ToK Essay Title Nov 2020: Prompt 1
ToKTutor • Apr 29, 2020
A Surveillance Society and the Censorship of Knowledge
Whether it’s a personal disagreement between people or two experts disagreeing over a technical aspect of knowledge, one thing seems to be certain. The resolution of the disagreement can only happen if there is some sort of open-mindedness in both parties to see the other’s side of the story. The ‘essential’ aspect of the title seems to point to the need to balance one’s perspective and to cultivate an atmosphere of compromise in order to reach agreement or consensus.
In expert knowledge communities, for example, disagreements usually happen when individuals or groups challenge the existing consensus. After a length of time, the disagreement may (or may not) be resolved though the new consensus may have changed from the original consensus in some aspects.
Numerous examples exist to illustrate this dynamic. Consider, Einstein’s disagreement with Niels Bohr about the nature of how small particles behave in the quantum world. Even as quantum physicists built theories to explained the randomness of the quantum events, Einstein resisted giving equal attention to both sides with his famous outburst, ‘God does not play dice!’
Even though Einstein was never fully convinced, this title is good advice when lives are at stake; when knowledge is used or abused in its application; when people cross moral boundaries in order to pursue knowledge.
Just consider for a moment the following example of an issue from the world of Technology and Media which should concern us all: surveillance and the right to privacy.
In 2013, Edward Snowdon
released secret files as evidence of a secret government scheme to build a massive knowledge base of every citizen’s personal details. He was forced to go into hiding because this completely went against the conventional thinking that Government is always looking out for the best interests of its citizens and would never dream of spying on them.
Snowden’s act of ‘whistleblowing’ generated major disagreements between those who supported him and those who were against him. On the one hand, those for Snowdon argue that personal privacy is a Human Right built into the very Constitution and Government should respect this as a matter of law. On the other hand, those against him argue that the knowledge gained by Government will help them weed out the evildoers in the community, so if citizens haven’t done anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Does their disagreement 'need' to be resolved? Yes, because it raises two highly important issues. Firstly, the issue of whether the Government should have limits placed on its power. And secondly, the issue of whether some knowledge should be censored from public view for their own good.
Is it 'essential' to give ‘equal attention to both sides’? Well yes, for otherwise how can the issues of privacy, Government power and censorship of knowledge ever be resolved? Political scientists and politicians have to work together to reach some sort of compromise or trade-off which a/ makes Government clearly accountable for its decisions and actions but b/ gives them enough latitude to do what is in the best interests of its people. The general public also have a responsibility in this process. How willing are we to allow knowledge about our personal lives to be made readily accessible to third parties who are not transparent about telling us what they will do with it?
If the world of social media is any evidence, we are very willing to give up our privacy…
As yet, Snowdon is still in exile and the disagreements
about these issues continue to rage in the public domain…
Thinking about the various challenges involved when experts transfer knowledge between contexts creates various challenges for the experts who and whether or not they underestimated these challenges. Does the analogy of growing tomatoes help understand the question?
‘Fresh’ has the connotations of ‘new’ or ‘innovative’. And when something new arrives into the world, it’s usually accompanied by change. Often it’s hard to measure the impact of change until time has passed and we can look back with the cool, detached eye of objectivity.
Human beings are at the centre of the knowledge universe. This is why in your TOK studies everyone explores the ‘Core Theme’. Figure 3 pictures ‘Me as a knower and thinker’. Anyone who pursues knowledge, whether an expert or not, will at some point have to reflect on the fact that there are various factors, both internal and external, which either promote or constrain their endeavours.
Do we truly need custodians of knowledge, those who safeguard and preserve our collective wisdom throughout time?
Let’s look at two alternative senses in which knowledge might be acquired within ‘bubbles’. One within the Natural Sciences. The other with the Arts. In the former, we explore the notion of scientific 'paradigms'. In the Arts, we look at the notion of 'storyverses' or fictional worlds into which we imaginatively immerse ourselves...
HS experts are supposed to be trained to communicate difficult knowledge about mental health conditions and yet our expectations sometimes ignore the fact that diagnosing and treating mental illnesses is a messy business and not always easy. New tech allows experts to create visualisations which in turn can be helpful in communicating the complexities of a case and potential treatments...
Artists are like magpies who copy from other artists. This form of ‘copying’ is the broad sense of the term ‘replicability’ in this Title. From one point of view, such ‘replication’ leads to the creation of original works of art which make us see the world anew. From another point of view entirely, such copying borderlines on artistic plagiarism, fraud or forgery...
Exploring how a song about apartheid turned into an anthem, voicing the strength of those who have been marginalised from society, sometimes in a violent way. To what extent does such exclusion actually help build resilience and self-knowledge? How far is it harmful?
There is a branch of knowledge, akin to pseudo-scientific knowledge like ‘flat Earth theory’, in which one can seem to have absolute certainty and full confidence, because the truth of that knowledge is somehow ‘guaranteed’ or ‘underwritten’ by a higher power. Faith-based knowledge.
Now, consider a clichéd example when we seem to have the utmost certainty and confidence in knowledge and they both seem to be moving in the same direction: 2 + 2 = 4. On the one hand, this is something you cannot doubt, isn’t it? You know this with 100% certainty.. You might actually be very confident about your knowledge...