ToK Results May 24 & Feedback

Congratulations if you, or your students, have just received your DP & ToK results. Regardless of the actual numerical score, any study of the IB Diploma (particularly ToK) is a valuable achievement.

Thousands of students (and their teachers) used ToKToday resources in the May 24 exam session, I would love to know what you thought of the resources, and what scores you achieved in ToK. So, if you are a student receiving IBDP grades today, or a teacher who prepared students for the May 24 session I would be very grateful if you would fill in the survey linked below. The survey is anonymous, and it won’t take more than 2 minutes to complete.

Thank you for all of your feedback, and have a great day!

How to Evaluate AoK History

When writing the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay students are asked to evaluate their main knowledge claims. Today’s post looks at the main evaluation points that can be applied to most knowledge claims made in Area of Knowledge (AoK) History. Obviously, these evaluations points would need to be considered in terms of the specific claims made in an essay. This is the third in a five part series looking at evaluation points for each of the 5 Areas of Knowledge.

This blog can be viewed as a video at this link, and below.

Evaluating historical knowledge within the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course, involves understanding the complexities and nuances of how we interpret and construct our understanding of the past. In today’s blogpost, we explore four critical evaluation points: selectivity in the production of historical knowledge, interpretation of historical sources, post-event attribution of cause and effect, and the possibility of constructing unbiased historical knowledge.

1. Selectivity in the Production of Historical Knowledge

One significant issue in evaluating historical knowledge is the selectivity involved in its production. Historians must choose which events, figures, and perspectives to include in their narratives. This selectivity is influenced by the historian’s cultural background, personal beliefs, and the prevailing attitudes of their time. As a result, certain events or viewpoints may be emphasised or marginalised. For instance, traditional histories often focused on political and military leaders, neglecting the experiences of everyday people. Recognising this selectivity helps us understand that historical knowledge is not a comprehensive account of the past but a curated interpretation shaped by various biases and perspectives.

Selectivity is also a potential problem when we review the historical record of an event or time period. Some events may have a vast range of historical sources related to them from which we can choose. The sources that we select will affect our contemporary view of the historical event. The selection of sources may be influenced by our cultural perspectives.

2. Interpretation of Historical Sources

Another challenge in evaluating historical knowledge is the interpretation of historical sources. Historians rely on documents, artefacts, and other sources to reconstruct past events, but interpreting these sources is inherently subjective. Understanding past events from a modern perspective can lead to anachronisms, where contemporary values and beliefs are projected onto historical contexts. For example, interpreting medieval practices through a 21st-century lens can distort our understanding of those practices’ original meanings and significance. Critical evaluation requires an awareness of these interpretative challenges and a careful consideration of the context in which historical sources were produced.

3. Post-Event Attribution of Cause and Effect

The post-event attribution of cause and effect is another complex issue in historical evaluation. Historians often associate events to demonstrate causation, but this retrospective analysis can be problematic. Establishing proof in historical events is challenging because the interconnected nature of historical factors makes it difficult to isolate specific causes. For instance, attributing the cause of a war to a single event oversimplifies the multitude of political, economic, and social factors involved. Recognising this complexity helps us understand that historical causation is often a matter of interpretation rather than definitive proof.

4. Constructing Unbiased Historical Knowledge

Finally, we must consider whether it is possible to construct unbiased historical knowledge. All historical narratives are influenced by the historian’s perspectives and the available sources. While historians strive for objectivity, complete neutrality is likely unattainable. Every historian brings their own biases to their work, consciously or unconsciously. This does not mean that historical knowledge is inherently flawed but rather that it is a reflection of the interplay between past realities and present understandings. Evaluating historical knowledge thus involves critically examining these biases and recognising the subjective nature of historical interpretation.

In conclusion, evaluating historical knowledge requires a nuanced understanding of these four key points: selectivity in production, interpretation of sources, post-event attribution of cause and effect, and the potential for bias. By examining these aspects, you can develop a deeper appreciation of the complexities involved in constructing and understanding history. This will help you to write better developed evaluation points for historical knowledge in the ToK Essay.

If you need more help with your ToK Essay check out the services available linked here.

If you need help with your ToK Exhibition check out the services available linked here.

Stay Toktastic,

How to evaluate AoK Human Sciences

When writing the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay students are asked to evaluate their main knowledge claims. Today’s post looks at the main evaluation points that can be applied to most knowledge claims made in Area of Knowledge (AoK) Human Sciences. Obviously, these evaluations points would need to be considered in terms of the specific claims made in an essay. This is the second in a five part series looking at evaluation points for each of the 5 Areas of Knowledge. The first post, How to evaluate in AoK Natural Sciences, is linked here.

This blogpost (evaluation in Human Sciences) can be watched as a video at this link.

The human sciences consider the complexities of human behaviour and societies. Evaluating human science knowledge involves understanding the unique challenges and limitations inherent in studying humans using the scientific method. Here, we explore four critical evaluation points: researcher and participant reactivity, operationalising and measuring human behaviours, establishing causation, and applying models in real-world environments.

1. Problems of Researcher and Participant Reactivity

One significant challenge in human sciences is the issue of reactivity, which can impact both researchers and participants. Researcher reactivity occurs when researchers’ expectations or behaviours influence the study’s outcome. This can introduce bias, undermining the study’s validity. Participant reactivity, often known as the Hawthorne effect, happens when participants alter their behaviour because they know they are being observed. This can skew the results, making it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about natural behaviours. To mitigate these effects, researchers use techniques like double-blind studies and unobtrusive observation, but completely eliminating reactivity remains challenging.

2. Problems of Operationalising and Measuring Human Behaviours

Operationalising and measuring human behaviours, particularly emotions, presents another set of challenges. Human emotions are complex and multifaceted, making them difficult to quantify accurately. Researchers must develop operational definitions that translate abstract concepts into measurable variables. For instance, defining and measuring happiness might involve self-report surveys, physiological measures, or behavioural observations. Each method has limitations, such as subjective biases in self-reports or the potential invasiveness of physiological measures. Ensuring reliability and validity in these measurements is an ongoing struggle, as capturing the full essence of human experiences in empirical terms is inherently challenging.

3. Problems of Establishing Causation

Establishing causation in the human sciences is particularly problematic, especially when correlation designs are used. Correlational studies identify relationships between variables but do not establish cause and effect. For example, a study might find a correlation between social media use and anxiety, but this does not prove that social media use causes anxiety. There could be underlying variables influencing both factors. Experimental designs, which can better establish causation, are often difficult to implement due to ethical considerations and the complexity of controlling variables in human contexts. Consequently, many findings in the human sciences remain tentative and open to interpretation.

4. Problems of Applying Models in a Real-World Environment

Applying theoretical models to real-world environments also poses significant challenges. Models in the human sciences are simplifications of complex realities, often based on controlled experimental conditions. When these models are applied to the real world, the variability and unpredictability of human behaviour can lead to unexpected outcomes. For example, economic models predicting consumer behaviour might fail to account for cultural differences or individual psychological factors. This discrepancy highlights the limitations of models and the need for continuous adaptation and refinement to better reflect real-world complexities.

In conclusion, evaluating human science knowledge requires a nuanced understanding of these critical points. By examining researcher and participant reactivity, the difficulties in measuring human behaviours, the challenges of establishing causation, and the limitations of applying models in real-world environments, you can develop more sophisticated evaluations of knowledge and knowledge production in the human sciences.

If you need more help with your ToK Essay check out the services available linked here.

If you need help with your ToK Exhibition check out the services available linked here.

How to evaluate AoK Natural Sciences

When writing the Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay students are asked to evaluate their main knowledge claims. Today's post looks at the main evaluation points that can be applied to most knowledge claims made in Area of Knowledge (AoK) Natural Sciences. Obviously, these evaluations points would need to be considered in terms of the specific claims made in an essay. This is the first in a five part series looking at evaluation points for each of the 5 Areas of Knowledge.

This blogpost can also be watched on YouTube at this link.

The natural sciences, as an AoK within ToK, offer a rigorous and systematic method of investigating the natural world. Evaluating natural scientific knowledge involves several key considerations that help students understand the strengths and limitations of this AoK. Here, we explore four critical evaluation points: the importance of falsification, the challenges of demonstrating causation, the issues of validity versus reliability, and concerns about ecological validity.

1. The Importance of Falsification

One fundamental principle in the evaluation of scientific knowledge is the concept of falsification, proposed by philosopher Karl Popper. Falsification is the idea that for a hypothesis to be scientifically valid, it must be testable and potentially disprovable. This is often more challenging than simply confirming a hypothesis because it requires rigorous and critical testing. Focusing on falsification rather than confirmation encourages scientists to design experiments that challenge their theories, thus preventing confirmation bias and ensuring a more robust understanding of the natural world. However, the difficulty lies in the fact that some hypotheses may be difficult to falsify due to technological or methodological limitations, making this an ongoing challenge in scientific inquiry. Further, it could be argued that there is a tendency for most non-scientists, and even some scientists, to place greater value on evidence that is seen to prove a hypothesis rather than falsify a hypothesis.

2. Challenges of Demonstrating Causation

In the natural sciences, establishing causation is notoriously difficult, particularly within multi-variate environments where numerous variables interact in complex ways. Demonstrating causation requires isolating variables and ensuring that any observed effects can be attributed to the variable of interest rather than confounding factors. This often necessitates controlled experiments and the use of statistical methods to determine the likelihood that a particular relationship is causal. However, even with rigorous methods, absolute certainty is rarely achievable, highlighting the tentative nature of scientific conclusions.

3. Issues of Validity vs Reliability

In evaluating scientific knowledge, it is essential to distinguish between validity and reliability. Validity refers to the accuracy of a measurement or the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the consistency of results when an experiment or measurement is repeated under the same conditions. A study can be reliable without being valid if it consistently produces the same results, but those results do not accurately reflect the phenomenon being studied. Conversely, a valid study that is not reliable may provide accurate results only sporadically. The scientific method strives for both validity and reliability, but achieving both can be a complex and demanding process.

4. Ecological Validity

Ecological validity concerns the extent to which the findings of a study can be generalised to real-world settings. Laboratory experiments, whilst offering control over variables, often lack ecological validity because the conditions are artificial and may not accurately represent natural environments. This raises questions about the applicability of scientific findings to real-life situations. Balancing the control of experimental conditions with the need for ecological validity is a perpetual challenge in the natural sciences, necessitating a careful consideration of experimental design and the context of the findings.

In conclusion, evaluating natural science knowledge requires a nuanced understanding of the challenges of producing knowledge that is both scientifically rigorous whilst also being relevant and applicable in the real world. By focusing on falsification, the challenges of causation, the balance between validity and reliability, and the importance of ecological validity, students can develop a deeper appreciation of the complexities and strengths of the natural sciences. This holistic evaluation helps in recognising the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing quest for a more accurate understanding of the natural world.

If you need more help with your ToK Essay check out the services available linked here.

If you need help with your ToK Exhibition check out the services available linked here.

What is a Knowledge Argument?

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

Understanding the Knowledge Argument

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

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

Examples in ToK Prompts

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

Essay titles follow the same pattern. For example:

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

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

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

The Importance of Knowledge Arguments

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

Example: Custodians of Knowledge

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

1. What is a Custodian of Knowledge?

2. What needs might they fulfil?

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

• Do Custodians of Knowledge preserve and protect existing knowledge?

• Do Custodians of Knowledge identify and maintain knowledge gatekeepers?

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

• Do Custodians of Knowledge define legitimate evidence of knowledge?

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

Practical Application

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

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

Stay Toktastic, my friends!

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

What Makes a Good Object for the ToK Exhibition?

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

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

Rule 1: Is Your Object Specific?

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

Example: Personal & Specific Object

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

Example: Non-Personal & Specific Object

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

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

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

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

Example: Family Bible

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

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

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

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

Example: Edison’s Light Bulb

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

Example: Dr John Snow’s Hand Pump

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

Conclusion

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

1. Is your object specific?

2. Does your object demonstrate a specific knowledge argument?

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, June 24

What is the Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompt?

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

The Quest for the Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompt

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

1. Closed-ended Three-part Structure:

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

3. Abstract vs. Concrete:

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

5. Complex (Abstruse) vs. Clear Wording:

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

Ranking the Prompts

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

The Five Hardest ToK Exhibition Prompts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Five Easiest ToK Exhibition Prompts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel, Lisbon, June 2024

ToK Exhibition Prompt 34: In What Ways Do Our Values Affect Our Acquisition of Knowledge?

An exploration of this prompt was requested by a subscriber, and we always strive to keep our subscribers satisfied. If you find this post helpful, please like and consider subscribing to the blog (it's free) for more insightful content.

Understanding the Key Terms

To tackle this prompt effectively, it’s crucial to understand the key terms: "values" and "acquisition of knowledge." Values can be defined as deeply held core beliefs that shape a knower’s identity. Acquisition of knowledge refers to the various ways a knower attains knowledge, encompassing both formal and informal learning, as well as primary and secondary experiences.

Developing Knowledge Arguments

To develop specific perspectives to this prompt, I recommend formulating three knowledge arguments, each corresponding to a specific object. This approach can help achieve a higher score in your exhibition. If you’re unsure how to choose objects, check out my video, "Choosing Objects for the ToK Exhibition: The Debate."

Knowledge Argument 1: Values affect our reasons for acquiring knowledge

Our values significantly influence why we seek knowledge. The deeply held beliefs that form our identity drive our reasons for acquiring knowledge, often aligning with our personal fulfilment and purpose. For instance, if someone values scientific inquiry, they might use a telescope to gather astronomical data. Conversely, someone concerned about climate change might rely on climate science reports.

Long Walk to Freedom by Nelson Mandela

Object 1: Personal copy of Long Walk to Freedom.

In my exhibition, I used my personal copy of Nelson Mandela’s "Long Walk to Freedom" to illustrate this point. My concern about racial inequality led me to acquire knowledge from Mandela’s experiences and insights into his campaign against racial inequality in South Africa.

Knowledge Argument 2: Values affect who we acquire knowledge from

Our values also determine whom we consider as credible sources of knowledge. If a knower respects high-status knowledge sources, they may prefer information from prestigious institutions. For example, someone might prioritise information from the International Baccalaureate (IB) over other sources due to its authoritative status.

LSE Research Blogs page

Object 2: Research Pages from the London School of Economics.

In my exhibition, I have used the Research Blogs page from the London School of Economics (LSE). My values, shaped by my education at LSE, led me to trust the objectivity and rigour of its research methodology. This choice underscores how my respect for this institution influences my knowledge acquisition.

Knowledge Argument 3: Values affect how we acquire knowledge.

Values affect the means and tools we use to acquire knowledge. The choice of medium, whether it’s watching a video, reading a book, or consulting a teacher, is influenced by our values. For instance, someone who values digital media might prefer learning through videos.

Object 3: “Construction of a crossing-symmetric, Regge behaved amplitude for linearly-rising trajectories” Veneziano (1968)

For my third object, I selected Gabriele Veneziano’s 1968 paper on String Theory. Veneziano, valuing theoretical physics and mathematical reasoning, acquired knowledge through reasoning rather than empirical methods. This example highlights how values shape the methods we choose to acquire knowledge.

Conclusion

To summarise, our values influence why we acquire knowledge, whom we trust as sources, and how we obtain it. By considering these aspects, you can construct robust knowledge arguments for your ToK exhibition. Remember, there are many ways to answer this prompt.

For more insights, you can explore my e-book, "Every ToK Exhibition Prompt Explained," which provides detailed explanations and suggestions for each prompt. Or you can buy the notes from that book specific to ToK Exhibition Prompt 34 (linked here) - those notes have different knowledge arguments to those presented here, and are far wider, and more detailed than this blog.

If you have any other prompts or topics you'd like me to cover, feel free to leave a comment or email me at Daniel@ToKToday.com.

Thank you for reading! If you found this post useful, please like and subscribe. Stay tok-tastic!

Early Summer Sale!

May session schools are winding up for the year, whilst November session schools are in the thick of it. So, it's a good time for the ToKToday early summer sale (29th May - 5th June). There's up to 50% off most products including:

• ToK Essay Guides.

• ToK Exhibition Guides.

• Written Feedback

• Coaching Sessions.

Go to Shop for more details.

Thank you to all who have supported TokToday during the last year.

Alternative Concepts for the IB Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Course: Part 3

In this final instalment of our series, we’re exploring concepts 9-12 from our list of alternative ToK concepts that could have been included in the International Baccalaureate's (IB) ToK curriculum. If you missed the earlier parts, be sure to check out Part 1 where we discussed Concepts 1-4, and Part 2 where we covered Concepts 5-8.

This blog can also be watched in video format here, or below.

Concept 9: System or Structure

We begin the final segment of our alternative ToK concepts with "System" or "Structure." Our ToK students often encounter systems thinking and systemised processes, particularly in Group 3 and 4 subjects (Human & Natural Sciences). Integrating this concept into ToK could enhance their understanding of the systemic nature of knowledge production. The idea that knowledge results from synergistic processes fits well with existing ToK concepts like Explanation, Culture, and Values. Including System or Structure in the ToK curriculum could help students comprehend how various Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) function.

Concept 10: Form or Aesthetic

Complementing the concept of System, we introduce "Form" or "Aesthetic." This concept offers a different perspective by acknowledging that knowledge may possess qualitative characteristics beyond empirical or quantitative measures. Form is especially useful for the ToK exhibition and essay, providing a basis for classic debates on structure versus aesthetic. Including both System and Form allows for rich discussions about the nature of knowledge in the classroom.

Concept 11: Intention

Our eleventh concept is "Intention." Initially, I hesitated to include it, questioning its substantiality. However, the more I considered it, the more essential it seemed. Intention can be understood in two primary ways: the intention of knowledge producers and the intentions of the knower. Both aspects significantly influence the knowledge produced and understood. The intentionality of the knower relates to their awareness, consciousness, and introspection, seamlessly leading us into our final concept.

Concept 12: Experience

The twelfth and final alternative ToK concept is "Experience." This concept is pivotal in knowledge production, especially in AoKs such as History, The Arts, and the Human & Natural Sciences. Experience is crucial for understanding the debate between primary and secondary knowledge, which underpins many abstract ToK concepts like Perspective, Justification, Power, and Truth. Critically analysing Experience enables students to grasp these more complex ideas effectively.

Conclusion

There you have it—12 alternative core ToK Concepts. What do you think of our list? Is it better or worse than the IB's official 12 concepts? Do you have suggestions for other concepts that should be included? Let us know in the comments; perhaps the ToK gods at IB might consider your suggestions.

You can download a diagram of IB's 12 ToK Concepts at this link, and my alternative 12 ToK Concepts at this link.

Any likes and subscriptions are greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much for reading.

Stay Toktastic, my friends!
Daniel, Lisbon May 2024

Alternative Concepts for the ToK Course: Part 2

This is part 2 of the alternative concepts that could be used in the International Baccalaureate (IB) Theory of Knowledge (ToK) course. In the first part of this series, we examined concepts 1-4 (linked), and today, we will look at concepts 5-8. These concepts offer a fresh perspective on the foundational elements of ToK and could potentially enrich the curriculum. If you missed the first post, be sure to check it out for the initial concepts and some important caveats about this series.

You can also watch the video for this blogpost at this link, or below.

Concept 5: Construct (or Constructed)

The fifth concept on our alternative ToK concepts list is "Construct" or "Constructed." Traditionally, ToK is described as the study of how knowledge is constructed. This notion is quite profound when you truly grasp its implications. Many students experience a moment of awe, and possibly trepidation, when they realise the weight of this idea.

Although it’s unclear if we're still meant to formally teach knowledge construction in ToK, constructs remain integral to our discussions. The official ToK concept list includes terms like Power, Culture, Perspective, and Evidence—each is a construct in its own right, particularly from a constructivist viewpoint. Explicitly teaching "Construct" could make other parts of the course more accessible to students, particularly those who struggle with understanding the nature of constructed knowledge.

For more on the importance of the concept of Construct check out the blogs on:

ToK & Structuralism

ToK & Bertrand Russell

ToK & Post Structuralism

Concept 6: Causation or Causality

Next up is "Causation" or "Causality." Much of ToK revolves around establishing the grounds for knowledge, and causation is a primary method for doing this, especially within the Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) of Human and Natural Sciences. Many students find evaluating human and scientific knowledge challenging because they lack a clear understanding of causality.

Causality naturally links with ToK concepts such as Certainty, Explanation, and Evidence. Many of the ToK Essay questions require a critical understanding of causality. Including Causality in the ToK curriculum could enhance students' ability to critically assess knowledge claims.

Concept 7: Identity

Our seventh concept is "Identity." Here, we're slightly bending our initial rule, which was not to replace IB's core concepts but rather to add new ones. I propose replacing "Truth" with "Identity." This suggestion stems not from a dismissal of Truth’s importance but from a recognition of its complexity.

Truth is a multifaceted concept that requires understanding a range of other ideas, including Perspective, Culture, Interpretation, Values, and Explanation. Students often simplify Truth to mean objective, external, fixed knowledge, which is a limited interpretation. Teaching the relationship between Identity and knowledge could serve as a scaffold, leading to a more nuanced understanding of Truth.

Concept 8: Category

The eighth concept is "Category," inspired by the Kantian notion of categorisation. This concept could also be termed "Labelling," as both serve similar functions in this context. Much of ToK involves organising knowledge within a framework, and discussions about categories and categorisation are inevitable.

Category is crucial because it bridges the organisation of knowledge with the ethics of knowledge. Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative highlights the relationship between knowing, behaving, and responsibility. Emphasising universality and absolutism offers a valuable counterpoint to more relativist concepts on the ToK list, such as Perspective and Interpretation.

Conclusion

This concludes Part 2 of our series on alternative ToK concepts. Join us in the next post, where we will explore concepts 9-12. These alternative concepts offer intriguing possibilities for enriching the ToK curriculum, providing students with a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of knowledge.

I hope you found this discussion thought-provoking and engaging. If you did, please consider leaving a comment, sharing your thoughts, or subscribing for more content. Stay tuned for the final instalment of this series, and as always, stay ToKtastic!

Daniel, Lisbon, May 2024

12 ToK Concepts that we could have had (part 1)

In September 2020 IB helpfully gave us 12 core ToK Concepts. I often wonder why they chose this specific group of 12, are there better concepts that could have made the list ?

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

"Rules" for alternative ToK Concepts.

We're not suggesting replacing the current 12 ToK Concepts - they’re all good, worthy & useful concepts. Further, it is acknowledged that the existence of the current 12 core concepts does not exclude the use of any other concepts. Obviously we constantly use concepts beyond the core 12 in the ToK course. The alternative concepts that are suggested here are proposed merely as being equally worthy of inclusion in the core. 

Alternative ToK Concepts #1-#4

1. Paradigm.

So much of ToK is about knowledge changing over time, and why it changes over time. Paradigm shifts are such easy & accessible ways to help students to see & understand the dynamic nature of knowledge, they could deserve a place on our core list of 12 ToK concepts. ToK essay questions are often about the development of knowledge.

2. Pattern

Knowledge in all AoKs is underpinned by patterns  - either the presence of them, or lack of them. For example the Human & Natural sciences are founded upon finding patterns, and much artistic theory relies upon patterns. I also thought that the concepts of probability, modelling and forecast which are all linked to pattern, could have been included in this list.

3. Hierarchy 

Hierarchy is included in the list partly because Power is in IB’s 12 core ToK concepts.Whilst I don't want to replace power as a concept from the list, hierarchy better describes the range of applications of power. Hierarchy is the result of power, hierarchy is the framework of power, hierarchy is often why power matters.

4. Subjectivity

The fourth alternative concept is subjectivity. As we already have objectivity in IB’s list of 12 core concepts, it would seem to make sense to have subjectivity in the list. However, I am including subjectivity for more than it’s description of knowledge based on personal experience. Subjectivity can also take us into the debate of whether the knower is the subject or object of the production of knowledge. This debate provides us with a good way to unpack many ToK Essay and Exhibition questions.

This blog post looks at the first 4 alternative concepts for the theory of knowledge (ToK) course.

Do you agree with this 4? What alternative concepts would you suggest? Let me know in the comments below.

Stay Tok-tastic friends!
Daniel, Lisbon,
May 2024

How I assess the ToK Exhibition Commentary

Introduction

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

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

Understanding Global Impression Marking

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

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

The Four-Part Structure for ToK Exhibition Commentary

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

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

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

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

4. Supporting evidence and references to the prompt

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

Assessing the Commentary

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

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

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

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

Tips to Avoid Moderation Reductions

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

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

Conclusion

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

Stay toktastic, my friends!

Perspective, Power & Responsibility

This is a lesson designed to teach students the ToK Concepts of Perspective, Power and Responsibility. You can watch the video of this blog at this link, or below.

The lesson materials are linked here, reading the blog below will help ToK Teachers to tailor the materials so that they work for your students, and context.

We can think of these 3 concepts (perspective, power and responsibility) as being mutually inclusive, a change in any one of the concepts leads to changes in the other 2.

These three concepts are central to many areas of the course. They provide a good framework for knowledge & the knower, they underpin all five optional themes, and are super useful concepts for linking the systemic & structured nature of AoKs with the more individual and contextual characteristics of knowledge producers and knowers.

Polysemous Concepts

These 3 concepts not only provide a bridge between the knower & Areas of Knowledge, but they are also polysemous - they have more than one meaning:

Power can be both individual and systemic, or structural at the same time. Power can be explored in the production, acquisition or pursuit of knowledge. It could also be looked at in terms of access to, and application of, knowledge.

Responsibility often comes up in ToK Essay Prescribed Titles. Responsibility can apply to both the knowledge producer and the knower in different ways. It obviously provides us with an excellent route to the ethical section of the knowledge framework.

And last, but certainly not least, perspective could arguably be the most important concept in the ToK course. The challenge for ToK teachers is to help students to develop an appreciation of perspective without them sinking into the morass of relativism. 

"This lesson's too basic !"

I know that some ToK teachers are concerned that the materials shared here are "too basic". My aim is to produce resources that are accessible and effective for all ToK learners. Therefore, the lesson has to be accessible to the student that finds ToK highly challenging. The tasks are purposefully very open ended, therefore the complexity and challenge can be increased by the teacher depending upon the needs of the students.

The aims of the lesson:

• Students have the opportunity to explore the interconnectedness of the 3 concepts, and begin to understand that change in one of the concepts is likely to change in the other 2. 

• Students have the opportunity to see that not only are the concepts polysemous, but they can also have different meanings in different contexts at the same time.

The structure of the lesson:

The lesson presents 6 case studies, and students are asked 2 questions about each case study. The questions are firstly To whom, or to what, does this knowledge have power ?, and secondly to whom, or what, is the knowledge producer responsible?

By asking the questions in this way the students will have to form their own definitions of “power” and “responsibility”, just as they have to in the ToK Exhibition and Essay. The differing definitions that students develop, and the different consequences that flow from these various definitions, are the opportunity for the teacher to develop the concept of ‘perspective’ in the subsequent discussions.

As a teacher you know how best to structure the lesson for your students and classroom. Personally I would put students in groups, have each group look at 2 of the case studies, have each group lead feedback on 1 case study, and then ask students to write a reflection piece after the lesson.

The lesson comes out of the work that I have been doing on developing a skills framework for ToK, if you want to know more, or are interested in contributing to the ToK Skills Framework - click here.

Stay ToKtastic my friends.
Daniel, Lisbon May 2024

Exhibition Prompt #33: How is current knowledge shaped by its historical development ?

The video version of this blogpost is linked here and below.

The historical development of knowledge.

To answer this prompt we must consider the various ways in which we can describe, or characterise, the historical development of knowledge. This term is not solely confined to AoK History, but applies equally to all Areas of Knowledge, current knowledge in all AoKs has a period of historical development.

A few of the different ways that we could describe the historical development of knowledge could include

• periods of debate or contest.

• periods of integration or increasing cohesion

• periods of upheaval

• periods of denial

• periods of acceptance

• periods of lapsed, suppressed or repressed knowledge.

• periods of thesis, periods of antithesis, and periods of synthesis.

We could go on identifying different ways to describe the historical development of knowledge, this is not an absolute nor limited definition. I am going to use periods of evolution, revolution and synthesis as the descriptions of historical development for my ToK Exhibition of Prompt #33.

ToK Themes (Optional)

This prompt lends itself particularly well to the ToK Optional Themes (Knowledge & Technology, Knowledge & Language etc) - All of the themes are very much concerned with the question - "how is current knowledge shaped by what came before it ?". So, feel free to build your Exhibition around a theme, of course there is no requirement from IB to build a theme.

Choosing Objects - Developing Knowledge Arguments.

IB recommend that you find objects from which knowledge arguments will arise. For example I look at an object, and think “oh wow - this object demonstrates how current knowledge is shaped by its historical development !”. So, if this process works for you then feel free to look around your world, and find 3 objects in which ToK is manifest.

However, if you’re anything like me, and most of the students that I have taught you may find it a little difficult to see ToK manifest itself in the world around you. If you do find it difficult then I recommend that you write 3 distinct perspectives, or knowledge arguments (1 for each object). Once you have 3 distinct perspectives you can then find a specific object to demonstrate each perspective, or knowledge argument.

A note on specificity:

To get 5 or more marks in the ToK Exhibition you need to explain how each object makes a specific contribution to the Exhibition, this contribution has to be different to the contributions made by the other 2 objects. This means that not only does your object have to be highly specific rather than generic, but it also has to demonstrate a specific perspective, or knowledge argument.

So what makes an object specific, and what makes an object generic ? Let's take a pencil as an example, any pencil random plucked out of a box is a generic object - there are billions of pencils in the world, any other pencil could be swapped out for this pencil. However, if we selected the pencil that Martin Luther used to write his 95 Theses that led to the start of the Protestant Reformation in Wittenberg in 1517 the is no longer a generic pencil, but now a very specific pencil. Ideally we want to link that specificity to the knowledge arguments (see below).

We often hear that the objects have to be personal, this is an error. The objects have to be specific, not personal. Using personal objects is just an easy way of making them specific objects, but they don’t have to be personal. Consider the example of the pencil in the previous paragraph. The pencil was owned by Martin Luther in 1517, so it’s not personal to me, but it is very specific.

How do I justify the inclusion of objects in the Exhibition ?

If you look at the ToK Exhibition marking criteria, you will see that to score 5-10 marks you need to justify the inclusion of each object in the Exhibition. So, if we want to get high marks in the Exhibition we need to focus on this justification for the inclusion of each object. The ToK Subject Report from May 23 gives us some idea of what is meant by justification, it says

“ it is helpful for [students] to see the justification as following from the links. Links are successfully made when they clearly explain the connection between the object and the knowledge question in the prompt. The justification provides further elaboration of that connection by showing what it is about that specific object that is so interesting in making us think about the prompt.”

ToK Subject Report May 2023

Writing 3 perspectives, or knowledge arguments for Prompt #33.

Justification is a specific link that each object has to the prompt, it’s more than the original link. A useful, and relatively easy, way to identify a specific link for each object is to write 3 perspectives, or knowledge arguments, on the prompt. These perspectives can be thought of as 3 different ways to answer the prompt. This is obviously one perspective, or knowledge argument, per object. The three knowledge arguments that I’ve written for Prompt #33 are:

1. Current knowledge can be shaped by evolution in its historical development.

2. Current knowledge can be shaped by revolution in its historical development.

3. Current knowledge can be shaped by synthesis in its historical development.

You will see that I have used the words from the prompt in my knowledge arguments, this helps to maintain focus on the prompt. I will now go through each knowledge argument by identifying an object, and explaining the object’s link to the prompt using the knowledge argument.

Object 1: mRNA Vaccine Certificate (Thailand 2021)

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

My first object is my vaccine certificate for receiving an mRNA vaccine ( I am using this for the knowledge argument that current Knowledge can be shaped by evolution in its historical development). It’s specific real world context is that it is a certificate for an mRNA vaccine that I received in Thailand in June 2021

The link to the prompt is that our current knowledge of vaccines has enabled virologists to develop vaccines using Messenger Rna (MRNA). The historical development of knowledge regarding viruses, the human immune system and immunology has gone through processes of refinement that have culminated in the MRNA vaccine. At each stage of the historical development some knowledge has been selected for further development, whilst other knowledge has been discarded - ie a process of evolution in the historical development of our current knowledge of vaccines. For example in the 1960’s it was thought that the immune system responded more strongly to the strain of the virus first encountered rather than later strains included in subsequent vaccines. However, subsequent research showed that whilst the immune system does indeed exhibit a preference for responding to antigens it has encountered before, this does not necessarily hinder its ability to respond to new strains (Wikramaratna).

The justification for the inclusion of this object in the Exhibition is that it demonstrates that our current knowledge of vaccines is shaped by an evolutionary process in its historical development. This process is one in which functional and effective knowledge is retained for further development whilst ineffective knowledge is discarded, and therefore does not contribute to the next iteration of knowledge development. The intended and actual function of knowledge can shape its historical development in terms of an evolutionary process working towards ever more adaptive knowledge.

Object 2: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687, Cambridge UK).

Photo: (University of Sydney, 2020)

My second object is Newton’s first edition of his 1687 book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. There are only 4 copies of the first edition, this one contains Newton’s handwritten notes in the margin, and is held in the archives of University of Sydney. The link between this object and the historical development of knowledge is that Philosophia Principia Mathematica shows that the historical development of knowledge can sometimes be revolutionary. This object demonstrates that the historical development of some knowledge can be characterised as a fundamental, and significant, change from knowledge that has previously been developed in that field, or discipline. This fundamental and significant change I am characterising as a revolutionary historical development.

Prior to Philosophiae Principia Mathematica much of the reasoning in Physics was qualitative and observational. As such the knowledge of physics was generally more hypothetical and predicated upon the subjectivities of the observer. Newton's use of calculus in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica allowed for precise calculations of forces, orbits, and motions, shifting the methodology of science towards quantitative predictions. This work laid the groundwork for classical mechanics, marking a pivotal shift in the approach to scientific inquiry and mathematical application to the natural world. As such, this object represents a dramatic and fundamental change in how knowledge is produced and interpreted in Physics. As such, the object represents a revolution in the historical development of knowledge of physics(Temple & Tracy, 1992).

The justification for including this object in the Exhibition is that it demonstrates that revolutionary change in the historical development of knowledge appears to involve the discardment of much existing knowledge, principles and methods. However, whilst the new knowledge framework may appear very different from the pre-revolutionary framework there is still an interrelationship between the two which characterises the historical development of the knowledge . The new knowledge may not have been possible without the pre-revolutionary framework, and some elements of the antecedent knowledge may still be present in the new knowledge. This object demonstrates that the historical development of knowledge can be thought of as a mutually reciprocal process between the present and the past.

Object 3: Comment Article from The Chicago Maroon Newspaper (Jan 21st 2005)

Photo: Candidate’s own photo.

My third object is the article “From “Way” to Grey: two decades of genre remixing” published in the Chicago Maroon Newspaper on 21st January 2005 (Steinman, 2005). The link between this article and the prompt is that the article looks at the various ways in which the historical development of knowledge can be characterised by the synthesis of knowledge from different genres, disciplines or Areas of Knowledge. Synthesis refers to taking various elements of knowledge from different genres and combining them to form new knowledge. As such, current knowledge can be shaped by the synthesis of various elements in its historical development.

The article “From “Way” to Grey” explores the synthesis of knowledge across different musical genres, focusing on the fusion of hip-hop and rock. It describes the collaborative remix of "Walk This Way" by Aerosmith and Run-DMC as a pioneering example, breaking down genre barriers and achieving both commercial success and critical acclaim. The article highlights how the synthesis of apparently contrasting knowledge can lead to the development of effective current knowledge. It discusses a further example of the synthesis of knowledge through "The Grey Album," which creatively mixed Jay-Z's "The Black Album" with The Beatles' "The White Album," representing a deeper cultural and racial blending. This object explores the idea that current knowledge is shaped by the blending, or synthesis, of apparently disparate elements of knowledge in its historical development.

The justification for the inclusion of this object in the exhibition is that it could be argued that all current knowledge is, to some degree, the product of synthesis in its historical development. This object specifically looks at current knowledge that is the product of synthesis of highly contrasting, and in some ways dissimilar, elements in their historical development. It could be argued that such synthesis can create highly effective, and significantly different, current knowledge. As such, this object demonstrates neither evolution, nor revolution but functional fusion in the production of knowledge.

That’s just an example of how this prompt could be approached. There are, of course, many many other valid ways to respond to this prompt. If you want a more detailed write up of ways to unpack this prompt, examples of knowledge arguments, and suggestions for objects can you can pick up a copy of ToK Exhibition Prompt #33 Explained at this link, or you can pick up explanations for all ToK Exhibition Prompts at this link.

References

• Ali, H. (2013). Mapping the secular mind. International Institute of Islamic Thought. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvkc67rh

• Jay-Z & Danger Mouse. (2004). The Grey Album [Album].

• Steinman, J. (2005, January 21). From “Way” to Grey: Two decades of genre remixing. Chicago Maroon. https://chicagomaroon.com/2277/arts/from-way-to-grey-two-decades-of-genre-remixing/

• Temple, B., & Tracy, C. A. (1992). From Newton to Einstein. The American Mathematical Monthly, 99(6), 507. https://doi.org/10.2307/2324058

• The Beatles. (1968). The Beatles [Album].

• University of Sydney. (2020). Philosopia Naturalis Principia Mathematica(First Edition, 1687). https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/images/news-and-opinion/news/2020/january/principia/newtown-principia-title-page-usyd.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.1280.1280.jpeg

• Wikramaratna, P. S., Sandeman, M., Recker, M., & Gupta, S. (2013). The antigenic evolution of influenza: Drift or thrift? Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 368(1614), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/23362559

The Gains for Artists and Scientists of Adopting Each Other's Lens

Essay #6 November 2024 asks us to consider the potential benefits that might arise if artists were to adopt the lens of the scientist, and scientists were to adopt the lens of the artist. In our previous blogpost on this essay title (linked) we described these distinct approaches to knowledge. This post will focus on the tangible gains artists and scientists could experience by adopting each other's methodologies, as previously outlined.

The video accompanying this blogpost is linked here, and below.

Artists and Scientists could gain Enhanced Methodologies by adopting each others' lenses.

Gains for Artists

1. Consolidation and Strengthening of Methodologies: By adopting the more defined and structured lens of the scientist, artists could see a consolidation in their methodologies. This approach would help highlight inefficiencies and strengths within artistic methods more rapidly. For instance, if all playwrights employed a uniform methodology to scriptwriting, the process could evolve more swiftly and effectively, as strengths are replicated and weaknesses are addressed across the board.

2. Refinement of Artistic Knowledge: A more prescriptive methodology could lead to the refined production of artistic knowledge. Consider ballet: its tightly defined techniques lead to a high level of precision and excellence. This contrast with less defined forms, like street dance, suggests that tighter methodologies could incrementally enhance the quality and clarity of artistic knowledge.

3. Clarity and Precision in Artistic Expression: With more defined methodologies, the potential for misinterpretation of artistic works is reduced. A uniform approach could lead to greater clarity in the expression and reception of artistic knowledge. Imagine a world where artistic expressions are as clear-cut as scientific reports; the ambiguity in interpreting a song or painting could be significantly lessened.

Gains for Scientists

1. Flexibility in Methodological Approaches: Adopting the lens of the artist, scientists could benefit from greater flexibility in choosing and defining methodologies. This adaptability would allow scientists to tailor their methods more closely to the specific needs of their studies, potentially leading to innovations in how research is conducted.

2. Diversification of Scientific Knowledge Producers: With fewer constraints on what constitutes a 'valid' methodology, AoK Sciences could become more inclusive. This inclusivity could attract a broader range of contributors, potentially enriching scientific disciplines with fresh perspectives and novel ideas.

3. Innovative Solutions to Stubborn Problems: The flexibility and diversity brought by artistic methodologies could lead to creative solutions for longstanding scientific challenges. Unconventional approaches might uncover new angles to approach old problems, fostering breakthroughs that traditional methods have failed to achieve.

Some of the gains scientists may enjoy if they adopt the lens of the artist.

Evaluation of Methodological Changes

Whilst the potential gains are significant, it's crucial to consider the implications of such fundamental changes to the methodologies of any area of knowledge (AoK). Here are some points of caution:

1. Impact on the Coherence of AoKs: If the defining methodologies of an AoK are altered significantly, it could disrupt the very coherence of that field. For instance, if physics were to adopt interpretative dance as a methodology, would it still be recognized as physics?

2. Appropriateness of Methodologies to Their Functions: Each AoK has methodologies tailored to its specific needs and functions. The effectiveness of these methodologies in achieving the AoK's goals must not be compromised in pursuit of flexibility or inclusivity.

3. Changing the Purpose of AoKs: A change in methodologies could lead to a shift in the fundamental purposes of the AoKs. This shift could alter the nature of the knowledge produced, potentially diluting the distinctiveness and integrity of the field.

Conclusion

In this blog post we just touch upon one of many knowledge arguments that could be used successfully in this essay. As you can see here one knowledge argument has many related issues, evaluation points and implication points. In the TokToday guidance notes for this prescribed title we look at a far greater range of knowledge arguments, real world examples, evaluation points and implication points. The guidance notes are available from this link.

Watch the video accompanying this blogpost on YouTube:

The Lenses of Artists and Scientists Explored

This is the first of two blog posts looking at Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #6 Nov 2024: what can be gained if artists adopt the lens of the scientist, and scientists adopt the lens of the artist? The main blogpost for this essay title is linked here.

The video accompanying this blogpost is linked here, and below.

The Pursuit of Knowledge

The term "pursuit of knowledge" is not explicitly defined in the International Baccalaureate ToK Study Guide giving students a degree of freedom in their interpretation of the term. Broadly, the pursuit of knowledge could be thought to encompass both the production and acquisition of knowledge. It suggests an active, intentional effort by knowledge producers (who construct knowledge) and knowers (who collect and learn knowledge). Understanding this term is the first step in exploring the potential benefits ("gains") through the exchange of scientific and artistic lenses.

Understanding the Lens of the Artist and the Lens of the Scientist

Before we tackle the potential gains from the exchange of lenses, it's useful to consider what we may mean by the "lens of the artist" and the "lens of the scientist."

The Lens in the pursuit of knowledge.

The Lens of the Artist

The lens of the artist is informed by values, assumptions, typical methods and tools, conventional theories, and principles that guide the production and acquisition of artistic knowledge.

This lens has many characteristics, including:

1. Definition of Knowledge: Knowledge can be defined either by the artist or the knower, highlighting a flexible approach to what constitutes knowledge.

2. Ethical Codes: Artists often adhere to flexible and dynamic ethical codes, allowing for a broad interpretation of what is ethical in the creation and dissemination of artistic knowledge.

The Lens of the Scientist

Conversely, the lens of the scientist is shaped by values, methods, tools, theories, and principles used in the scientific production and acquisition of knowledge.

This lens has many characteristics, including:

1. Methodology: The scientific lens often utilises a limited range of accepted methods for constructing knowledge, prioritising rigor and repeatability.

2. Fixed Knowledge: Knowledge is typically external, measurable, and fixed, reducing subjectivity and focusing on quantifiable outcomes.

Potential Gains from Lens Exchange

Scientists Adopting the Lens of Artists

If scientists were to adopt the lens of the artist, they might gain significant flexibility in defining what is considered scientific knowledge. Traditionally, scientific knowledge is defined through rigorous methods like the scientific method and peer review. Adopting an artist's lens could democratise this process, potentially allowing for a broader range of contributors and innovative perspectives. Additionally, embracing the artist's flexible ethical codes could provide scientists with greater freedom to explore and define what is deemed ethical in their research. This could lead to new knowledge that would not have been created using conventional ethical codes.

Artists Adopting the Lens of Scientists

For artists, adopting the scientific lens could lead to a more structured approach to producing artistic knowledge. Whilst this might limit some creative freedoms, it could also introduce a new level of discipline and precision to artistic practices. The concept of making artistic knowledge external, measurable, and fixed could challenge artists to produce works that are less open to interpretation, possibly appealing to new audiences seeking clarity and precision.

Conclusion

This blogpost is only an introduction to the key terms in ToK Essay #6 Nov 2024, the next blogpost demonstrates an approach to answering the whole question. This blogpost describes 4 characteristics of the lenses of artists and scientists. There are many other characteristics that students could consider when writing this essay. The TokToday Essay Guidance Notes for ToK Essay #6 Nov 24 looks at 26 different characteristics of the lenses of artists and scientists. The Essay Guidance notes also contain a wide range of knowledge arguments, real life examples, evaluation points and implication points for this essay. youThey can be picked up from this link.

Watch the accompanying video on YouTube

Anomalies: Are We Too Quick to Dismiss Them?

Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #5 November 24 asks us to consider the role of "anomalies" in the production of knowledge. In the first blogpost (linked) on the this essay title we looked at ways to define the key terms, in this second blog post we consider whether we are too hasty in dismissing these anomalies. The video accompanying this blog post is linked here, and below.

The Significance of Anomalies in Scientific Inquiry

Anomalies could represent deviations from expected norms or established theories, we could argue that they can be pivotal in advancing scientific knowledge. In order to develop knowledge they can challenge our foundational understandings and push the boundaries of existing paradigms. For example, consider the potentially groundbreaking observation by researchers at CERN's Large Hadron Collider in 2012, where neutrinos were observed travelling faster than light—a direct challenge to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. This anomaly, if confirmed, could have redefined our understanding of physics and opened up new technological possibilities.

The Premature Dismissal of Anomalies

However, the core of ToK Essay #5 Nov 24 lies in our response to such anomalies. Are we too quick to dismiss them? This question is critical, especially when considering the potential for anomalies to lead to significant advancements in knowledge. In the case of the CERN observation, the scientific community faced a dilemma: should this anomalous finding be dismissed due to its contradiction with long-held theories, or should it be scrutinised further to potentially unveil new aspects of our universe?

Historical Perspectives on Dismissing Anomalies

To better understand the impact of dismissing anomalies too quickly, let's revisit the historical case of Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift proposed in 1912. Wegener observed what seemed like a jigsaw puzzle alignment of continental coastlines, along with matching geological and fossil records across these continents. Despite the compelling nature of his observations, the scientific community largely dismissed his theory due to the absence of a plausible mechanism for continental movement. It wasn't until the discovery of plate tectonics decades later that Wegener's ideas were validated, illustrating how premature dismissal of anomalies can hinder scientific progress.

Evaluating the Treatment of Anomalies

How typical is the dismissal of anomalies like Wegener’s theory? Most anomalies do not lead to revolutionary theories, but the ones that do are invaluable. Hence, evaluating whether the dismissal of an anomaly was too hasty involves considering whether the anomaly had the potential to significantly contribute to the advancement of knowledge. This evaluation also extends to practical considerations—whether scientists have the resources to pursue every anomaly and whether such pursuits are a productive use of time.

For instance, the discovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica in the 1980s initially appeared as an anomaly. Rather than dismissing these observations, further research was encouraged, which led to identifying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as the cause, significantly advancing our understanding of environmental science and climate change.

Conclusions

The focus of this question is on the consequences for the production of knowledge of dismissing anomalies. In devising criteria for "too quick", students should be able to provide a range of positions of agreement/disagreement with the prescribed title.

This post, and the previous post, merely outline the possible roles of anomalies in knowledge production. If you want a deeper dive into developing robust arguments for this essay, The ToKToday Essay Guidance Notes for #5 Nov24 offer extensive insights and examples.

What are anomalies in the production of knowledge?

Theory of Knowledge (ToK) Essay #5 November 2024 requires us to consider the terms "anomaly", and "too quick to dismiss" in the production of knowledge. Anomalies, by their very nature, challenge our understanding and expectations, prompting us to question the established norms across various Areas of Knowledge (AoKs).

In this first blog post we consider the two core terms for the essay ("anomaly", and "too quick to dismiss"). In the second blog post for this essay (linked) we look more widely at a way of approaching the essay. There is also a video accompanying this blogpost, linked here and below.

Understanding Anomalies

An anomaly, as initially defined by most dictionaries, is an occurrence deviating from the norm—an irregular or unexpected event. However, this basic definition barely scratches the surface when applied to the Theory of Knowledge (ToK). Here, an anomaly is not just a statistical outlier or an aberrant data point; it extends to encompass anomalous methods, tools, hypotheses, theories, and perspectives that arise in the production of knowledge.

In fields like the Human Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Mathematics, anomalies might be defined as atypical results within a data set, often termed as outliers. These are critical for they sometimes challenge the validity of established theories and may lead to significant scientific breakthroughs or refinements of existing knowledge.

In AoK The Arts and History, we can interpret anomalies more widely, possibly more creatively. In History, an anomaly could be an unexpected finding or a source that does not fit established interpretations or existing knowledge frameworks. Meanwhile, in the Arts, anomalies could range from unconventional methods for the production of artistic knowledge, unique artistic intentions of the knowledge producer (artist), or novel outcomes that stand apart from mainstream genre or style.

The Risk of Dismissing Anomalies Too Quickly

The phrase "too quick to dismiss" suggests a premature rejection of what could potentially be valuable in the further production of knowledge. This concept urges us to consider the potential contributions of anomalies rather than discarding them hastily, which might be indicative of an inflexible approach to knowledge.

Rejecting an anomaly without thorough consideration risks overlooking an opportunity to advance knowledge, solve lingering questions, or even correct flawed methodologies. In AoKs Human & Natural Sciences, for example, the dismissal of anomalies can hinder the falsification process—a method critical to refining or rejecting theories.

Concluding Thoughts

The approach taken early in this essay could be that anomalies are not merely exceptions to the rule; they are potential gateways to deeper insights and advancements in the production of knowledge. By embracing rather than excluding these irregularities, knowledge producers could further enhance the production of knowledge.

This blogpost is a very brief introduction to this essay. The TokToday Essay Guidance Notes explore many more knowledge arguments, real world examples, and evaluation points for this essay.

ToK Essay #4 N24: Hypothesis & Speculation - a significant difference ?

Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Speculation Significant?

Today we're looking at ToK Essay #4 N24 "Is the difference between hypothesis and speculation significant?" Understanding the distinction between these terms is essential if you're writing this question. The previous blogpost (linked) focussed on defining the terms, as does the video linked here.

The video for this blog post is linked here, and below.

Defining Hypothesis and Speculation

Developing the definitions for hypothesis and speculation is obviously key to this essay. It is recommended that you develop these definitions within the knowledge arguments that are being used for each okay. This will allow for a more precise and talk focused exploration of these two central concepts.

The Significance of Their Differences

We might wonder, "What's the difference between hypothesis and speculation?" and more importantly, "Is the difference between hypothesis and speculation significant?". We could take the role of evidence as one of our measures of whether difference is significant or not. The role of evidence in the formulation of hypotheses is only one way to measure the significance of difference. There are many other ways, to approach the concept of significance.

Evidence and Knowledge Production

In AoK The Human Sciences, the distinction between hypothesis and speculation could be that hypotheses are formulated from evidence whilst speculation is based on more subjective sources such as experience, or intuition. Hypotheses are typically grounded in evidence, which allows for the development of knowledge that advances our understanding of human cognition and social interactions. For example, research by Bargh and Williams in 2006 on the priming of social distance demonstrates how hypotheses grounded in evidence can reveal insights that speculations could not achieve.

The Criteria for Significance

To evaluate whether the differences are significant, we can consider several factors:

• Impact on Knowledge Produced: If the use of speculation leads to different knowledge than the use of a hypothesis, this indicates a significant difference.

• Influence on the Subject or Object of Knowledge Production: Changes in who produces the knowledge or how it is produced can also signal significance.

• Alterations in Purpose or Intention: If a knowledge producer's intentions vary depending on whether they are speculating or hypothesising, this further underscores a significant difference.

These criteria offer us one (of many) way(s) understand and explore the significance of the differences between hypothesis and speculation.

Evaluating the knowledge argument and its Implications

Questioning the Premises

While it is often argued that hypotheses are grounded in evidence and speculation is not, this distinction may not always hold. The evidence underpinning hypotheses might still be subjective or based on prior assumptions, which could blur the lines between these two forms of reasoning.

The Role of Evidence

The use of a pre-existing evidence base to inform hypotheses tends to reinforce established knowledge. Therefore, one could argue that the significance of evidence in distinguishing between hypothesis and speculation may not be as profound, especially if the aim is to break away from established knowledge paradigms.

Conclusion

To determine if the difference between hypothesis and speculation is significant, one must consider how each affects the production, the nature of the knowledge being produced, the knowledge producer etc. This blog post is just an introduction into the many areas that could be explored using this essay question..

For a a wider, and deeper, exploration of this title pick up the ToKToday Essay Guidance Notes for Essay #4. These include more complex knowledge arguments and real-life examples, at 8,000 words long these notes serve as a mini-textbook focussed solely on this essay title.

Watch the accompanying video on YouTube: