CONTENTS What do we mean when we talk about knowledge? 2 Knowledge in a TOK context Knowledge as map Personal versus Shared Knowledge Knowledge claims 3 First order: claims about the world Second order: claims about knowledge itself Knowledge concepts 4 Terms related to the construction and evaluation of knowledge Such as: Evidence, Justification, Uncertainty, Perspective, Bias, Validity, Reliability, Correlation/Causality, Authority/Credibility, Paradigms/Worldviews, etc. Knowledge questions 6 The basis of TOK discussions and assessments About knowledge itself; open-ended; general From real life situation to knowledge concept to knowledge question 7 The building blocks for the internal assessment (oral presentation) Re: definitions Language in the form of definition is central to much of what we will do in TOK. If we don t get on the same page regarding key concepts, we risk talking past one another. But even when we define our terms from the beginning, we may discover that what seemed like a very commonsense definition needs more careful consideration. On the other hand, we must be careful not to turn every discussion into a debate about what we mean by the terms we use. Despite the unavoidable ambiguity of language, we must start somewhere. TIP: General dictionary definitions for knowledge concepts are of limited usefulness. At best, they might provide a starting place, but they usually oversimplify and often provide definitions that are outside of a knowledge context. It is rarely a good strategy to quote such definitions in a TOK assessment. While some of the terms here are open, others are not. The TOK Subject Guide provides definitions of knowledge claims, knowledge questions, and real-life situations. We will accept these as given. 1
Knowledge in a TOK context. It can be tempting to get very philosophical when it comes to defining what is arguably our course s key term, knowledge. The branch of philosophy known as epistemology means the study of how we know i.e., theories of knowledge. It can also be tempting to debate about a related term, truth. But IB tells teachers and students that in a TOK context, it makes more sense to speak of knowledge, in a TOK context, as being accurate and appropriate to its task rather than to dwell on its truth (IB TOK Special Subject Sessions, 2013). What the TOK Subject Guide calls the map metaphor can be a helpful way to grasp this idea. The map metaphor: We use maps to find our way in the world. A map is a simplified picture of some aspect of the world designed to solve a particular problem (ibid). A good map necessarily simplifies things. Imagine how useless a map would be that reproduced every aspect of the world precisely. In this way, a map is metaphorical. A map is not the territory: it is not literally the thing it points to. It is a representation. And so it would be a little odd to ask if a map were true. Strictly speaking, of course it isn t. Instead, we ask whether a map is good, by which we mean, Is it accurate and useful given what we need to do? When we need to get to Petco Park from Old Town Depot, we want a good trolley map. When we re looking for an accessible beach hike for friends from out of town to try, we want a good topographical map that shows hiking routes along the coast. To plan a surfing outing, we want a current tide chart and details of the surf break/zone. Knowing things about the world can be aided dramatically by understanding how to interpret and apply the maps. We can talk about the Areas of Knowledge (history, math, the arts, etc.) themselves as maps. For instance, the natural sciences attempt to map how the physical world works. Inside each Area, many maps have been developed: some maps are graphic (as in the periodic table in chemistry or a cladogram in biology); sometimes they are primarily mathematical (Newtonian mechanics in physics). In some fields they may be primarily conceptual or language-based: an historical analysis of the complex web of treaties linking European nations during the early 1900 s offers a map of the causes of the World War I. It may sound ironic, but when a map simplifies appropriately and accurately, we can gain a better understanding of the complexity of the world. Personal versus Shared Knowledge: In TOK, we differentiate between knowledge that an individual may possess and knowledge constructed by a group. As may be obvious, personal knowledge depends on an individual s experience. It includes self-knowledge (e.g., how a person is feeling or what a person is thinking), procedural knowledge (what a person knows how to do), what a person knows through life experience, and has learned through education. Personal knowledge includes mental models (maps!) of how the world operates and our place in it. Certain types of personal knowledge may be hard to communicate directly with others. Shared knowledge is highly structured...and systematic in nature (SG, p. 17). Bound more or less into specific disciplines (IB subjects, TOK Areas of Knowledge, etc.), it depends on skills, methods, and standards of judgment that are developed over time and endorsed by a community of similarly qualified practitioners and experts. Shared knowledge is the primary focus of TOK. 2
In TOK we divide knowledge claims into two categories. First order claims are assertions about some aspect of the world. Examples: 1. There s not much traffic on the 76 in the middle of the night. 2. I m feeling pretty hungry right now. 3. Earning an E in either TOK or the EE makes an IB Diploma candidate ineligible to receive the Diploma. First order claims such as these can be quickly assessed with little specialized expertise. We appeal to our own personal experience or consult authoritative sources. Some first order claims address the content of an Area of Knowledge or a specific discipline. Examples: 1. There are an infinite number of prime numbers. 2. The jazz style known as be-bop is more harmonically complex than big band swing. 3. The universe came into being through the Big Bang, which occurred about 13.8 billion years ago. While we can certainly check a website or watch a documentary to learn about these claims, in order to assess them or contribute to their development in any meaningful way, we need expertise in specific fields of study. Second order claims are assertions about how knowledge itself in a general way is constructed or evaluated. Examples: 1. Reason is a more reliable way to derive knowledge than intuition. 2. Correlation does not imply causality. 3. Evidence (data) must always be interpreted. Second order claims use TOK vocabulary and concepts that are cross-disciplinary in nature. In the example 1, reason and intuition are two of the Ways of Knowing in TOK. Altogether eight in number, the WoK s are how we gain personal knowledge and form the basic tools for constructing shared knowledge. In example 2, correlation and causality are relevant in many disciplines. Natural and human (social) scientists are concerned with such concepts. Mathematicians have developed a measure called the correlation coefficient that can tell us about the relationship between two sets of variables. An historian analyzing the beginnings of World War I is also concerned with the difference between correlation and causality. In example 3, many fields of use evidence and depend on interpretation though what each considers to be acceptable evidence varies. For a natural scientist, the gold standard of evidence is data collected empirically (through the senses or their extensions, such as microscopes). For a literary critic, evidence is textual detail. In both fields, however, evidence Claim About Vocabulary Use in TOK First Order Second Order the world knowledge itself must be interpreted: an investigator finds what she regards to be a meaningful pattern in the evidence and then develops an argument which justifies her interpretation of that evidence. 3 everyday or subject-specific general TOK (Ways, Areas, concepts) as examples, reallife situations basis for TOK knowledge questions
Knowledge concept: Whether we are considering 2nd order knowledge claims or questions (see below), we often find ourselves exploring general terms that express aspects of the way knowledge is sought, constructed, evaluated, etc. There is no official list, but below are descriptions of several of the most important concepts we ll encounter again and again throughout TOK. We might call these, the power concepts. Evidence: The specific details used to support a knowledge claim. Evidence that can be detected by our senses and quantified is called empirical. We also sometimes call such evidence data. Evidence can take other forms as well, and various disciplines have their preferred forms. Science relies upon empirical data, while historians typically use a combination of primary sources (which can include both quantitative and qualitative material) and secondary sources. Whatever its form, evidence must be interpreted and justified. Note: The term proof is commonly used as a synonym for evidence, but this is imprecise. A more helpful way to think about proof is as a type of justification found in logic and mathematics. In this sense, we can have scientific evidence for a claim but not scientific proof. Justification: In simplest terms, a justification is an explanation. Justification provides sufficient grounds for a claim; it explains how the evidence and reasons given support a claim. As with evidence itself, justification can take many forms. We can think of the Ways of Knowing as providing a basic foundation for justification: If asked how you know something, you might reply like this: Because I was told (language), Because I saw it (sensory perception), Because it fits the facts (reason), or Because it feels right (emotion or intuition), or Because my sacred text tells me so (faith). The Areas of Knowledge build upon these foundational types of justification. For instance, Math justifies its claims through rigorous proof, a process of logical deduction based on axioms, while ethical claims can be justified through means such as divine command ( God wants it so ); utilitarianism ( what s right is what maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people ); or evolutionary psychology ( as social creatures we naturally tend to favor members of our own group ). Limits & Uncertainties: These related concepts raise the questions about whether there are boundaries around what we can know, and whether inherent conditions make it impossible to know some things absolutely. Some forms of uncertainty are familiar. For example, predictions about the future (weather forecasting, economic trends) have obvious degrees of uncertainty: indeed, some people would maintain that it makes no sense to say we can truly know anything about the future. Terms such as probability, confidence interval, and error bar point to levels of uncertainty that are built into several Areas of Knowledge (e.g., the natural and human sciences). The problem of induction (which we ll explore) suggests that where experience or sensory perception are involved, we can never know anything with absolute certainty. There may also be metaphysical and existential questions (e.g., is there life after death? how do I know that everything around me isn t just an illusion?) to which we can respond with only tentative conclusions and very little objective evidence. Perspective & Bias: In its simplest sense, perspective means point of view. Everyone has a point of view. Each person s perspective is informed by a myriad of factors: age, gender, personality, socioeconomic status, religious background, culture, etc. (See paradigms and worldviews below.) The question is whether we are so locked into our own perspective that it prevents us from seeing the possible merits of other perspectives. If we are, then the term bias applies. Some see bias as inevitable; others disagree. When we automatically discount evidence that disputes conclusions we ve reached ahead of time (rather than following the evidence where it leads), that s known as confirmation bias. Prejudice about people or groups is also a form of bias. For TOK purposes, perspective and bias are not necessarily synonyms. An open question for TOK (and IB): Can my own perspective remain open enough so that I can appreciate that others, with their differences, can also be right? 4
Validity: 1. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Notice, though, that you can have a valid argument which is not in fact true. For instance: All panthers are pink. Stalin is a panther. Stalin is pink. 2. We can also talk about validity in terms of measurement. A valid test is one which actually does measure what you want it to. For instance, ACT results may be a valid measure of aptitude for college, but they are not a valid measure of general intelligence. Reliability: We ll use this term in several contexts, all of which will have to do with dependability and consistency. A reliable claim is one which is consistently justifiable. When we say our data is reliable we mean that we can repeat our observations and gather similar evidence (within acceptable margins of error). We will also talk about the reliability of Ways of Knowing how reliable is sensory perception? emotion? intuition? by which we ll mean: How confident are we that this or that Way produces knowledge we can count on? Correlation vs. Causality: As Michael Shermer notes, our brains are belief engines, and one consequence of our capacity to identify patterns is that we readily ascribe cause and effect to all kinds of things. A good portion of the search for knowledge involves differentiating correlation and causality. Just because two factors X and Y occur together, or one after the other, does not establish a causality. The familiar phrase, Correlation does not imply causation is a helpful truism to keep in mind especially as we consider fields such as the sciences and history, where analyzing cause is a common means of producing knowledge. Statisticians have developed tools to determine correlation among sets of data or variables, but causality, as such, is notoriously difficult to establish. Authority & Credibility: Much of what we believe and know comes to us from sources other than our own direct experience. We look things up online, we read books, we listen to parents and teachers. Experts, it seems, are everywhere. But how do we know whether to trust the various authorities that come our way? Which sources should we take as credible? Is an anonymous source ever credible? Does a Ph.D. guarantee credibility? What role does reputation play? How do we respond when authoritative sources disagree? Some disciplines establish credibility through the a peer-review process for publishing. In the age of the internet, it s important to be skeptical, but doubting everything automatically is impractical. Absolutism, Relativism, and Subjectivity: These terms designate beliefs about the foundation of knowledge and truth. The absolutist view is that truth does not change. Knowledge is out there in the world to be discovered, regardless of human perception, emotion, etc. Further, we have objective means to construct and evaluate knowledge such that it can be shared with others. The relativist view is that truth depends largely (or entirely) on context. Knowledge is a function of the time and culture of the seeker, and so truth changes. The subjectivist view is that knowledge and truth depend entirely on the individual knower: it s true if it s true for you. A synthesis of these views can be found in the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant, affirmed by some cognitive neuroscientists, that claims we can never know the ultimate realities of things in themselves : rather our neurobiological tools (e.g., the physical nature of our senses) combined with psychological constraints and experience lead us to know the world in a way which is useful as opposed to true. Yes, there is a reality out there (absolutism), but how we see it depends on context (relativism) and individual experience (subjectivism). Paradigms & Worldviews: At perhaps the most abstract levels of knowledge reside these concepts, which we will sometimes use interchangeably. You may think of a paradigm as a mega-lens through which you see the world. A paradigm is a core value system that influences what we believe. There are many types of paradigms, and they are sometimes presented in dichotomous pairs: political (liberalism vs. conservatism), economic (capitalism vs. socialism), spiritual (Christian vs. atheist), etc. Paradigms are often difficult to dislodge, and many of humanity s key conflicts are, at their heart, clashes between paradigms much more than disputes about facts. We tend to believe that our paradigms are derived from culture or upbringing, and certainly these are significant factors. Lately, evidence from new disciplines such as cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology suggest biological (genetic) influences as well. Another meaning of paradigm is a set of procedures, assumptions, and norms that define how and what we study within a given discipline. 5
At the heart of IB TOK TOK is primarily concerned with knowledge questions (TOK Subject Guide, 2015, p. 20). Knowledge questions explore the acquisition, production, verification and evaluation of knowledge in real life situations and in a variety of Areas of Knowledge (subjects/disciplines). Furthermore, knowledge questions are at the heart of TOK assessment (p. 22). The external assessment in TOK is a 1600-word (maximum) essay whose titles (prompts) are generic questions about knowledge [that] are cross-disciplinary in nature (p. 52). The IB-required internal assessment for TOK is a 10-minute oral presentation that requires students to identify and explore a knowledge question raised by a substantive real-life situation that is of interest to them (p. 55). Characteristics of a good knowledge question: Explicitly about knowledge and not about a real life situation or specific content; i.e., not about the world Open-ended with a number of plausible answers not yes/no; Expressed in general terms not subject-specific or content area terms. (See the TOK Subject Guide, pp. 20-22, for further details.) Real Life Situation Knowledge concepts: Typically, embedded within a good knowledge question either explicitly or implicitly is an abstract concept, such as: Definition Meaning Assumptions Justification Verification Evidence Facts / Data Proof Interpretation Induction / Deduction Inference Patternicity Correlation vs. causality Knowledge Question Perspective / Bias Subjectivity vs. Objectivity Relativism vs. Absolutism Dogmatism Mental models Limits / limitations Uncertainty Reliability Validity Authority & credibility Paradigms / Worldviews The use of the Drake Equation in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence Marcel Duchamp s Fountain, a porcelain urinal entered in an art exhibition in 1917. The use of a personality test to screen job applicants Reporting on political polling by Fox News and MSNBC Use of computer models in the study of climate change / global warming Results of a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness of Avastin, an anti-cancer drug How do scientists justify the assumptions they use to make scientific estimates? To what extent is the aesthetic value of an artwork purely a subjective matter? What are the limitations of quantification in the human sciences? To what extent is bias in reporting unavoidable? How can we help insure the reliability of mathematical processes used to predict the behavior of complex systems? How can we differentiate correlation from causality? 6
Real life situation is an official term in TOK and therefore has a specific meaning though it may seem obvious: REAL LIFE: Actual, not hypothetical, drawn from the world itself (global, national, local, personal). SITUATION: Focused, specific; an incident, occurrence, experience, fact, trend, artifact. Can include historical events and past developments in the Areas of Knowledge. Works of art (paintings, songs, films, etc.) also qualify. CRITICAL INQUIRY: When considering the requirements of the oral presentation, it can be helpful to think in terms of this progression: 1. It is rarely effective to start by trying to decide what Knowledge Question you d like to explore. Instead, identify a substantive Real Life Situation (RLS) that interests you. EXAMPLE: The use of computer models to study climate change 2. Next, ask yourself what Knowledge Concepts are relevant to the Real Life Situation: EXAMPLE: Evidence, Data, Perspective, Reliability, Validity, etc. TIP: If you can t think of a relevant knowledge concept or a clear way in which your RLS relates to the construction, evaluation, etc., of knowledge, it probably is not suitable for the oral. 3. Finally, brainstorm questions until you find one that you d like to explore (and feel you d be able to within the allowable timeframe): EXAMPLE: How can we help insure the reliability of mathematical processes used to predict the behavior of complex systems? 7