explicit means using the word link, I am going to write “the link between my object and the prompt is”.
Direct means that I am going to use the words from the prompt in my answer.
If you do this then there is less chance that the examiner will overlook the link you make, and more chance that you are awarded the marks. I know this sounds obvious, but you'd be amazed how many Exhibition Commentaries that I see where the student has not clearly made the link between the object and the prompt. Linking the ToK Exhibition Object to the prompt is crucial for scoring 2+ marks in the Exhibition.
Examples of direct and explicit links between the object & prompt.
Let’s have a look at some examples.
The first prompt is: Why do we seek knowledge?
The object is: The Natural History Museum in London.
I am going to write : “The link between the Natural History Museum and the prompt is that the museum demonstrates that one of the reasons that we seek knowledge is to resolve unanswered questions”.
OK, maybe it’s a little cumbersome, so maybe we could refine it to:
“The Natural History Museum demonstrates that one of the reasons that seek knowledge is to resolve unanswered questions”.
It’s up to you whether you go with something cumbersome or more refined. Personally, I like to see the word link / linked in there as it reduces any potential equivocation on the part of the examiner.
The important point is that we have the words from the prompt in the answer. The prompt asks “why do we seek knowledge?”, so I have the words “seek knowledge” in my answer - I know it sounds ridiculously obvious, but lots of ToK students are not doing it, maybe they don’t do it because it seems so obvious, obviously.
Another example linking ToK Exhibition object to the prompt
Let’s look at another example:
The prompt is What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge?
The object is The Dragon’s Back Hiking Trail in Hong Kong.
I am going to write: “The link between the Dragon’s Back Hiking trail and the relationship between personal experience and knowledge is that it demonstrates that experience can lead to the formation of knowledge”.
Again, it’s a little cumbersome, but the Exhibition is not an exercise in refined prose, it’s an exercise in showing how ToK manifests itself in the world around us.
If you want more help with your Exhibition we have lots of resources available at this link, including the very popular Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained. Link in the video description.
The next blog in this series will be on choosing objects,.
For more blogs on the ToK Exhibition check out:
Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes (Blog 1/4 of ToK Exhibition Mini Series)
Basic ToK Exhibition Mistakes
I have been helping students from around the world with their ToK Exhibition Commentaries, here are 4 (very) Basic Mistakes that I see in a few ToK Commentaries:
Basic Mistake #1 : Insufficient Theory of Knowledge content.
ToK is about Knowledge. Write about Knowledge. The word “knowledge” should appear frequently in your commentary. I know it sounds super obvious but I do see commentaries that don't have the word ”knowledge” in them, it's very unlikely that you're writing about knowledge if you're not using the word knowledge.
Basic Mistake #2: Not answering the prompt
Some commentaries that do not address the prompt. These are commentaries that just ignore the question, or they treat the prompt as a stimulus for creative writing. A few common examples are: commentaries for the prompt “How can we distinguish between knowledge, belief & opinion ?” often just define knowledge, belief and opinion. That’s not the question, the question is how can we distinguish between the 3 concepts i.e. how can we determine the differences? It requires comparative writing not descriptive writing.
Basic Mistake #3: Changing the wording of the prompt.
The third mistake that I sometimes see is that the student has changed the wording of the prompt.
You must answer the prompt as written by IB. Don’t change the wording of the prompt.
For example, commentaries responding to the Prompt: “Are some types of knowledge more useful than others ?” often rewrite it as “Are some types of knowledge more important than others ?”, and students responding to the prompt “what makes a good explanation ?” describe good and bad explanations without focussing on what characteristics make them good & bad explanations.
Basic Mistake #4: Changing the meaning of the prompt.
The final mistake that I sometimes see is where the student has changed the meaning of the prompt. For example students answering the Prompt: “Why do we seek knowledge ?” sometimes respond to “How do we seek knowledge ?”. Another example is students responding to the prompt “Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds?” change the meaning to “When can we justify seeking knowledge unethically ?”
There’s a difference, it’s a subtle difference, but it’s a difference all the same,
If you want more help with your Exhibition we have lots of other resources available, including the very popular ebook Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained.
Click here for more ToK Exhibition Resources.
In the next blog in this series we will look at how to link the objects with the prompt.
What can Taylor Swift teach us about Theory of Knowledge ?
A video version of this blog can be found at this link.
Some may say that the narrative songwriting, and self expressive style of Taylor Swift doesn’t necessarily lend itself to ToK, but there’s a lot about ToK that we can learn from Taylor Swift.
1. Ownership of knowledge.
As every Swiftie will know, Taylor's first six albums were bought by Scooter Braun’s Ithaca holdings for $300m in June 2019. Scooter Braun know owns the master rights, including publishing and royalties accrued. Taylor has since re-recorded the first 5 of the 6 albums sold. These re-recorded albums are known as “Taylor’s versions”.
This closely ties with the ToK theme of Ownership of Knowledge - who owns knowledge, how did they come to own it, and what does it mean to own knowledge ?
The legal ownership of Taylor’s music is described in a written laws and contracts. In ToK we can have wider definitions of the concept of ownership of knowledge.
We could argue that Taylor will always own the first 6 albums regardless of the legal ownership because she wrote them, the ideas will be forever hers, the creative imagination of the lyrics came from her, and therefore will always, inherently, be hers.
However, we could also argue that Taylor’s audience, the community of knowers known as “swifties” own the music as they have ascribe a communal, cultural and collective meaning to her work.
Finally, we could argue that you - the individual listener - the individual knower owns this music because you interpret it in your own way, you give it your individual meaning, you have a unique perspective on this music - and therefore you own your knowledge of the music.
Let’s move onto the second thing that we can learn about ToK from Taylor Swift:
2. Ethical issues arising from knowing & knowledge production.
What do the following songs have in common?:
Only The Young,
Miss Americana & The Heartbreak Prince,
The Man
Look what you made me do
You need to calm down
It’s a broad selection from a range of points in her career, but there is a common ToK theme in all of these songs, let’s precis the key message in each song:
Only The Young - Taylor is disappointed by the results of the 2018 midterms, and sees the hopes of young people being let down.
Miss Americana & The Heartbreak Prince - Taylor expresses disillusionment at the state of America under Trump
The Man - Taylor challenges the double standards and sexism that she faces in her life
Look what you made me do - Taylor takes on her enemies and critics.
You need to calm down - Taylor responds to online haters & homophobes, and shows her support for the LGBTQ+ community.
Well, all of these songs are about principles, honesty, virtuous behaviour and hope for a better society. These songs link very closely to the ToK theme of the ethical issues arising from knowing and knowledge production.
In these songs Taylor doesn’t just describe the ills of society, but she takes a stance, and makes a decision that she will take action to improve things (Taylor’s CAS programme), for example in Only The Young she says: “Don’t say you’re too tired to fight / It’s just a matter of time / Up there’s the finish line / So run, and run, and run.”
A theme that runs through all of Taylor’s songs is that it is our responsibility to make the changes that we want to see in our personal lives, and in wider society. This directly links to the ToK theme of whether knowledge is discovered, or is knowledge created ? Taylor is clearly a rationalist (rather than an empiricist) - she’s saying we don’t discover the world, we create our world.
3. Bias in the acquisition and production of knowledge.
OK, let’s move on to our third Taylor ToK Theme, let’s consider Taylor’s monumental song The Story of Us from her third studio album Speak Now, recorded in 2010.
Lyrics: "Now I'm standing alone in a crowded room and we're not speaking / And I'm dying to know is it killing you like it's killing me, yeah / I don't know what to say, since the twist of fate when it all broke down / And the story of us looks a lot like a tragedy now."
Taylor Swift, The Story of Us
"The Story Of Us" - captures the theme of misunderstanding and the inability to see things from the same perspective within a relationship.
Now, as usual Taylor is developing her personal narrative, but the story of us is interesting because she’s extending her narrative to firstly recognise that her now ex-boyfriend has a different perspective, and she would like to know what that perspective is.
The Story of Us is, about perspective, congruence and incongruence, alignment and misalignment of perspective.
Similarly in ToK we are interested in perspective, congruence, incongruence, alignment and misalignment of knowledge. We're learning from Taylor - what does her future hold for her?
4. The relationship between new knowledge, pre-existing knowledge & historical knowledge.
As mentioned earlier Taylor has re-recorded all of her music that was sold in 2019, and she has spoken out about her personal feelings about the sale of her music. This echoes a common theme in her lyrics about how the past affects the present, and possibly the future.
If we look at "Long Live" from Taylor's album "Speak Now" she deals with exactly this theme of how the past influences the present and potentially the future. The song reflects on the past memories, the joy of the present, and the hope for the future.
Lyrics:
Past: "I had the time of my life fighting dragons with you" (This suggests past challenges and victories.)
Present: "Long live the walls we crashed through / I had the time of my life, with you" (This indicates the present experiences and the joys she is currently feeling.)
Future: " (The lyrics suggest hope for the future, that the memories they create now will be there to support them in future times of need.)
This is also a core theme in ToK - we look at how past knowledge affects present knowledge and future knowledge development. Linked with this we consider how current knowledge is shaped by its historical development, and whether new knowledge is better than old knowledge.
5. Is the world created or discovered ?
Moving on to Taylor Theme no. 5, let’s consider the song "Dear John" - In this song, Taylor Swift ponders whether her love could have changed someone who was set in his ways. She questions whether she was just naive to think she could have made a difference.
Lyrics: "And I'll look back in regret how I ignored when they said, / 'Run as fast as you can.' / Dear John, I see it all, now it was wrong / Don't you think 19 is too young to be played by your dark twisted games, when I loved you so?"
This links to the ToK question of whether the world is created or discovered ? (the philosophical question of empiricism vs rationalism). This is exploring the question of whether we go out & find the world, or is the world created in our heads ? or It could just be the ways in which the physical world is interpreted and categorised that is internal. Or it could be the meanings that we attach to physical world knowledge that are internal.
Handing this back to Taylor, in the her reflections on Kanye West’s interruption of her acceptance speech at the 2009 VMAs Taylor asks Kanye (or all of us):
“Wasn't it easier in your lunchbox days? / Always a bigger bed to crawl into / Wasn't it beautiful when you believed in everything / And everybody believed in you? / It's alright, just wait and see / Your string of lights is still bright to me / Oh, who you are is not where you've been / You're still an innocent."
This is Taylor wondering whether people can change, or if they were always a certain way, and she makes the point that people can learn and grow from their mistakes.
In ToK terms this is Taylor exploring the empiricist vas rationalist question, and coming down on the side of rationalism, which places her in the same school as Descartes, Kant, Socrates, Plato Spinzoa, Locke and Hume.
Which neatly takes us on to today’s final point of ToK learning that we can develop from Taylor’s work.
6. Free Will vs Determinism
In the song Mine Taylor says:
"You made a rebel of a careless man's careful daughter / You are the best thing that's ever been mine."
In this song I think that she is delving into the idea of choosing to love despite the chances of it ending in heartbreak.Taylor seems to be making a conscious decision to love and be in a relationship even though her past and external circumstances might dictate otherwise.
What’s this got to do with ToK? I hear you cry.
Well, the previous point of Taylor’s Tok learning was a consideration of whether the world is discovered or created. Taylor decides that it is created. A created world gives us a lot more freedom of choice to create the world as we wish it to be. On the other hand, a world that we discover has already been created, and predetermined by someone, or something else.
This is the free-will vs determinism debate, it’s both a natural continuation of the empiricism vs rationalism debate, and it’s at the heart of why we study ToK. To what extent are we free to know the world as we choose, and on the other hand to what extent is the world pre-configured for us?
To give the final word on this to Taylor.
"White Horse" - In the song “White Horse” Taylor seems to discuss the conflict between the dream of an ideal, almost predestined love (a fairy tale love story that might be considered a form of determinism) and the reality of making conscious decisions in a relationship. In this case, she decides to no longer pursue a relationship that doesn't live up to her expectations, exercising her free will.
She sings: "I'm not a princess, this ain't a fairy tale / I'm not the one you'll sweep off her feet / Lead her up the stairwell / This ain't Hollywood, this is a small town / I was a dreamer before you went and let me down / Now it's too late for you and your white horse, to come around
If this blog has inspired you to choose Taylor Swift, or any other element of popular culture as an object pick up a copy of Every Exhibition Prompt Explained (or a range of prompts) from this link.
If you have any suggestions for further artists, or objects from popular culture, that you would like to see analysed using ToK please leave a comment below, or email me at Daniel@ToKToday.com
Daniel, Lisbon, June 2023
If you're looking for more ToK on Popular Culture check out:
For more help with the ToK Exhibition:
What can Halo Infinite teach us about ToK ?
“What’s The Point In Saving Humanity If We’re Gonna Give Up Our Own?”
Miranda Keyes, Halo
So said Miranda Keyes in The Halo Computer game series, she could have been asking the same question in a Philosophy lesson, or maybe even a ToK lesson.
The IB asks students of ToK to consider how ToK manifests itself in their everyday lives.
Today Halo Infinite is the best selling computer game in the world, therefore it’s a fair assumption to make that Halo Infinite may be in the everyday life of some ToK students.
Therefore, it may be useful for some of our students to consider how ToK manifests itself in the Halo Series.
A video version of this blog can be found here
Moral choices and ethical dilemmas.
A central lesson from ToK that players will find in Halo Infinite is the exploration of moral choices and ethical dilemmas. The Halo series often presents players with complex situations where they must make decisions that have significant consequences for the game's characters and the overall story. These choices can raise questions about the nature of morality, the concept of right and wrong, and the implications of one's actions.
Similarly in ToK we consider the ethical issues raised by the production, application and evolution of knowledge in each Area of Knowledge. We consider issues such as the overall benefit of knowledge against the ethical problems of producing that knowledge. There is a big debate currently being held about the ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which paradoxically is one of the core subjects of the Halo Series.
Moral Relativism in Halo
One of the underlying themes of the Halo series is Moral relativism, the idea that morality is subjective and based on context. This has two main articulations. Firstly it’s that in one situation someone / something can be immoral, whilst in another context that same thing can be positively moral. Cortana goes from being good in Halo 4 to being bad in Halo 5.
The second aspect of moral relativism concerns the relative morality of different behaviours and characters. Something may be bad, but not as bad as something else, and vice versa.
The Covenant Conflict itself the conflict between humanity and the Covenant is an example of moral relativism. From the perspective of humanity, the Covenant is seen as an aggressor and a threat, leading to justified defensive actions. However, from the perspective of the Covenant, their actions are guided by religious beliefs and the pursuit of their own version of a righteous path. This moral conflict reflects the idea of moral relativism, as both sides have different justifications for their actions, based on their respective cultures and beliefs.
Likewise in ToK we consider the role of values in shaping culture, and culture shaping context. We look at the role of the perspectives of knowers and knowledge communities in shaping what we know, how we know, why we know, how we interpret this knowledge and how we act on such knowledge.
The purpose and function of knowledge
Another theme in the Halo series that we also find in ToK is the purpose or function of knowledge, that is why knowledge is produced, and how that purpose / function influences the type of knowledge produced.
For an example of this in Halo we can return to Cortana:
Cortana's purpose influences her character arc and evolution. Initially, her primary function is to assist Master Chief, but over time, she develops self-awareness and a desire for self-preservation. In the later games, Cortana's purpose expands beyond her original function as she becomes more autonomous and demonstrates emotions and a sense of agency.
The problem of the causal direction of knowledge.
Linked to the purpose & function of knowledge is the knowledge issue of the causal directionality of knowledge. This is whether A causes B or does B cause A. An example in the ToK world might come from AoK Human Sciences, specifically Economics: Does our knowledge of say income redistribution cause income redistribution patterns, or did income redistribution patterns give us models (knowledge) of income redistribution?
An example of the problem of causal directionality of knowledge in Halo Infinite is raised by The Weapon, the AI created to imitate & trap Cortana. The weapon doesn’t know the reasons for its mission to trap Cortana. This raises the question whether Cortana caused the creation of the Weapon, or does the existence of the weapon change our knowledge of Cortana?
The law of Unintended Consequences.
This conveniently links to another parallel between the Halo world and the ToK World - that of the law of unintended consequences. This is when knowledge is created for a particular purpose, but it is applied in unexpected and unintended ways. A great example of this is the Cobra Effect seen in 19th century India.
In the Halo world we see this with the AI disease known as Rampancy. According to the Halopedia Rampancy is: a terminal state of being for artificial intelligence constructs in which the AI behaves contrary to its programming-imposed constraints. Traditionally, this is linked with the AI developing a longing for godlike power and contempt for its mentally inferior makers.
Other ToK knowledge issues that we find in Halo:
The relationship between historical knowledge, pre-existing current knowledge, and the development of new knowledge - such as Cortana's repurposing and re-application of the legacy machines Guardians Custodes.
The nature of knowledge itself - is it just routinised, high data, high efficiency like dumb AI (like the Personal AI Fret) or is it creative, problem solving, able to synthesise knowledge to make new knowledge & use imagination to fill gaps in knowledge ? (like Smart AI such as Cortana).
Serendipity vs intentional production of knowledge: eg How Atriox came across legacy Forerunner technology on the ark, allowing Atriox to contact Escherim to arrange for his return
In Halo Infinite we find the central ToK idea of the relationship between The knowledge of the knower and the shared knowledge of the community of knowers / networked knowledge. eg how Cortana was created from Dr Halsey's brain
There are also many classic Narrative and textual structures that we analyse in ToK, and Language A that we also find in The Halo Series. At the most obvious level we have classic story arcs of Overcoming The Monster, The Quest, Voyage and Return, and Rebirth.
If you have been inspired to use The Halo Series as one of your objects in your ToK Exhibition then be sure to pick up a copy of my ebook Every ToK Exhibition Prompt explained. Not only will you get a full explanation of every ToK Exhibition prompt, but also knowledge claims that you can use to ensure that you get high marks in your Exhibition.
If you would like further blog posts / videos on the ToK of The Halo Series, or you have suggestions for other games, films, books or music that you would like to see analysed using ToK please let me know.
Daniel, Lisbon, June 2023
What can Minecraft teach us about ToK?
What is the link between Minecraft and ToK ? How can we use Minecraft to understand ToK ? Are their parallels ? Is one a metaphor for the other ? A video version of this blog is linked here.
ToK is an exploration of how knowledge is made. Therefore there is ToK in everything that we know. I ask my students to reflect on the ToK in their lives. Unfortunately, I doubt that many of them are reading Bertrand Russell, Simone de Beauvoir or Marcel Proust on a daily basis. However, they probably are playing computer games, listening to music and watching TV everyday. So we’re going to look at how ToK manifests itself in elements of popular culture.
Minecraft as a metaphor for ToK ?
We’re going to start by looking at Minecraft because it’s one of the elements of popular culture to make connections with ToK . Minecraft is about constructing worlds, ToK is about how knowledge is constructed.
Minecraft offers players a vast and immersive virtual world to explore and shape according to their imagination. While it may seem like a simple game at first glance, Minecraft holds several ToK lessons that can be gleaned from its gameplay and mechanics. From the concepts of creativity and self-expression to the significance of community and the exploration of the function and meaning of knowledge, Minecraft offers us a rich ToK experience.
Minecraft & the metaphor of the map.
Minecraft is the obvious computer game representation of that old ToK favourite the Metaphor of the map. This is the idea that knowledge can be thought of as a map. It is built for a particular purpose, and that purpose determines what is shown on the map and how it is shown in relation to everything else on the map. Knowledge, like the map has boundaries, and that which is not known is not represented.
Construction in Minecraft & ToK
In Minecraft we build our own world - this is like our knowledge world, all that is known is represented in this minecraft world. That which is not known is not represented (obviously). The minecraft world is built for a purpose, just like the knowledge world, and it has boundaries, just like the knowledge world.
The concept of structural Integrity is also shared between the minecraft world and the knowledge world. In the minecraft world buildings are made from interlocking a range of different shaped blocks, in the knowledge world knowledge is made by combining information with meaning, purpose and context. In the minecraft world you can have strong blocks leading to solid building. Likewise in ToK we have strong methodologies for making solid, reliable and accurate knowledge. Likewise in Minecraft we can have weak and damaged blocks which lead to unreliable, unsafe buildings. I don’t need to describe the parallel with the knowledge world.
Self expression, the perspective of The Knower.
One of the fundamental ToK lessons that Minecraft imparts is the power of creativity and self-expression. The game encourages players to build and create using a variety of blocks, allowing them to construct intricate structures, landscapes, and even entire worlds. In doing so, Minecraft teaches players the value of imagination, innovation, and the satisfaction that comes from applying imagination in the minecraft world. This concept mirrors ToK ideas about the human capacity for innovation and creation of new knowledge, and the significance of the unique perspective of the player, or knower in the ToK World.
The power of community.
Furthermore, Minecraft emphasises the significance of collaboration and community. The game enables players to engage in multiplayer mode, where they can join forces, collaborate on projects, and work towards common goals. In this context, Minecraft showcases the inherent value of cooperation and networks in the construction of knowledge. The game highlights the benefits of collective effort in achieving greater outcomes. This aligns with the ToK ideas surrounding communities of knowers, cooperation, and the idea that as knowers we have contextualised knowledge perspectives.
Minecraft: Empiricism vs Rationalism ?
Another ToK theme present in Minecraft revolves around exploration and discovery. The game presents a vast, open world teeming with hidden treasures, uncharted territories, and secrets waiting to be unveiled. Minecraft prompts players to venture into the unknown, to embrace curiosity, and to push the boundaries of their understanding. In this sense, the game reflects ToK notions of the human desire for knowledge, or curiosity and the importance of exploration in broadening our horizons. The core ToK theme of rationalism vs empiricism ie is knowledge created or discovered ? is implied in the structure of minecraft.
The wider ToK theme of the function of knowledge also finds its place within Minecraft. The game provides players with a sense of autonomy and freedom. This allows them to navigate and shape the virtual world according to their desires. This concept of agency and personal responsibility mirrors ToK ideas about free will vs determinism. Individuals are encouraged to take charge of their own lives, make choices, and find meaning in their existence. Minecraft reminds players that they have the power to shape their own narratives, both within the game and in their lives beyond it.
The evolution of knowledge.
Finally, Minecraft touches upon the ToK concepts of the evolution of knowledge and the consequent transient nature of current knowledge. In Minecraft structures can be built and destroyed, landscapes can be transformed, and the virtual world is in a constant state of flux. This mirrors ToK ideas about the temporary nature of current knowledge. Including the importance of thesis, antithesis and synthesis in the development of knowledge.
There are many ways in which Minecraft could be used as an object for reflection in the ToK Exhibition. If you are looking for help and ideas with your ToK Exhibition ToKToday has detailed explanations. We also have suggestions for objects for EVERY ToK Exhibition Prompt - link here.
Minecraft teaches players to appreciate the beauty of transience, to adapt to new circumstances, and to find value in the process rather than fixating on the end result. Similarly, ToK teaches us about the inherent beauty of knowledge construction, application and evolution.
Watch out for more posts on the link between ToK and computer games, music and movies.
Stay tok-tastic,
Daniel, Lisbon, May 2023
Will AI save my ToK Life?
What is the potential for using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help us in ToK ? Is it possible that we could use AI to assist us in our ToK Exhibition and ToK Essay without running into problems of academic integrity ? Can AI reduce our workload, increase the quality of work, reduce our stress, increase our productivity, make us better ToK learners, and not get us into trouble with IB ? Yes ! AI can do all of this, and more. In this post I introduce some of the basic do's and don'ts of using AI in ToK.
A video version of this post is available at this link
Don't paste ToK Exhibition Prompts / Essay questions verbatim into the AI prompt box:
I asked ChatGPT 3.0 to answer the ToK Exhibition prompt: What is the relationship between personal experience & knowledge ?
How did Chat GPT do ?
Assessing ChatGPT's answer against the ToK Exhibition Criteria.
I assessed ChatGPT's ToK Exhibition Commentary as 0/10 using the IB ToK Exhibition Assessment Rubric.
ChatGPT would have failed the ToK Exhibition fairly comprehensively because the prompt alone does not contain the range of instructions required to produce a commentary that would achieve a passing grade.
Can AI detection software identify ChatGPT's commentary as written by AI ?
Both GPTZero and ZeroGPT accurately detected ChatGPT's commentary.
How do AI detectors perform when analysing text written by humans ?
BothGPTZero and ZeroGPT accurately detected the commentary that I had written as "Human Written" text.
How can we ethically use AI to help us to write the Exhibition Commentary?
Microsoft Bing is far more accurate and helpful in its use of sources than ChatGPT (this is the status at the time of writing, ChatGPT may get better in the future).
We can ask Bing a more focussed question: "Tell me 3 different ways to understand the relationship between personal experience and knowledge."
Bing gave us 3 ways to understand the relationship between personal experience and knowledge. These could be developed, using our own words, into knowledge claims. Each knowledge claim could have a specific object attached to them.
Bing also gave us 3 sources (ringed in the diagram on the left), one source is a (free) ToK Textbook !, the other source (#2) is also of use. We could use these sources to help us to develop the 3 ways to understand the relationship between personal experience & knowledge that Bing has already given us.
Save time, improve quality, reduce stress with AI
From this post I hope that you can see that:
Do's:
Ask Microsoft Bing targeted and specific knowledge questions. Use its response to give you structures for your ToK Exhibition (don't cut & paste, redevelop its response in your own words).
Use the sources that Microsoft Bing gives you to help you to develop its responses in your own worlds.
Don'ts:
Don't paste the ToK Exhibition prompt (or Essay Prescribed Title) verbatim into the AI Prompt Box. It will not give you useful content, nor will it meet the assessment criteria.
Don't copy and paste AI content without properly citing (ie referencing) it. It will be identified by AI content detectors.
If you have specific requests for AI related content please don't hesitate to get in touch with me at Daniel@ToKToday.com.
We have focussed prompts for AI specifically designed to generate relevant content for the November 2023 ToK Essays available at this link.
Get explanations of all the ToK Exhibition Prompts, including:
An overview explanation of each prompt.
Examples of three knowledge claims for each prompt.
Suggestions for the types of object that would be appropriate for each knowledge claim.
How to structure the ToK Exhibition Commentary.
3 simple steps to write up one object: ToK Exhibition
You've chosen your prompt, you've written 3 knowledge claims, you've chosen 3 objects. What do you do next ? In this post we look at 'the essentials' for writing up just one object in the ToK Exhibition.
I will use the example of ToK Exhibition Prompt: What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge ? , and will draw from this post on TokToday, and the corresponding YouTube Video
"Explain link RWC"
This box means explain the link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.
Consider answering the questions:
(i) How does this object link to the prompt?
(ii) What does this object tell us about the prompt?
Here I have:
Explained the real world context of the object.
Explained the link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.
"Explain link knowledge”
Here I have explained the link between the object and the knowledge claim (the knowledge claim for object 2 is "Personal experience can challenge the pre-existing knowledge of the knower."
Writing a knowledge claim for each object helps each object to make a specific contribution to answering the prompt. This is key for getting a high mark in the ToK Exhibition. Find out more about making your objects specific at this link.
"Justify Inclusion"
Finally, I justify the inclusion of the object by extending the explanation of the knowledge claim, and linking back to the original prompt.
A final tip is that you should ensure that you are directly addressing the original prompt. If you are including the words from the prompt in your answer then you are probably addressing the prompt. If you are not including the key words from the prompt in your answer then you're probably not addressing the prompt. Eg If you're answering the prompt "How does the context of the presentation of knowledge affect it's acceptance ?" then you should be using the words context, presentation and acceptance in your answer.
Examples of Commentaries:
What constraints are there on the pursuit of knowledge? (ToK Exhibition #15)
What features of knowledge have an impact on its reliability?
Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?
Get a copy of TOK Exhibition Prompts Explained at this link.
Detailed explanations of each prompt, including suggestions for knowledge claims and objects that could be used in the Exhibition.
How do I structure my ToK Exhibition Commentary ?
Full & detailed explanations of all ToK Exhibition prompts are available at this link.
This includes suggestions for knowledge claims and objects.
The question that I am asked most often about the ToK Exhibition is "How do I structure my ToK Exhibition commentary?". This question is understandable given the rather peculiar nature of this assessment. The ToK Exhibition Commentary requires students to reflect on how ToK manifests itself in their everyday lives (an exercise in reflection), but then assesses that reflection against standardising criteria (an exercise in reliability) - those two things are difficult to put together.
Use of exemplars to understand the structure of the ToK Exhibition Commentary.
I recommend that students use the exemplary ToK Exhibition Commentaries that are issued by IB to develop an understanding of ways in which to structure the commentary. Students can do a paragraph by paragraph analysis of what is contained in each paragraph to understand the possible structures.
Here I do this with one of my commentaries:
Hopefully you can see how I have identified the main function of each paragraph to work out what the structure of the commentary is for one object. I recommend that students do this with the IB Exemplars (I can't share them here because IB owns the copyright of them, but you can get them from your ToK teacher).
Summary structure for the ToK Exhibition Commentary.
There is no single correct structure for the ToK Exhibition commentary. However, after analysing the high scoring exemplars, and careful reading of the IB ToK Examiner's reports (the "Subject Report") I have devised the following structure. This structure covers all of the elements that IB are looking for when they assess your ToK Exhibition:
You shouldn't use the term "Knowledge Claim" in your commentary, just embed the claim inside the commentary. Only include ToK Concepts if they're useful to explain your knowledge claim in terms of the prompt.
If you want help with your ToK Exhibition Commentary you can book a coaching session using this link, or you can book 3 sessions at a reduced price here.
Best of luck with the commentary, stay Tok-Tastic!
Daniel,
Lisbon, May 2023
Growth & ToK Resources
This is a quick post to let you know where I'm at with the growth of the site and ToK Resources.
Growth
We're now 9 months into TokToday, before I started the site a technologically-minded colleague told me that it would take two years to establish the site. It turns out that she was broadly correct. All measures of 'engagement' are steadily growing across both the YouTube channel and the TokToday.com Wordpress site.
On the ToKToday wordpress site I'm currently getting about 300 visitors per day, with about 500 views a day. I compare this with September 2022 when I was getting about 12 visitors per day with about 30 views per day. So, I'm very happy with the growth of the site. I'm not sure about monetising the site, I tried running Google Ads on the site back in January, but I felt that the money made (about $1/day) did not offset the increased clumsiness of the site. I'd prefer to leave the site as an 'easy to use' ad free environment. I want site users to have easy access to the free ToK resources provided. I'll come back to this in a few months time.
YouTube Subscribers - keeping hope alive !
The growth of the TokToday YouTube channel (click here) has been far more erratic than the TokToday wordpress site. To be honest I am on a very steep learning curve on the types of videos that people want to watch. Videos on pedagogy / lesson design / Tok Content have had very few views. I posted these on Linkedin & the Facebook ToK Teachers group in the hope that teachers would watch them, but views are generally in the dozens. Videos on ToK content have faired better with students, but again it's not predictable. Sometimes a video that I've spent days putting together gets very few views, whilst another video that I've compiled from the top of my head, and mainly used AI to make, has attracted lots of views. It's very unpredictable. I have noticed that short content videos can do very well on YouTube Shorts, and Tik Tok. This is clearly the direction in which to head with student focussed content.
The YouTube content that attracts the most viewers is that concerning assessment, particularly videos explaining the Essay and Exhibition prompts. These videos have attracted thousands of viewers. I was told, by a number of people, before I started the site that students (& teachers) would generally only be interested in the assessment content. I naively hoped that I could make videos that would engage people beyond the assessment requirements, I continue to live in hope !
Subscriber growth on YouTube has been steady, but slower than I initially expected (588 subscribers at the time of writing, thank you to all those who have subscribed to either YouTube or Wordpress sites). I quickly realised that most of my viewers have clicked on one of my videos to get help with their ToK Essay or Exhibition. Once they have received this help I guess that they are unlikely to subscribe to the channel because that aspect of their "ToK journey" has now been fulfilled. This realisation has led me to start looking at diversification on YouTube (more on that in coming months).
Seasons of Love
I have also learned that engagement in ToK content is highly seasonal. There was little interest in the site in August, September and October. However as May Session Draft Essay deadlines approached engagement both on YouTube and Wordpress shot up in November and December. Engagement continued to be high in January and February as May session students completed their essays. In March, when May session students submitted their essays, engagement dropped off a cliff. In April and May engagement has been increasing rapidly as many May session G11 students prepare for their ToK Exhibition.
Welcome the Southern Hemisphere !
In autumn 2022 I had some engagement from November session students preparing their ToK Exhibitions. There are for more May session ToK students than November session ToK students (110,000 students in May, 11,000 students in November). I was interested to see what engagement I would get from November session students in the essay resources, it turns out that it has been incredibly impressive both on YouTube and in the TokToday.com. Ratio engagement from Nov 23 students has been far higher on both platforms than it was from May 23 students. I'll be interested to see whether this is due to the site now having a higher placing in Google's algorithm, or due to other factors.
The Nov 23 session students have brought far more viewers from Australia, New Zealand and Peru. Surprisingly it has also brought in viewers from Singapore, S.Korea and Japan - I didn't realise that there are Nov session schools in those locations. I am yet to see any viewers from Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina nor S.Africa (which has also surprised me). Welcome to all of my November session viewers - it's great to have you on board !
ToK Resources
The initial aim of TokToday remains the same: to provide accessible ToK resources for students and teachers. I have learned that these resources have to be differentiated just as they do in the classroom. It has been interesting to receive feedback on resources designed for students and teachers who find ToK very challenging, and this is my main area of challenge. Conversely, the vast majority of students with whom I have worked have not been struggling with ToK, generally they are students who are doing very well but want to secure a 9/10 or 10/10 in their essay or Exhibition.
Every Exhibition Prompt explained.
I try to fulfill my viewers requests for content (if you have any requests please let me know: Daniel@TokToday.com). A couple of weeks ago a teacher asked me for a guide to every ToK Exhibition prompt. After some consideration I thought that this would be an excellent resource to put together, albeit a rather lengthy undertaking ! Initially I'll publish it in mini-guides of 5 prompts, when it is completed I'll compile them all and publish a guide to all 35 prompts. The guides to Prompts 1-5 (linked) and 6-10 (linked) are now published. They include:
An overview explanation of each prompt.
Examples of three knowledge claims for each prompt.
Suggestions for the types of object that would be appropriate for each knowledge claim.
Suggestions on how to structure the ToK Exhibition Commentary.
Questions for Artificial Intelligence.
The recent change in IB's Academic Integrity Policy to allow the use of AI content (so long as it's adequately cited and referenced) is welcome, realistic and very interesting. I've been experimenting with ChatGPT and the Nov 23 session titles. I quickly realised that you have to ask very specific questions of AI to get appropriate responses. Further, you need to build the AI understanding of the type of responses that you want through the sequence of prompts that you ask. In order to help students with this process I have produced a series of 25 AI prompts that you can use to help write your ToK essay. I look forward to receiving feedback from students who used these.
Skills
Finally, I'd just like to comment on the issue of ToK Skills. My initial idea for TokToday.com was to identify, operationalise, the skills required for success in ToK. The IB ToK Study Guide (IB 2020) contains the word "Skill" or "Skills" 11 times, 9 of these mentions is to refer the reader to the AtL Skills. I don;t think that the AtL skills are sufficiently specific for us to build learning activities that specifically build skills required to target learning in ToK. Therefore, working the ToK Teachers Network in Thailand I built a skills diagram (below), and developed some learning resources using this diagram. I'd like to return to this in the coming year for further development.
I'd like to thank all supporters of both this site, and the YouTube channel. Your support, feedback, and guidance over these first 9 months has been invaluable. Please keep giving me feedback so that I can continue to improve Tok-Today.
Stay Tok-tastic !
Daniel,
Lisbon, May 2023
What constraints are there on the pursuit of knowledge ? (ToK Exhibition #15)
Get a copy of TOK Exhibition Prompts 11-15 Explained at this link.
Detailed explanations of each prompt, including suggestions for knowledge claims and objects that could be used in the Exhibition.
Below is just a summarised example of a commentary for the ToK Exhibition prompt "What constraints are there on the pursuit of knowledge ?" (the book Prompts 11-15 Explained has a more detailed exploration of this prompt).
A video overview of this Exhibition Commentary is available at this link.
Exhibition Commentary Structure.
I recommend using this structure for writing the commentary for each object.
ToK Concepts should only be included if they're relevant, don't 'force' them in for the sake of using them.
'Evidence' can be citing academic research evidence, a newspaper article, or details about the object itself. There should not be a separate evidence section at the end, just weave the 'evidence' into the commentary.
The overall ToK Exhibition Commentary structure is shown below.
Key terms in this IA prompt.
Constraints.
Constraints can be understood as barriers, obstacles, curbs, hindrances or restrictions on the pursuit of knowledge. This can cover a wide range of factors from the knowledge producer themselves, the values underpinning a subject, pre-existing knowledge to the methodology (incl. technology) of knowledge production.
The pursuit of knowledge.
The term “pursuit of knowledge” is not specifically defined in the IB ToK Guide (International Baccalaureate). However, from reading the ways in which the term is used in the IB ToK Guide we can see that they are referring to a wide breadth of ways in which knowledge can be attained. Including the production of knowledge in a conventional manner, and formal and informal learning (such as in school). It does seem to imply a proactive approach on the part of the pursuer of knowledge.
It is recommended that students closely tie their response to this term (the pursuit of knowledge) to demonstrate to the examiner that they are directly addressing the prompt.
Knowledge Claims.
It is recommended that you develop three knowledge claims (one for each object) BEFORE you identify objects. If you have one distinct knowledge claim for each object it is easier to write a knowledge discussion which is specific to that object.
These are just 3 examples of the many knowledge claims that you could develop for this prompt:
Knowledge Claim 1:
The value framework of an authority figure / knowledge gatekeeper can be a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge.
Knowledge Claim 2:
The tools available to a knower can be a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge.
Knowledge Claim 3:
The value framework of a discipline / area of knowledge can be a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge.
In the commentary below I have included the following 3 headings to help you to see the structure, you should not include these headings in your own commentary:
Link between real world context of object and prompt.
Link between object and knowledge argument one.
Justification for inclusion of object one.
The ToK Exhibition Commentary.
Object one: Newspaper Report about a School Principal who was forced to resign after showing her students a photograph of the statue David by Michelangelo (Radford).
Photo Credit: BBC News (Radford)
Link between real world context of object one and prompt.
In March 2023 a Florida high school principal had to resign under pressure from some of the parents of students at her school who disagreed with her showing the students a photo of Michelangelo’s statue David. The parent’s actions were a constraint on the future knowledge of the students at the school (who will not learn about this statue, others like it, and its relevance in art history). The parent’s actions are also a constraint on the knowledge of the Principal who had to resign, and future Principals of the school.
Link between object and knowledge argument one.
The parents who obliged the Principal to resign represent an authority figure, or external power, in the definition of legitimate knowledge. Their power to influence what knowledge is deemed appropriate for inclusion in the school curriculum gives them the role of gatekeepers of knowledge. In such a role any selection of knowledge from omission from the school curriculum is a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge of the student’s at the school.
Object one demonstrates that external authority figures / bodies acting in the role of knowledge gatekeepers are a potential constraint on the pursuit of knowledge of those over whom they have authority.
It is important to note the distinction between the constraint over the pursuit of knowledge, and the constraint on the knowledge itself. Gatekeepers may constrain the pursuit of knowledge in the context / knowledge sphere within which they have influence, but the knower may still pursue knowledge via alternative methods or routes. In the case of Object 1 the students at the school could learn about Michaelangelo’s work outside of the school environment.
Justification for inclusion of object one.
Object one is included because not only does it demonstrate the prompt, but it exemplifies the irony of the renaissance movement. Michelangelo was a significant influence in the renaissance movement, a group of knowledge producers who advocated a liberal-rational approach to knowledge, including greater freedom of thinking and speech. The parents at the Florida high school advocated censorship of knowledge, and value laden interpretation of knowledge. As such, object one demonstrates that attempts to increase access to knowledge can lead to greater constraints on knowledge.
Object one word count: 351
Object 2: Pasteur’s Microscope used to study Silkworm diseases 1860-1870. (Pasteur et al.)
Photo Credit: (Pasteur et al.)
Link between real world context of object two and prompt.
Object 2 is the compound microscope used by Louis Pasteur to study diseases in Silkworms in the 1860s.His studies led him to develop a method for sterilising silkworm eggs to prevent the spread of the disease. Pasteur used this knowledge to further develop the germ theory of disease. He would not have been able to scientifically demonstrate germ theory without the microscope. As such Object 2 demonstrates that the technology that is (and is not) available to the knower can be a constraint on knowledge.
Link between object and knowledge argument two.
Microscopes were developed in the late 16th century. Over time, microscopes were continually refined and improved. The invention and improvement of this technology enabled Pasteur to identify and understand the physical evidence to establish germ theory. He conducted a series of experiments using microscopes to study the causes of fermentation and putrefaction through which he demonstrated that microorganisms were responsible for these processes, rather than spontaneous generation, as many people had believed. If Pasteur had not had access to the technology of the microscope he would not have been able to see the evidence needed to confirm germ theory. Previously other scientists (e.g. Nicolas Andry (Seymour and Ernst)) had hypothesised the role of microorganisms in the role of diseases, but had been unable to confirm the theory with visual evidence (realised by the microscope). As such the microscope demonstrates that access to technology enables the discovery, or construction, or knowledge. Conversely, a lack of technology is a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge. Some scientific theories, such as the establishment of Dark Matter, are currently contingent upon the development of new technologies which will enable their confirmation.
Justification for inclusion of object two.
Object 2 is included because it highlights the crucial role that technology holds as constraint, or enabler in the pursuit of knowledge. Pasteur’s use of the microscope in developing the germ theory paved the way for the development of antibiotics and other treatments for bacterial infections. This shows that lack of technology can be a central constraint in the pursuit of knowledge.
Object 2 word count: 338
Object 3: A photo of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory.
Photo credit: (“Introduction to the PEAR Lab”)
Link between real world context of object three and prompt.
Object 3 is the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory established in 1979 by Professor Robert G. Jahn to study the ability of the human mind / consciousness to affect physical objects. The lab used conventional scientific experimental design as a component of a normal established scientific methodology. Jahn found small positive highly significant statistical effects ( (“Introduction to the PEAR Lab”). However, the lab was closed down in 2007 due to accusations that it was practising “pseudoscience” (“'Pseudoscience' lab closes at Princeton – The Daily Free Press”). Scientific funding bodies, and university managers, felt that PEAR transgressed the acceptable norms and values that underpin the classification of the discipline Physics. As such, object one demonstrates that the values, or conventionally defined scope, of a discipline (such as Physics) can be a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge.
Link between object and knowledge argument three.
The research at PEAR challenged some of the fundamental principles of modern day Physics. The research at PEAR looked at whether the power of the human mind (or human consciousness) could change the direction motion of physical objects. As such the research challenges Newton’s Laws of Motion (“Newton's laws of motion | Definition, Examples, & History”) and Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation (“Newton's law of universal gravitation”). These laws are fundamental to the paradigm of contemporary physics. When Jahn started to report statistically significant experimental results many in the scientific community were concerned about the methodology of the research. Underpinning these concerns was the challenge to the established paradigms of contemporary physics (as enshrined in Newton’s laws) (“'Pseudoscience' lab closes at Princeton – The Daily Free Press”). By closing PEAR the Physics establishment silenced the challenge to the norms and values of the discipline. As such, PEAR laboratory demonstrates that the norms, values and paradigm of a discipline can be a constraint on the pursuit of knowledge in that discipline.
Justification for inclusion of object three.
PEAR is included because it shows that whilst the norms and values of a discipline define the content, and methodology, of a discipline they can also constrain the evolution of the discipline. The research at PEAR had the potential to increase the insight and sophistication of the principles of contemporary Physics. In order to evolve any discipline new knowledge will inevitably challenge pre-existing conventional beliefs. Object 3 demonstrates that such a challenge can be very difficult to accept. As such disciplines are more prone to stasis than to evolution in the development of knowledge.
Word count for object 3: 355
Total Word Count: 1044
(I have some editing to do).
Works Cited
da Volterra, Daniele, et al. “Michelangelo.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo. Accessed 4 May 2023.
International Baccalaureate. Theory of Knowledge Guide. Cardiff, International Baccalaureate Organization, February 2020, www.ibo.org.
“Introduction to the PEAR Lab.” Psyleron, https://www.psyleron.com/pearIntro.html. Accessed 6 May 2023.
“Newton's law of universal gravitation.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. Accessed 6 May 2023.
“Newton's laws of motion | Definition, Examples, & History.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 March 2023, https://www.britannica.com/science/Newtons-laws-of-motion. Accessed 6 May 2023.
Pasteur, Louis, et al. “Microscope used by Louis Pasteur in his investigations on silkworm diseases, Paris, France, 1860-1870.” Science Museum Group Collection, https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co118372/microscope-used-by-louis-pasteur-in-his-investigations-on-silkworm-diseases-paris-france-1860-1870-compound-microscope. Accessed 4 May 2023.
“'Pseudoscience' lab closes at Princeton – The Daily Free Press.” The Daily Free Press, 23 February 2007, https://dailyfreepress.com/2007/02/23/pseudoscience-lab-closes-at-princeton/. Accessed 6 May 2023.
Radford, Antoinette. “Principal resigns after Florida students shown Michelangelo statue.” BBC, 25 March 2023, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65071989. Accessed 4 May 2023.
Seymour, Robert, and HC Ernst. “Germ theory of disease.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease. Accessed 6 May 2023.
As mentioned earlier, you should not include the headings (“link between”, “justification for” etc) in your own commentary.
What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge ?
Get LOTS more help with this prompt from the e-book What is the relationship between personal experience & knowledge? explained
Only €5 (US$5.30) this e-book has detailed explanations of knowledge claims, and suggestions for objects that could be used.
Available for immediate download (get help now, no waiting around for email replies).
This is just an example of a commentary for the ToK Exhibition prompt "What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge ?".
A video overview of this commentary can be found at this link.
Exhibition Commentary Structure.
I recommend using this structure for writing the commentary for each object (in the prompt "What is the relationship between personal experience and knowledge ?".
ToK Concepts should only be included if they're relevant, don't 'force' them in for the sake of using them.
'Evidence' can be citing evidence, a newspaper article, or details about the object itself. There should not be a separate evidence section at the end, just weave the 'evidence' into the commentary.
The overall ToK Exhibition Commentary structure is shown below.
Knowledge Claims for exploring the relationship between personal experience and knowledge.
It is recommended that you develop three knowledge claims (one for each object) BEFORE you identify objects. If you have one distinct knowledge claim for each object it is easier to write a knowledge discussion which is specific to that object.
Knowledge Claim 1:
Personal experiences can stimulate the systematic production of knowledge by the knower.
Knowledge Claim 2:
Personal experience can challenge the pre-existing knowledge of the knower.
Knowledge Claim 3:
Knowledge can significantly extend the personal experiences of the knower.
Object one: A carbon filament bulb made by Thomas Edison
Photo Credit: Terren, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Link between real world context of object one and the prompt.
Object one is one of the first incandescent carbon filament bulbs produced by Thomas Edison in Menlo Park, NJ, USA 1878. Reputedly, Thomas Edison started research on improving the electric bulbs of the late 19th century after seeing a train station gaslight exploding, which caused a fire. This experience sparked his interest in creating a safer and more efficient lighting system. He conducted extensive research and experiments to develop the first commercially successful incandescent light bulb (Edison). The personal experience of seeing a gas bulb explode led him to create new knowledge about light bulbs.
Link between object one and Knowledge claim one.
Light bulbs were already in existence in the late 1870’s before, it is reported that Edison experienced a gaslight exploding, leading to his subsequent research. However, Edison was motivated to systematically produce new knowledge because of his personal experience with the exploding gas light (“Who Invented the lightbulb?”).
The process of systematic knowledge production would take several years of research and experimentation. Edison's approach was to test hundreds of different materials for their suitability as a filament, the part of the light bulb that produces light when heated by an electrical current (“Who Invented the lightbulb?”).
As such, the individualised, subjective, experience of seeing a gaslight explode was translated by Edison into a process of knowledge production involving the scientific method (deductive reasoning), trial and error learning, and inductive reasoning. This shows that personal experiences can lead to the systematic, structured and methodical production of knowledge.
Justification for the inclusion of object one.
The improvement and standardisation of the incandescent electric light bulb undertaken by Thomas Edison had significant implications for both the continued development of the use of electricity in domestic settings, and the realisation of the utilisation of electricity in domestic goods. As such, Edison’s personal experience was significant for knowledge production in the Natural Sciences, Human Sciences, Mathematics and The Arts.
Object 1 : 290 words
Object 2: The book The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker.
Photo credit: Candidate’s own photograph.
Link between real world context of object two and the prompt.
When I first read the book The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker (Pinker) it challenged many of my fundamental beliefs about language acquisition, and the aetiology of wider human characteristics. My reflection on the book led me to later change many of these pre-existing beliefs. In this example such beliefs represented knowledge. As such the experience of reading the book led me to change my knowledge. As such the book demonstrates that personal experiences can challenge, and subsequently change pre-existing beliefs.
Link between object two and knowledge claim two.
Before reading The Language Instinct, at the age of 23, I strongly believed that human behaviours (such as language) are acquired through social interaction, i.e. they are “socially constructed”. In the book Dr Pinker argues that drive to acquire knowledge is a nativist, and instinctive, i.e. biological and relatively independent of social construction. This perspective directly challenged my pre-existing knowledge and beliefs.
After reading the book I reflected upon the evidence presented by Dr Pinker, the arguments developed, and the weaknesses indicated in my pre-existing knowledge. I discussed the book with a number of people who both supported Dr Pinker’s argument, and with those who disagreed with the nativist perspective. As a result of this reflection I changed my pre-existing beliefs and perspective so that they were more closely aligned with Dr Pinker’s.
As such object two demonstrates that personal experiences (such as reading a book, and discussing it with others) can challenge, and change, pre-existing beliefs.
Justification for the inclusion of object two.
I have included object 2 because my pre-existing beliefs on the social construction of human behaviours were very strong before I read Dr Pinker’s book. I could not envisage the impact that the experience of reflection upon the book would have had on my pre-existing perspective based knowledge. Object 2 is not just included because contradictory knowledge and experiences can change pre-existing knowledge, but that it was the experience of reflection of encountering contrasting knowledge which had such a significant effect on my pre-existing knowledge.
Object 2: 315 words
Object 3: A Programme for The Edinburgh Festival 1988
Photo Credit: Candidate’s own photograph
Link between real world context of object three and the prompt.
Object 3 is a programme for The Edinburgh International Arts Festival 1988, I appeared in a theatre production at this festival with The National Youth Theatre of the United Kingdom. Taking part in the festival was a significant personal experience which was realised through the knowledge of my high school drama teacher. My drama teacher knew about the audition process for the company of The National Youth Theatre, and she knew how to coach me for the auditions. She had detailed knowledge which significantly extended my personal experiences.
Link between object three and knowledge claim three.
We often consider how our personal experiences can lead to the development of new knowledge. Often this new knowledge is produced by and for others. However, object 3 shows how the knowledge of others can significantly impact our personal experiences. Such external knowledge can be systematic, standardised and specialised. The systematic nature of this external knowledge differentiates it from the subjectivity of the personal experiences that we may derive as a product of such knowledge. When such knowledge is not known to us but changes our experiences its impact can be even greater than knowledge that is known to us.The use of this knowledge by another person to shape our personal experiences can extend those experiences beyond that which we would have originally imagined, or expected, because of the secondary nature of the knowledge of the other. At 17 yrs old I did not know about the National Youth Theatre. Further, if I had known about it I would not have known how to develop a qualifying audition. My personal experiences (of the youth theatre) depended upon the knowledge of my drama teacher.
Justification for the inclusion of object three.
Object three is specifically included because the knowledge of my high school drama teacher was quite beyond my knowledge, and personal experiences at the time. The object demonstrates a reversal in the conventional relationship between personal experience and knowledge (the former leading to the latter). Further, object 3 shows how the specialist systemic knowledge of others influences both the personal experiences of other knowers, and their subsequent development of further systemic knowledge.
Object 3: 340 words
Total: 945 words
Works Cited
Edison, Thomas. “Thomas Edison.” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison. Accessed 26 April 2023.
Pinker, Steven. The language instinct. W. Morrow and Company, 1994.
“Who Invented the lightbulb?” Live Science, 2 November 2022, https://www.livescience.com/43424-who-invented-the-light-bulb.html. Accessed 26 April 2023.
More ToK Exhibition resources can be found at:
What features of knowledge have an impact on its reliability?
Get LOTS more help with this prompt from the e-book ToK Exhibition Prompts 1-5 Explained.
The ebook contains:
An overview explanation of each prompt.
Examples of three knowledge claims for each prompt.
Suggestions for the types of object that would be appropriate for each knowledge claim.
How to structure the ToK Exhibition Commentary.
This is just an example of a commentary for the ToK Exhibition prompt "What features of knowledge may impact on its reliability ?". A YouTube video overview of this commentary is linked here.
I recommend using this structure for writing the commentary for each object.
ToK Concepts should only be included if they're relevant, don't 'force' them in for the sake of using them.
'Evidence' can be citing evidence, a newspaper article, or details about the object itself. There should not be a separate evidence section at the end, just weave the 'evidence' into the commentary.
Knowledge claims for the features of knowledge which may impact its reliability.
I recommend developing 3 knowledge claims (or “Knowledge arguments”) BEFORE choosing objects. The knowledge claims that I have developed are:
Knowledge Claim 1: The knowledge production methodology may impact its reliability. (thalidomide)
Knowledge Claimt 2: The interpretation of knowledge may impact its reliability.
Knowledge Claim 3: The intention of the producer may impact its reliability (Murray-Herrnstein Bell Curve).
Object 1: A Youtube video on the effects of the Thalidomide Tragedy
methodology is a feature that may impact reliaibility
Video Credit: (Deutsche Welle News)
Link the real world context of Object 1 to the prompt.
The YouTube video of the effects of the drug Thalidomide describes the major public health disaster that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Thalidomide was a medication that was marketed as a sedative and anti-nausea drug for pregnant women, but it caused severe birth defects in thousands of infants born to women who had taken the drug during pregnancy.
The weaknesses in the drug trials that led to this tragedy are well-documented (Zimmer). The significant flaws in the testing and trials of the drug Thalidomide led to a lack of knowledge of the effects of the drug. As such, the way in which the knowledge was produced (as a feature of knowledge) impacted the reliability of the knowledge of the drug.
Link Object 1 to Knowledge Claim 1.
The methodology used to produce the knowledge of the effects of thalidomide (the drug trials) were flawed in many ways. The original clinical trials of Thalidomide had been conducted on healthy adult volunteers, but not on pregnant women or animals. The drug was assumed to be safe because it had very few side effects in adults, and it was believed that the placenta would act as a barrier to prevent the drug from reaching the foetus.
However, it was later discovered that Thalidomide was able to cross the placenta and accumulate in the developing foetus, leading to severe birth defects such as limb abnormalities, deafness, blindness, and internal organ damage. The extent of the tragedy was vast, with an estimated 10,000 children affected worldwide.
Another weakness in the drug trials was the lack of proper monitoring and reporting of adverse effects. Many physicians and pharmaceutical companies failed to report cases of birth defects or other side effects, and some even dismissed them as unrelated to Thalidomide.
Justification for the inclusion of Object 1.
The Thalidomide tragedy highlighted the importance of proper drug testing, monitoring and reporting of adverse effects. It also demonstrated the need for transparency in drug trials and marketing. The tragedy led to significant changes in drug regulation and testing worldwide. Governments and regulatory agencies began requiring more rigorous testing of drugs for safety and efficacy, including testing on pregnant women and animals. As such the Thalidomide tragedy demonstrates the importance of producing reliable knowledge in some contexts (eg Medicine), and the role of the method of knowledge production in attaining that reliability.
Object 1: 380 words
Object 2: Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies by Margaret Mead (1950.)
Photo credit: (Mead)
Link the real world context of Object 2 to the prompt.
I read this book whilst studying Social and Cultural Anthropology for my IB Diploma. Margaret Mead conducted fieldwork in the 1930s among the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli people of New Guinea. Mead's research focused on gender roles and challenged the prevailing notion that gender differences were biologically determined. However, her research has been criticised for various biases, including misinterpretation of the behaviours she observed. Her research shows that one of the features of knowledge that can impact reliability is the interpretation of knowledge.
Link Object 2 to Knowledge Claim 2.
Mead misinterpreted the behaviours that she observed. She thought that the Tchambuli people had reversed gender roles, with women being dominant and men being passive. However, subsequent research has showed that both men and women in Tchambuli society played active and passive roles in different aspects of their lives.
It is also argued that Mead imposed her own cultural assumptions and values on the people she studied. She projected her own preconceived ideas about gender roles onto the cultures she studied. Further, she emphasised the peaceful and cooperative nature of the Arapesh people while downplaying their violent tendencies. This misinterpretation of findings reduced the reliability of the knowledge of the cultures studied.
Justification for the inclusion of Object 2.
When I first came across Mead’s study I was struck by the central role that interpretation of observations plays in the production of knowledge, particularly in the Human Sciences. Misinterpretation of behaviour can be difficult to ascertain, because a highly reliable deductive research method is difficult to apply in a valid way in human sciences (unlike natural sciences). As such, Mead’s research taught me that interpretation of knowledge can significantly impact the reliability of knowledge, particularly in human sciences.
Object 2: 273 words
Photo reference: Candidate’s own copy
Object 3: The book The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein (Herrnstein and Murray )
Link the real world context of Object 3 to the prompt.
I read parts of this book whilst studying the Knowledge and Politics Theme of Theory of Knowledge. The book made claims about the relationship between intelligence, race, and social outcomes in the United States. It has been widely criticised for its methodology, interpretation of data, and the potential influence of political bias on the research. As such, Object 3 shows that the intention of a knowledge producer can impact the reliability of knowledge.
Link Object 3 to Knowledge Argument 3.
One way in which political bias may have influenced the Bell Curve research is through the researchers' own political beliefs. Both Murray and Herrnstein were conservative scholars who had previously expressed controversial views on race and intelligence. Critics have argued that their political biases may have influenced their research questions, data analysis, and conclusions. As such their political intentions may have influenced the reliability of the knowledge produced.
The book was criticised for its use of controversial sources, e.g. J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, who were known for their controversial views on race and intelligence. By using these sources, Murray and Herrnstein may have been influenced by political biases and may have been seeking to promote a particular political agenda, in turn influencing the reliability of their findings.
The book was criticised for its interpretation and selective use of data to support the authors' preconceived notions of race and intelligence. Again, the political intentions of the authors may have impacted the reliability of the knowledge produced.
Justification for the inclusion of Object 3.
It has been argued that the book promoted policies that led to the reduction of social and welfare programmes in the USA in the 1980s (Winston). The Bell Curve book shows that knowledge which is presented as being te product of scientific research is accorded authority and legitimacy. As such, it can be used in policy making, with subsequent consequences on people’s lives. It’s status as “scientific research” means that the intentions of the knowledge producers, and the consequential effect on the reliability of that knowledge, is less likely to be taken into account.
Object 3: 335 words
Total: 988 words (I have a little editing to do!).
For more help with the ToK Exhibition check out:
Works Cited
Deutsche Welle News. “Living with the effects 60 years after Thalidomide scandal | DW News.” YouTube, 27 November 2021, https://youtu.be/lDr9m6J2wck. Accessed 21 April 2023.
Herrnstein, Richard J., and Charles A. Murray. The Bell Curve. Free Press, 1994.
Mead, Margaret. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. United States, New American Library,, 1950.
Winston, Andrew S. “Review of The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 58, no. 3, 2003, pp. 391-392, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/44934.
Zimmer, Carl. “50 Years After Defect Tragedy, Finding Answers on How Thalidomide Caused Defects.” The New York Times, 15 March 2010, https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/science/16limb.html. Accessed 21 April 2023.
ToK Exhibition: Are some types of knowledge more useful than others?
Get a copy of TOK Exhibition Prompts 1-5 Explained at this link.
Detailed explanations of each prompt, including suggestions for knowledge claims and objects that could be used in the Exhibition.
The May 2022 ToK subject report clearly explains that the most important factor separating ToK Exhibitions with adequate grades from exhibitions with high grades is the specificity of the objects, and the specificity of the knowledge discussions developed from those objects. The way to achieve the required specificity is to develop knowledge arguments for each object at the beginning of the exhibition.
A video overview of this commentary can be found here.
You can find out a lot more on the role of specificity in the ToK Exhibition at this link.
The three knowledge arguments that I have developed for this prompt are:
Knowledge Arguments:
Knowledge Argument 1: Contextually specific Knowledge is more useful than contextually general knowledge is more useful.
Knowledge Argument 2: Falsified knowledge (ie wrong answers) can be more useful than correct answers..
Knowledge Argument 3: All knowledge can be of equal use, its the interpretation of knowledge that matters.
As ever, I strongly recommend that you develop your three knowledge arguments before you pick your objects. the objects should arise from the knowledge arguments developed, this just makes it easier to write your exhibition commentary, and ensures greater specificity.
We will use the TokToday Exhibition Structure to help us to meet all parts of the Exhibition Assessment rubric ("Instrument").
Object 1: My copy of the book Walkabout by James Vance Marshall that I read when I was 11 yrs old.
Link the real world context of Object 1 to the Prompt.
Object one Is my copy of the book Walkabout by James Vance Marshall. In this book an indigenous Australian boy saves the lives of two city living non indigenous Australians when they get stranded in the outback the indigenous Australian boy achieves this feat by using indigenous knowledge. The indigenous knowledge concerns knowing how to survive in a wilderness environment. As such it constitutes context specific knowledge. When I read this book at 11 years old it was the first time that I realised that the usefulness of knowledge is based upon the context within which the knowledge is produced and applied.
Link Object 1 to Knowledge Argument 1.
Walkabout shows that knowledge can be highly contextual in both meaning and application. The book demonstrates that the context within which knowledge is made, the context of the knowledge producer, the context of the knower and the context of the application of knowledge can give knowledge a function. Out of context the same knowledge can lack function and meaning. This could be seen as a functionalist approach to knowledge, that is that knowledge only exists because it has function (or is ‘useful) in at least one context. This approach could suggest a mutually inclusive relationship between the production and application of knowledge. Context is a major factor in determining the usefulness of knowledge, and therefore the type of knowledge which will be useful is context appropriate knowledge.
Justify the inclusion of Object 1.
The book Walkabout demonstrates the contextual usefulness of knowledge by contrasting indigenous knowledge with "non-indigenous" knowledge. This is highly effective for young learners who are yet to uncouple personal experience from the experiences of others. To understand that knowledge which may seem less useful in your context may be useful in another context requires an understanding of different contexts. Young people are less likely to have this understanding than older people. Illustrating the role of context by contrasting indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge (as in the book Walkabout) makes the role of context clear for young people.
Object 1: 325 words.
Object 2: The Dominoes set that I used to play Dominoes with my Grandfather when I was a child.
Link the real world context of Object 2 to the Prompt.
As a child playing Dominoes with my Grandad I didn't understand why he would usually win. Then I realised that he was remembering which dominoes I wasn't able to match, and therefore he was ascertaining which dominoes I did (or didn't) have in my hidden hand.
This was the first time that I realised that definite false knowledge was more helpful to gain specific knowledge than positive confirmatory knowledge when a range of answers were possible.
Link Object 2 to Knowledge Argument 2.
The usefulness of knowledge may depend on the purpose of the knowledge, and the method of knowledge production, or acquisition, that is used. Seeking confirmed negatives in Dominoes is similar to testing the null hypothesis in the scientific method. This is akin to finding a black swan to confirm the null hypothesis that Ho: Not all swans are white, rather than counting endless white swans in order to prove the hypothesis that H: All swans are white.
The theory of falsification is that the only certain knowledge is that which has been falsified. This is in contrast to seeking confirmatory cases which may support a hypothesis, but do not provide the same level of certainty as disproving a hypothesis.
Deductive reasoning requires the development of specific knowledge from a set of general observations. This is easier to do if we know which observations may be "wrong". Therefore false knowledge may be more useful than confirmed knowledge.
Justify the inclusion of Object 2.
The usefulness of knowledge may depend on the breadth of the range of possible answers available. When playing dominoes I learned that by reducing the number of possible answers my grandfather was increasing his chances of getting the correct answer. Eliminating possibilities increases the probability of finding 'correct' answers.
The scientific method is based on this form of deductive reasoning. It leads to knowledge with a very high level of reliability. It is easily demonstrated to a child by playing dominoes.
Object 2: 331 words.
Object 3 : Dr Alexander Fleming’s petri dish of penicillium mould (1935)
Link the real world context of Object 3 to the Prompt.
Dr Fleming realised that the mould growing in the petri dish was "killing" the bacteria that he intended to grow in the dish.Before this discovery it could be argued that mould was seen as a useless, or even damaging, organism. In terms of types of knowledge, we could say that it was seen as being medically useless.This was a serendipitous discovery that required Dr Fleming to bring a different perspective to what he found in the petri dish. The penicillium mould was used to develop the widely used medicine Penicillin, which has been used to treat hundreds of millions of people over the last 80 yrs. As such, it is a 'useful' type of knowledge.
Link Object 3 to Knowledge Argument 3.
Fleming realised that the mould could be medically useful. The mould is usually thought of as a worthless byproduct. Fleming re-interpreted that knowledge to show that it could be useful. Therefore it was not the type of knowledge that determined the usefulness of the knowledge, but the interpretation of the knower that made the knowledge useful. As such, the discovery of the anti-bacterial properties of penicillin shows that all knowledge may be useful if it is interpreted in a way that fulfils need. It could be argued that it is not so much a matter of categorising types of knowledge, but more a process of looking at ways of interpreting need.
Justify the inclusion of Object 3.
When I learned about the discovery of penicillin by Dr Fleming I realised that knowledge is defined by its interpretation and meaning. Both interpretation and meaning are dynamic, relative and contingent. Penicillin is a strong example of how knowledge thought to be 'useless' can be re-interpreted as being useful. It also led me to reflect on how many other medical cures we are missing because we are not interpreting the world around us in such a way that reveals this potential. Further, it has made me rethink the role of interpretation in determining what we know.
Object 3: 324 words.
This is just an example of ways in which you can link knowledge arguments to objects. I tried to use the a clear structure to show you how to write the commentary in such a way that you meet all parts of the assessment rubric.
If you would like support with your ToK Exhibition, such as detailed feedback on your draft, or coaching with your exhibition, then please do not hesitate to get in touch with Daniel@ToKToday.com.
Other posts & videos that may be of interest to students doing their exhibition are at:
Who owns knowledge?
Get LOTS more help with this prompt from the e-book Who owns knowledge? explained
Only €5 (US$5.30) this e-book has detailed explanations of knowledge claims, and suggestions for objects that could be used.
Available for immediate download (get help now, no waiting around for email replies).
An example of ToK Exhibition Prompt 29 - it's just an example, not the "right" nor "best" answer !
A video of this commentary can be found at this link.
Photo credit: Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.
Object 1: Photo of a recreated Gutenberg Printing Press at The International Printing Museum in Carson, USA.
This object is the Printing Press used during the Protestant Reformation and French Revolution to disseminate knowledge. The Printing Press demonstrates the claim that Knowledge Producers own knowledge. In this scenario ‘Own’ is defined as influencing the interpretation of knowledge of knowers. The claim here is that it is the people who construct knowledge (“producers”) are able to influence the perspective and knowledge of the knower, and their wider knowledge communities. As such the claim is that Knowledge Producers own knowledge rather than the Knower.
It is argued that through the fast, cheap and mass dissemination of information the printing press has changed what large groups of people know about the world. As such the development of a variety of alternative explanations and interpretations of knowledge, and new knowledge perspectives, could have been enhanced by the Printing Press. In this sense ‘owning’ knowledge is having the ability to influence, or shape, those explanations, interpretations and perspectives through the presentation of knowledge - as the printing press allowed. Further the printing press allowed the physical separation of the knowledge producer from the community of knowers. Arguably this can give the knowledge producer more legitimacy, and possibly authority. In such circumstances the claim to ‘own’ knowledge is stronger as the audience is more likely to attend to knowledge produced by a source deemed legitimate (Cartwright 2022).
Arguably the Printing Press has caused mass religious and social upheaval (Rice and Grafton, 1994). As such, those who produced the knowledge disseminated through the Printing press ‘own knowledge’ as they were able to define that which was known by the knowers reading the product of the printing press. The knowledge producers using the press were able to define, influence, and in some cases, change the accepted norms and values of the knowers. The link between the printing press and the ownership of knowledge is the influence of one knower (the controller of the printing press) over a knowledge community (the readers of the Press). Those using the press were, in some ways, owning the knowledge of those reading the products of the Press.
Photo Credit Radio: in References.
Object 2: a photo of a Zenith Tombstone Radio, USA, 1937.
The second object is a radio that in 1938 broadcast the dramatised version of HG Wells book War of The Worlds. The radio broadcast demonstrates the knowledge claim that The Knower owns knowledge as the broadcast of fictional events was (incorrectly) believed by the audience to be news reports of real events (of an alien invasion of New Jersey). Upon hearing the broadcast some members of the audience panicked, rang the emergency services, left their homes, and ran for shelter (Smithsonian Magazine 2015). The radio broadcast, despite being intended to be a fictional drama, was interpreted by the audience (“The Knower”). As such The knower is said to “own” knowledge as they interpreted knowledge ascribing meaning which differed to that intended by the producer of the knowledge.
The role of the radio in the re-interpretation of the dramatisation is key here. In 1938 the radio was still relatively new as a consumer product (The Development of Radio, PBS). The role of radio as a means of giving factual information, or as a medium for fictional entertainment, was still relatively unclear (Open Lib, 2016). As such, in ‘owning’ knowledge The Knower was reinterpreting knowledge according to the mode of communication rather than solely based on the content of the message. This further links to the idea that what we know is based on how we come to know it ToK Optional Theme Language and Technology). As such, whilst ownership can be claimed to lie with the knower it’s interpretation is, to a degree, moderated by the mode of transmission.
Photo Credit in References.
Object 3: A photo of early dynamite produced by Alfred Nobel (1863)
The third object is dynamite, as invented by Alfred Nobel in 1863. Dynamite demonstrates the claim that the contextualised intentions of both the knowledge producer and the knower own knowledge. In this scenario ‘own’ is defined as defining meaning and application. The knowledge claim for including this object is that the context within which knowledge is produced shapes who owns that knowledge. Further, the claim is that the intentions of the knowledge producer (as an element of context) can have an influence on who owns knowledge.
Nobel invented Dynamite as a humanitarian tool to improve the quality of life as it made mining and digging far easier (Tekniska museet, 2021). The purpose and intention of knowledge creation took place within a specific values based context. The context was one of a need to improve the global yields of crop production, Nobel produced Dynamite to clear land to make that possible (Wargin 2009). As such the third object demonstrates that knowledge producers do so with an intentional purpose for the new knowledge. These intentions are part of the context of knowledge production, which it is claimed are integral to who owns knowledge.
However, the knowledge of dynamite was used in an entirely different context as a weapon of destruction (Science Direct, 2021). The context of use of the knowledge determined the ‘meaning’ of the knowledge, and as such it could be argued that this object illustrates how context ‘owns’ knowledge. The particular aspects of context which are pertinent to the operalisation of ownership in this claim are the interpretation of knowledge, the application of knowledge and the inherent meaning of knowledge. This object demonstrates that owning knowledge can have a different articulation from the perspective of the producer to that of the user.
Word Count: 949 words
Other ToK Exhibition Resources can be found at:
References
Cartwright, M. (2022, March 05). The Printing Revolution in Renaissance Europe. Retrieved from https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1632 /the-printing-revolution-in-renaissance-europe/
The Development of Radio. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/rescue-development-radio/#:~:text=The period between the late,millions of listeners across America.
Radio Photo Citation:
“File:Vintage Zenith Tombstone Radio, Model 5S127, Broadcast, Short Wave and Police Bands, 5 Vacuum Tubes, Made In USA, Circa 1937.” Wikimedia Commons, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vintage_Zenith_Tombstone_Radio,_Model_5S127,_Broadcast,_Short_Wave_%26_Police_Bands,_5_Vacuum_Tubes,_Made_In_USA,_Circa_1937_(33825555595).jpg. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.Magazine, S. (2015, May 06). The Infamous "War of the Worlds" Radio Broadcast Was a Magnificent Fluke. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/infamous-war-worlds-radio-broadcast-was-magnificent-fluke-180955180/
Rice, E. F., & Grafton, A. (1994). The foundations of early modern Europe, 1460-1559. Norton.
Dynamite Photo Citation:
“Study.Com | Take Online Courses.” Alfred Nobel Lesson for Kids: Biography, Inventions & Facts, Study.com, 21 Mar. 2022, study.com/academy/lesson/alfred-nobel-lesson-for-kids-biography-inventions-facts.html.“Alfred Nobel - Dynamit.” Tekniska museet, 7 Dec. 2021, www.tekniskamuseet.se/lar-dig-mer/svenska-uppfinnare-och-innovatorer/alfred-nobel-dynamit.
Wargin, Kathy-Jo, and Zachary Pullen. Alfred Nobel: The Man Behind the Peace Prize (True Stories). 1st ed., Sleeping Bear Press, 2009.
“Science Direct: Dynamite.” Science Direct, www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/dynamite. Accessed 2
ToK Exhibition: Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds?
Get LOTS more help with this prompt from the e-book Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds explained.
Only €5 (US$5.30) this e-book has detailed explanations of knowledge claims, and suggestions for objects that could be used.
Available for immediate download (get help now, no waiting around for email replies).
Should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds? - YouTube Video of this commentary linked here
Interpretation of prompt (should some knowledge not be sought on ethical grounds ?):
I interpret this prompt as asking whether there is some knowledge that we should not acquire, or produce, for ethical reasons. You may interpret it in a different way, that’s fine, just be sure to explain to the examiner at the beginning how you are interpreting it. I have seen some students who have interpreted this prompt as asking whether we have to use ethical means to acquire knowledge. That’s not how I interpret it.
Identify Knowledge arguments BEFORE the objects.
Ok - let’s work out 3 knowledge arguments to answer this prompt. I strongly recommend that students identify 3 knowledge arguments BEFORE you identify objects for the prompt - it makes the rest of the exhibition easier, and makes it more likely that you will gain high marks.
So:
Knowledge Argument 1:
Some knowledge should not be sought because seeking it will require unethical behaviours.
Knowledge Argument 2:
Some knowledge should not be sought because there is a high probability that it will be used for unethical purposes.
Knowledge Argument 3:
All knowledge, including ethical standards, is contextual, therefore there is no knowledge that should not be sought on ethical grounds.
These are just examples of knowledge questions that could be used for this IA prompt, there are many other knowledge questions that you could develop for this prompt.
Now we have our knowledge questions let’s develop each of them as an answer to the prompt. To do this we will be using the ToKToday structure that ensures that you cover all aspects of the marking rubric, increasing your chances of getting a high score in The Exhibition.
moving from real world context to knowledge arguments in ToK Exhibition
Object 1: Photo of Tuskegee University, Alabama, United States.
By Skegeepedia - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,
Explain link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.
Between 1932-1972 Tuskegee University, and the US Dept of Public Health, infected 399 African American men with syphilis in order to study the progression of syphilis in the men. The study is now deemed unethical as the men were not given proper treatment for their disease. Further, the researchers did not obtain informed consent from the participants, and the study potentially perpetuated harmful stereotypes about African Americans (Ogungbure).
Explain link between the object and the knowledge argument.
The aim of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (to understand the natural progression of the disease in African American Men) would be deemed justifiable by many health professionals. However, this knowledge could have been sought using ethical means such as studying men who have contracted the disease naturally. The debate is whether the quality of knowledge produced by unethical means was significantly better than that which would have been produced using ethical means. If the knowledge produced unethically was significantly better than that produced ethically the unethical “costs” of seeking such knowledge could be justified. In some instances knowledge produced unethically can lead to greater ethical benefits than the costs of the unethical practices required to produce them. In the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study the knowledge gained is deemed by many researchers to not be significantly better than that which could have been gained using ethical methods (Pritchard and Goldfarb). How we determine “better” knowledge varies depending on the context, including the purpose of the knowledge, the intentions of the researcher, and methodological constraints. The context of the Tuskegee study did not require unethical practices to produce knowledge that was significantly better than that which could have been sought ethically. As such this object demonstrates that some knowledge should not be sought on ethical grounds due to unethical practices of seeking that knowledge.
Justification for inclusion in the Exhibition.
The Tuskegee study is included specifically because it demonstrates that often knowledge can be sought using ethical means rather than unethical means even if the ethical means are lengthier or more costly.
Words for object 1: 321
Object 2: Eugenics poster from Wonders of Life Exhibition, Berlin 1935.
(“Bundesarchiv Bild 102-16748, Ausstellung ‘Wunder Des Lebens’”)
Explain link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.
Object 2 is a poster shown at an exhibition in Berlin in 1935. The poster promotes human eugenics (selective breeding to increase the frequency of “desirable” characteristics). The poster shows demographic projections of the higher fertility of the "inferior" people compared to "superior" people. The poster shows that some knowledge should not be sought on ethical grounds if that knowledge will be used for unethical purposes. As such, object 2 refers to ethical grounds as the ethical principles regarding the use of knowledge.
Explain link between the object and the knowledge argument.
Much research into genetics has occurred since the Nazis were undertaking eugenics research in the 1940s. Contemporary genetics research is governed by strong ethical frameworks, including ethical codes of practice, disclosure and application, including the use of ethical boards and overseeing bodies. As such contemporary genetics research is widely deemed to be ethical, it gives us an understanding of the link between genetics and various diseases, and is used to improve human health and prolong life. However, the Nazis used the subsection of genetics research known as eugenics in order to develop a “superior” racial grouping. Their research methods involved many unethical practices including enforced sterilisation, murder of people with specific conditions, and enforced surgery.
Justification for inclusion in the Exhibition.
Object 2 is included in The Exhibition because it demonstrates that not only should some knowledge not be sought because of the methodology of seeking that knowledge, but also because of the application of the knowledge when it is produced. Contemporary genetics research (in contrast to Eugenics research) has parallels in terms of the knowledge sought, but both the methodology of seeking the knowledge, and the use of the knowledge produced, is radically different from eugenics research (Caplan et al.).
Object 2 words: 365
Object 3: Fingerprints by Francis Galton (1892)
Explain link between the real world context of the object and the prompt.
Object three is the book fingerprints by Frances Galton 1892. Francis Galton undertook the first scientific study of fingerprints as a means of identification, and was the first scientist to codify the use of fingerprints for identification. This object is linked to the prompt because Galten's work on fingerprints would be deemed unethical by today's standards and yet the knowledge is now applied for ethical purposes. As such this object demonstrates that all knowledge including ethics is contextual, and therefore open to change, and therefore no knowledge should not be sought on ethical grounds.
Explain link between the object and the knowledge argument.
In the 1890s gold Cinemas undertaking a form of eugenics research in which he was interested in the relationship between genetics and phenotypical characteristics. he undertook Mass cross cultural research. the aims, some of the practices, and the knowledge produced from this research would have be deemed unethical today. However, at the time The work was viewed as respectable and sophisticated scientific research. This shows that ethical codes and practices change in time and space.As such we could argue that we should seek knowledge regardless of current ethical beliefs as those ethical beliefs may change in the future (Galton and Galton) .
However, Galton's work gives further support for this argument because in the course of his research codified the use of fingerprints as a means of identification. This knowledge is used in such a way today that would be deemed ethical in preventing wrongdoing.
Justification for inclusion in the Exhibition.
Object 3 is included because it was the first time that fingerprints were scientifically studied to produce the knowledge for reliable identification by fingerprint. Arguably, because of Galton’s context, and the lack of prior research in this area, the study necessarily broke contemporary ethical guidelines. However, not only was the research not deemed unethical in the late 19th century, but the knowledge produced from Galton’s research is used for ethical purposes today. As such, this object supports the proposition that all knowledge should be sought regardless of the ethical grounds.
Object 3 words: 329.
Total words: 1015 (I’ve got a bit of editing to do)
Other resources available on The ToK Exhibition includes:
Key factor in ToK Exhibition: Specificity
ToK Exhibition Commentary: What counts as knowledge?
What are the Examiners thinking? (ToK Exhibition)
Bibliography.
Works Cited
“Bundesarchiv Bild 102-16748, Ausstellung ‘Wunder Des Lebens.’” Wikimedia.org, 2021, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Bundesarchiv_Bild_102-16748%2C_Ausstellung_%27Wunder_des_Lebens%27_rotate_crop.jpg?20210601153422. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.
Caplan, A. L., et al. “What Is Immoral about Eugenics?” British Medical Journal, vol. 319, no. 7220, Nov. 1999, pp. 1284–84, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1284.
Galton, D. J., and C. J. Galton. “Francis Galton: And Eugenics Today.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 24, no. 2, Apr. 1998, pp. 99–105, https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.24.2.99. British Medical Journal.
Ogungbure, Adebayo. “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Some Ethical Reflections.” A Journal of the Philosophical Association of Kenya (PAK) New Series, vol. 3, no. 2, 2011, pp. 75–92, www.ajol.info/index.php/tp/article/view/74876/65465#:~:text=The%20Tuskegee%20Study%20raised%20a.
Pritchard, Michael, and Theodore Goldfarb. “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study | Online Ethics.” Onlineethics.org, 2000, onlineethics.org/cases/ethics-science-classroom/tuskegee-syphilis-study.
Skegeepedia. “English: Built in 1906 and Completely Renovated in 2013, Tompkins Hall Serves as the Primary Student Dining Facility and Student Center. The Building Includes a Ballroom, an Auditorium, a Game Room, a Retail Restaurant, and a 24-Hour Student Study with Healthy Food Vending Machines. It Is Home to the Offices of the Student Government Association (SGA).” Wikimedia Commons, 26 Oct. 2013, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30051263. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.
What is the most important factor in ToK Exhibition ?
A video version of this blog post is available at this link.
The latest ToK Exhibition Exemplars have been published by IB, and we have scrutinised and analysed them to work out what it is they’re looking for so that you can get a great grade in your ToK Exhibition. Today we’re going to tell you what is the most important factor in the ToK Exhibition.
The difference between a good mark and a mediocre mark in the ToK Exhibition mainly rests on one factor, and that one factor is specificity !
Yep, we’ve analysed the IB exemplars, and the examiner’s report, and found that the key factor which moves your marks above 5/10 is specificity.
Let’s look in more detail about what we mean by specificity, we’ll identify 2 main areas of the ToK Exhibition which require specificity.:
Area number 1: Specificity of the object.
Let’s just start with an example: A dictionary is a generic object, however the dictionary that was used to agree a peace treaty between countries A & B in a particular year is a specific object.
The purpose of the ToK Exhibition is for you to explain how ToK is manifested in the world around you, using physical objects. Therefore you need to be able to identify individual objects and say what it is about that object that answers the prompt.
Another example - A Biology textbook is just a generic object, but your IB Biology textbook which made you question the relationship between mind and matter is a specific object.
A pea plant is a generic object, but the first pea plant that Mendel cross pollinated to test a genetic law is a specific object.
I don’t need to go on, you get the idea.
The need for a specific object is why some people think that you have to have a personal link to the objects used. This is a misunderstanding. The objects have to be specific, but you do not have to have a personal link to the object. It’s just that if you do have a personal link you are more likely to choose a specific object. However, a specific object is not sufficient to get a good mark, which conveniently takes us onto our second area of specificity.
Specificity of an is defined by IB as “particular context in time and space is identified” (pg 10 Subject Report, May 2022).
Area number 2: Specificity in what the object contributes to the exhibition.
You have to show how each specific object specifically contributes to the exhibition. Let’s look at an example. If I were answering Prompt #1 “What Counts as knowledge ?”, and I identified 3 specific books, and I argued that each book counts as knowledge because they contain facts, I would not be showing specificity in each object’s contribution to the exhibition. However, if my first object was a historical record going back to 1750 of daily air pressure recorded at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich UK, and I argued that this counts as knowledge because sometimes knowledge is recorded but not observed, and my second object was Darwin’s notes from the Beagle, and I argued that this counts as knowledge because knowledge is sometimes observed but not yet labelled, then I would be showing specificity in the object’s contribution to the exhibition.
This is why I believe that it is best if you identify 3 distinct arguments relating to the prompt, 1 argument for each object. You can see this in this Exhibition commentary I gave last year. In this commentary the objects are not specific enough, but the 3 arguments are clear.
The prompt is “Who owns knowledge ?”, my 3 arguments are:
1. Knowledge Producers own knowledge.
2. Knowers own knowledge.
3. Intention (or context) owns knowledge.
Another example is seen in this recent commentary that I gave.
The prompt is “What counts as knowledge ?”. My 3 arguments are:
1. Knowledge is that which has meaning for a restricted community of knowers.
2. Knowledge is that which has meaning for everyone and anyone.
3. Knowledge is that which only has meaning for the individual.
Ensuring that you clearly explain the knowledge link between that specific object and the prompt is important. That link should be different for each individual object, and it should be a knowledge link, if you want to get a high mark. There are 2 points to bear in mind here:
Firstly, don’t repeat the same link for all 3 objects. The link needs to be different for each individual object.
Secondly, and more importantly, the link needs to be a knowledge link, not a real world context link. Let’s look at another example. If you were answering the prompt “What is the relationship between knowledge and culture?”. Your object may be an auto-rickshaw used in a UK advert promoting tourism to India. The link should not be limited to the observation that the auto-rickshaw is characteristic of transport in India. It needs to go on to make a more generalised knowledge point. Such as individual objects can represent wider bodies of knowledge or meaning particularly when those meanings are associated into a system like a culture.
So, there we have it - keep it specific, and you will improve your chances of getting high marks on the ToK Exhibition.
Enjoy your ToK learning, stay tok-tastic my friends.
Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 23
Other ToK Exhibition Resources:
Latest ToK Commentary : What counts as knowledge?
What are the ToK Exhibition Examiners thinking?
ToK Exhibition Commentary - what counts as knowledge ?
Here's the latest attempt at a ToK Exhibition written after the analysis of the latest Exemplars (uploaded to the PRC on 7th Feb 2023), and a re-reading of the May 2023 subject report. I was trying to focus on developing the specificity of the object links, and contributions to the Exhibition.
Prompt #1: What counts as Knowledge ?
My first object is a childhood note from me to my brother written in a code that we devised as children. The code is meant to be a secret language between my brother and I. The note conveys knowledge which is exclusive to the two of us as the code was devised by, and only understood by, the two of us. The note counts as knowledge because it contains meaning which can only be interpreted by a specific community of knowers. Examples of similar knowledge are the designated areas used in the UK Shipping Forecast, code signs used by military or police personnel, or symbolic meaning within a youth subculture like the Mori Kei in Japan . The significance of the exclusivity of such knowledge is that it either evolved, or was devised, for a specific purpose - communicating meaning in an abbreviated, or telegraphed form. The exclusivity of the knowledge could be one of the purposes of its design (as is the case with the code that I devised with my brother), or it could be an unintended function of the knowledge (as is the case with the areas in the shipping forecast). This counts as knowledge because meaning is derived from membership of a specific group of knowers.
The note is included in the exhibition because what counts as knowledge is both contextual and purposeful. Taken out of context our code becomes little more than a set of squiggles on paper. The context of knowledge comprises those who produce the knowledge, those who acquire the knowledge, and the purpose of the knowledge. Without an understanding of context (usually acquired through membership of a group of knowers) the knowledge can be misinterpreted, or even meaningless (ie no longer knowledge).
However, knowledge which is created to remain exclusive can be understood by knowers beyond the target community if they develop either a deep understanding of the context, the purpose, or tools of deciphering the code. This indicates that what counts as knowledge may not be the content / meaning, but may be the context and purpose of the knowledge community.
The second object is an MRI scan of my left knee, showing a tear in a ligament. The MRI scan was looked at by 2 unrelated medical professionals working in separate hospitals, both medics interpreted the scan in exactly the same way. This image counts as knowledge as it is knowledge produced by a community of knowers who share a standardised method of knowledge production. This community of knowers also share a standardised threshold for what constitutes knowledge. However, what sets this knowledge apart from Object 1 is that this knowledge is designed to be understood beyond it’s originating community of knowers. The MRI scan is knowledge produced using the scientific method, as such it counts as knowledge because of its method of production, its objectivity, reliability, validity and universality. As such the MRI scan is knowledge based on facts.
The MRI scan is included in the Exhibition because some knowledge is not based on opinion, nor meaning which is solely specific to a community of knowers. Such knowledge is produced using methods which are designed for universality across community of knowers, and replication for the purposes of validation, Eg The scientific method. The generalisability, and aspiration for universality, of such knowledge is why this counts as knowledge. This is knowledge which has standardised meaning regardless of context, the knower, nor the purpose of the use of the knowledge. Human and Natural Scientific knowledge should be understood, and interpreted, in the same way regardless of the context of the knower. This is particularly important when we are considering knowledge pertaining to the organisation and maintenance of human life such as engineering, medical and economic knowledge.
However, the objectivity of such knowledge may detract from the individualised experience of the knower. Whilst two MRI scans may show the same condition in two separate people the individuals may experience that condition in very different ways. Knowledge which is designed for objective generalisability runs the risk of losing the meaning of that knowledge which is specific to the individual knower.
The third object is a ticket from a music concert that I attended in May 2022. At the concert I experienced strong emotions of elation, freedom and near transcendence. This was a ‘peak experience’, the closest that I have come to a sublime state. The ticket counts as knowledge as an experience which was the most truthful that I have experienced, but could not be externally validated, nor necessarily shared with other knowers.
Internal knowledge, sometimes called self knowledge represents a form of internal truth. This counts as knowledge to the knower as it can be a very strong form of knowledge.
However, it is not necessarily known to other knowers, nor is it necessarily validated or even agreed by others. As such the ticket is included in this Exhibition because it represents a wholly individual form of knowledge unlike objects 1 and 2. Such internal knowledge can include emotions, experiences, intuition and memories. The internal nature of such knowledge can be difficult to communicate to other knowers, making external validation even more difficult. However, such internal knowledge can have significant influence on the interpretation, explanation and perspectives that knowers form regarding new externally produced knowledge. For example, I will now be more receptive to knowledge which is aligned with the musicians who played at the concert (eg adverts using music from the same band).
Arguably values are a form of such internal knowledge, they may have external labels but are experienced at a near internal level. As values are the basis of interpretation, and perspectives the consideration of such internal knowledge is important if we are to understand what counts as knowledge. Forms of knowledge production designed for a wider community of knowers are influenced by the values and perspectives of the knowledge producer. For example, bio-chemists have to decide which disease to study when formulating treatments, this initial decision can be influenced by values.
Therefore, it is argued that internal, unvalidated, knower specific knowledge (aka “Truth”) is the basis of all knowledge, and therefore is the essence of what counts as knowledge.
I have many more ToK Exhibition Resources, including:
ToK Exhibition What do we know in Feb 2023?
ToK Exhibition Skills Builder Part 1
ToK Exhibition Skills Builder Part 2
What are the ToK Exhibition Examiners thinking?
Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 23
ToK Exhibition - what do we know Feb 23?
In Feb 2023 IB posted 10 new Exemplars of ToK Exhibitions. I've closely analysed them to see if we can learn anything new from them, or if they further confirm things that we already know. I have summarised the main findings in the table linked below.
What we Know - Exhibition Feb 23
3 key findings:
Specificity of objects, and specificity of knowledge links between the objects & the IA prompt are key to doing well.
Three perspectives / arguments is key to developing the specificity required in the link and justification for inclusion of the object.
There's still some ambiguity as to whether objects symbolising knowledge / meaning / culture are allowed.
There are many other findings, clarifications and confirmations in the document - check it out.
If you have any thoughts, or corrections, I'd love to hear them in the comments below.
Have a great day,
Daniel, Lisbon, Feb 23
Further information on The ToK Exhibition can be found at: