Dear All,
On behalf of the TOK teaching team, I would like to wish you all a restful yet stimulating long vacation.
Don't forget about all the outstanding tasks related to your IB learning - you will be doing some work on your extended essay, world literature assignment and - not least - your final TOK essay.
You have the prescribed titles, your last teacher spent some time with you discussing them, and so you have the opportunity to think carefully about which title to choose. This choice is one of the most important stages in producing a successful essay, so DON'T try to make an instant choice - if you do, this will very likely be a BAD choice. You need to spend some serious time thinking about what you can do with each of the titles before making any choice - we know from long experience that the titles that look initially appealing are often the most troublesome. Look carefully at the structure of each title. What are the key terms? How do they relate to the categories discussed in the TOK course? How much guidance does each of the titles give you? This varies.
We will have a bit more time in August to discuss the nature of the titles, but by all means go ahead and think about them for yourself now. Make some notes, do some exploration - look at the last thread below for some ideas about how to do this...
And allocate some time during the vacation to read and keep yourself abreast of things going on in the world. See you soon...
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Essays: exploring the concepts in the titles
Dear Everyone,
Now that you have completed your first full-length essay, I think we need to emphasize the importance of the planning process in writing a TOK essay. That planning process must start with some wide-ranging thoughts about the title you have chosen. Actually you should do this with all the titles available so that you can make the best choice.
These are the ones we offered you:
Prescribed Titles
1) "We are more likely to be mistaken in our generalizations than in our particular observations." Do you agree?
2) In areas of knowledge such as the arts and the sciences, do we learn more from work that follows or that breaks with accepted conventions?
3) Consider the meaning of justification in different areas of knowledge. Is any one kind of justification more compelling than any other?
Now here are some thoughts from your TOK teaching team. Notice that what is written below is NOT beautifully written and perfectly logically structured - it's not supposed to be – that comes later when you write a formal plan. What we are trying to do here is just explore with our minds how we can develop each title to meet the demands with which you are familiar from the TOK course. It’s not quite brainstorming – that suggests random reactions to a topic – it is more controlled than that, but still not a rigid way of thinking. I think “exploring” is the right word.
Title #1
Key Terms: Observations and Generalizations
Can we link these to Ways of Knowing (WoKs)? We could link observation to sense perception, and generalization to reason. Furthermore, maybe we could characterize generalizations as inductive – what is logical induction again? Review your notes. The title suggests that we make mistakes with generalizations – what is it about inductive generalizations that could lead to error? There is the problem of induction, poverty of data, etc.
Now we could also move on to think about Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) – where do we use inductive reasoning? In the sciences, in history, maybe in ethics? Can you think of some real examples from classwork or general knowledge? Mathematics is likely to be a poor choice for discussion here because mathematics is mainly deductive, perhaps not a promising area (don’t confuse generalizations in mathematics with definitions).
Observations – relate to the work we did on illusions and whether they are representative of wider problems. Is our sense perception unreliable? Illusions suggest that it is, but there is good support for the idea that it isn’t – we often agree about what we perceive, the actions that we take on the basis of our perception are usually effective and not unexpected…
So is the title suggesting more generally that sense perception is more reliable that reason? This could be examined, but be careful not to extend the question too far.
Interrelations – the fact is that most of the time we use observation and generalization together as one overall process. Individual observations can lead to generalizations, but also individual observations can be affected by prior generalizations – ‘all observations are theory laden’. Lots of implications here...
Don’t forget that you can disagree with the premise in the question - for example, focusing on the weaknesses of generalizations (the title seems to nudge in that direction) but generalizations are also necessary. Though generalizations can be mistaken, their importance in knowledge acquisition needs to be identified. Generalizations in the human sciences, for example, may fail to explain every observable phenomenon but they can explain vital factors in way that enables us to make progress. Also, perhaps “to know is to be able to predict” and prediction is enabled by generalization.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title #2
Key Term: Conventions
What is a convention? You could look up the dictionary if you want, but only as a stimulus for thought. Let’s say that conventions are agreed ways of doing things…
Can facts be conventions? – this doesn’t seem to make sense, given the characterization above. If a fact is merely conventional, then it isn’t really a fact. Are conventions true? Again this doesn’t really seem to make sense – it could lead to relativism unless carefully treated – true for you and true for me… Dangerous territory…
So what might be the agreed ways of doing things in AoKs? In science we talk about “the scientific method” – is there a single scientific method? In any case this is a good candidate for a convention. Then we might have wider sets of beliefs in science – paradigms, etc. – beliefs can be conventional where they conform to what lots of other people believe… In the arts, we discussed movements – artists often operate within the confines of certain schools of thought or ways of doing things. can we think of some examples of all these things in science and arts?
Now what about following and breaking with conventions? Following the scientific method as a convention would seem to be a good thing as it seems to be very effective. But then again is there just one scientific method? Different sciences maybe need different methods – experimental and historical sciences, for example…
Once again, conventions could be wider sets of beliefs, as in paradigms. Following the paradigm would be good because it directs you to suitable questions to ask. Maybe the beliefs are wrong, in which case breaking with them is good. This needs historical examples.
We need to show that we learn both from works that accept and break with conventions. Some important things:
How do we get new knowledge within existing conventions? One way science progresses is by modifying the limitations of older theories – going from circular orbits to elliptical ones.
When and why do need new paradigms? Is it because the existing theories reach dead ends? Look at some examples from scientific revolutions and see in what way are they are different from the theories they replaced. Are they completely different? Does it mean that the older theories are plain wrong?
In the Arts things take a slightly different turn. Unlike in the sciences, in the arts differing conventions can coexist, can be equally valued. New artistic movements are invented not because the old one is wrong as such but because of new historical contexts and new ideas. Accepted conventions in the arts can be too stifling to the artist leading to the invention of new styles and movements. Can we say one artistic movement expresses more truth or beauty than the other? On the other hand it is undeniable that each brings its own style…..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title #3
Key Term: Justification
We need justification as support for knowledge claims. Perhaps it is even necessary for knowledge – justified true belief and so on…
There is a certain ambiguity here – justification as a method of reaching a knowledge claim, or rationalizing a pre-conceived belief, finding support after the fact. Maybe we need to look at both…
We could take WoK-based approach – empirical, rational, authority types of justification, justification through sense perception, reason, language… We could develop the WoK approach by examining the WoKs themselves – how reliable is sense perception, reason, etc.?
We could place the WoKs in context of AoKs, such that we can see how they operate in real circumstances… The WoK angle alone will not be enough - the danger is that we would end up saying ‘sense perception is used to justify our knowledge claims in the natural sciences and as we know our sense perception is limited and therefore…….’ It is easy to forget that we use WoKs in combination and they kind of correct each other. Therefore, it is important to explore the concept of justification in the different AoK without being too judgmental – don’t say “nothing can be justified in History”.
It would be very good to analyze why the different kinds of justification we employ in different AoK are the best we have (at least currently) despite their limitations.
Now that you have completed your first full-length essay, I think we need to emphasize the importance of the planning process in writing a TOK essay. That planning process must start with some wide-ranging thoughts about the title you have chosen. Actually you should do this with all the titles available so that you can make the best choice.
These are the ones we offered you:
Prescribed Titles
1) "We are more likely to be mistaken in our generalizations than in our particular observations." Do you agree?
2) In areas of knowledge such as the arts and the sciences, do we learn more from work that follows or that breaks with accepted conventions?
3) Consider the meaning of justification in different areas of knowledge. Is any one kind of justification more compelling than any other?
Now here are some thoughts from your TOK teaching team. Notice that what is written below is NOT beautifully written and perfectly logically structured - it's not supposed to be – that comes later when you write a formal plan. What we are trying to do here is just explore with our minds how we can develop each title to meet the demands with which you are familiar from the TOK course. It’s not quite brainstorming – that suggests random reactions to a topic – it is more controlled than that, but still not a rigid way of thinking. I think “exploring” is the right word.
Title #1
Key Terms: Observations and Generalizations
Can we link these to Ways of Knowing (WoKs)? We could link observation to sense perception, and generalization to reason. Furthermore, maybe we could characterize generalizations as inductive – what is logical induction again? Review your notes. The title suggests that we make mistakes with generalizations – what is it about inductive generalizations that could lead to error? There is the problem of induction, poverty of data, etc.
Now we could also move on to think about Areas of Knowledge (AoKs) – where do we use inductive reasoning? In the sciences, in history, maybe in ethics? Can you think of some real examples from classwork or general knowledge? Mathematics is likely to be a poor choice for discussion here because mathematics is mainly deductive, perhaps not a promising area (don’t confuse generalizations in mathematics with definitions).
Observations – relate to the work we did on illusions and whether they are representative of wider problems. Is our sense perception unreliable? Illusions suggest that it is, but there is good support for the idea that it isn’t – we often agree about what we perceive, the actions that we take on the basis of our perception are usually effective and not unexpected…
So is the title suggesting more generally that sense perception is more reliable that reason? This could be examined, but be careful not to extend the question too far.
Interrelations – the fact is that most of the time we use observation and generalization together as one overall process. Individual observations can lead to generalizations, but also individual observations can be affected by prior generalizations – ‘all observations are theory laden’. Lots of implications here...
Don’t forget that you can disagree with the premise in the question - for example, focusing on the weaknesses of generalizations (the title seems to nudge in that direction) but generalizations are also necessary. Though generalizations can be mistaken, their importance in knowledge acquisition needs to be identified. Generalizations in the human sciences, for example, may fail to explain every observable phenomenon but they can explain vital factors in way that enables us to make progress. Also, perhaps “to know is to be able to predict” and prediction is enabled by generalization.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title #2
Key Term: Conventions
What is a convention? You could look up the dictionary if you want, but only as a stimulus for thought. Let’s say that conventions are agreed ways of doing things…
Can facts be conventions? – this doesn’t seem to make sense, given the characterization above. If a fact is merely conventional, then it isn’t really a fact. Are conventions true? Again this doesn’t really seem to make sense – it could lead to relativism unless carefully treated – true for you and true for me… Dangerous territory…
So what might be the agreed ways of doing things in AoKs? In science we talk about “the scientific method” – is there a single scientific method? In any case this is a good candidate for a convention. Then we might have wider sets of beliefs in science – paradigms, etc. – beliefs can be conventional where they conform to what lots of other people believe… In the arts, we discussed movements – artists often operate within the confines of certain schools of thought or ways of doing things. can we think of some examples of all these things in science and arts?
Now what about following and breaking with conventions? Following the scientific method as a convention would seem to be a good thing as it seems to be very effective. But then again is there just one scientific method? Different sciences maybe need different methods – experimental and historical sciences, for example…
Once again, conventions could be wider sets of beliefs, as in paradigms. Following the paradigm would be good because it directs you to suitable questions to ask. Maybe the beliefs are wrong, in which case breaking with them is good. This needs historical examples.
We need to show that we learn both from works that accept and break with conventions. Some important things:
How do we get new knowledge within existing conventions? One way science progresses is by modifying the limitations of older theories – going from circular orbits to elliptical ones.
When and why do need new paradigms? Is it because the existing theories reach dead ends? Look at some examples from scientific revolutions and see in what way are they are different from the theories they replaced. Are they completely different? Does it mean that the older theories are plain wrong?
In the Arts things take a slightly different turn. Unlike in the sciences, in the arts differing conventions can coexist, can be equally valued. New artistic movements are invented not because the old one is wrong as such but because of new historical contexts and new ideas. Accepted conventions in the arts can be too stifling to the artist leading to the invention of new styles and movements. Can we say one artistic movement expresses more truth or beauty than the other? On the other hand it is undeniable that each brings its own style…..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title #3
Key Term: Justification
We need justification as support for knowledge claims. Perhaps it is even necessary for knowledge – justified true belief and so on…
There is a certain ambiguity here – justification as a method of reaching a knowledge claim, or rationalizing a pre-conceived belief, finding support after the fact. Maybe we need to look at both…
We could take WoK-based approach – empirical, rational, authority types of justification, justification through sense perception, reason, language… We could develop the WoK approach by examining the WoKs themselves – how reliable is sense perception, reason, etc.?
We could place the WoKs in context of AoKs, such that we can see how they operate in real circumstances… The WoK angle alone will not be enough - the danger is that we would end up saying ‘sense perception is used to justify our knowledge claims in the natural sciences and as we know our sense perception is limited and therefore…….’ It is easy to forget that we use WoKs in combination and they kind of correct each other. Therefore, it is important to explore the concept of justification in the different AoK without being too judgmental – don’t say “nothing can be justified in History”.
It would be very good to analyze why the different kinds of justification we employ in different AoK are the best we have (at least currently) despite their limitations.
All Comments
