ToK Essay Titles May 2020 Prompts 2 & 4 Pt 1
ToKTutor • Oct 06, 2019
Making the strange familiar: Part 1
While a description of something can be made both factually and figuratively, usually only a factual description is seen as being helpful in making explanations of things. Figurative descriptions are often seen to be ‘messy’ and get in the way of giving clear and objective reasons as to how and why things are as they are. But look at this…
Question: What do the expressions ‘iron horse’, ‘floating mountains’ and ‘flying saucers’ have in common?
Answer: They are part of a description or story told in response to something seen for the first time – an attempt to explain or make sense of something unfamiliar and unknown and never experienced before.
The ‘iron horse’ was, allegedly, how a Native North American Indian described the first train that was seen moving across the North American plains. A ‘floating mountain’ (Section: ‘Spanish Contact’) was, supposedly, how the native South American Indian spies described the oncoming ships of the Spanish invaders. And, ‘flying saucer’, as everyone may know, is how the Western media first publicised the phenomenon of UFOs. Now, imagine how each of these assertions were received by the general population: with understanding nods of approval and general acceptance? With undoubting certitude and unquestioning acknowledgement? Nope. Most probably with a lot of hilarity and not merely a pinch of condescending irony.
So you see, the implied distinction between ‘description’ and ‘explanation’ is not always so clear cut and the above examples evidently counter the title quote, especially as regards building new knowledge.
In short, figurative descriptions give us flexibility in making sense of the world, especially when trying to explain to ourselves strange, new experiences for which we struggle to find the right words with which to express them.
Justifications go further than explanations because they require us to align our reasons for why we claim to know what we know with a body of physical evidence that supports those reasons.
However, there is a problem. Some skeptics reject a knowledge claim, not simply on the grounds that it is asserted without evidence, but because the evidence presented is framed in highly analogical terms and is thereby somehow diluted as far as justification of knowledge is concerned. In other words, evidence presented in the form of figurative language is not the best vehicle for justifying knowledge.
When justifying knowledge claims in the Bible, believers often argue that we shouldn’t take the words of the Biblical stories too literally, because this detracts from their symbolic message or teaching. However, atheists sometimes argue that after you’ve stripped the metaphor away from the language of the stories, there’s nothing of factual substance left in the message which we could reasonably argue represents knowledge. These alternative arguments support not only the idea that there is a ‘sharp line’ between description and explanation (Title 2), but also that analogy aids understanding but not justification (Title 4).
See the next post to think through the idea…
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...