ToK Essay Title Nov 2020 Prompt 2: Part 1
ToKTutor • Apr 21, 2020
What if...? Hypotheticals
In general terms, the ‘if…then’ clause in a sentence expresses a statement about cause and effect. For example, ‘If I eat too much junk food, I become ill.’ The correlation between the cause (junk food) and effect (illness) is not always 100% absolute and, in scientific terms at least, lies on a probability scale from ‘Probably True’ to ‘Probably Not True’ and can be tested by means of experimentation. Sometimes, such clauses are formulated into ‘hypotheses’ about how the world works or even as ‘predictions’ as part of theories.
In a more philosophical context, the ‘if…then’ clause, often formulated in the conditional tense, signals a more ‘counter factual’ logic when analysing issues of causation. What makes a statement counter factual is that the antecedent – the ‘if’ part of the clause – is false (ie. literally goes against the facts) but the subsequent – the ‘then’ part of the clause – does not have to be false.
Examples:
‘If Donald Trump hadn’t been elected as President, the world would be more at peace.’
‘If leopards changed their spots, I’d do that bungee jump.’
‘If you survived when I throw you into the river tied to a weight, you’d be a witch.’
In each of the cases, the antecedent/cause is false: Trump DID win; leopards CAN’T change their spots and people DON’T tend to survive drowning in the given circumstances. However, the subsequent/cause ‘could’ still turn out to be fact: the world still has a chance for peace; I ‘might’ still jump and other non-supernatural kinds of bewitchment may manifest themselves in people…
We don’t want to go too deeply into the ins and outs of the logic of counterfactual thinking about causation (click the link to discover more) but one thing to say is that a key idea to emerge from philosophical approaches to counterfactual logic was that of ‘possible worlds’.
In a psychological context, the ‘if…then’ clause, or ‘if I had only...’ statement, expresses a form of ‘hypothetical thinking’ which makes use of the idea of possible worlds in philosophy. As a way of dealing with past events or actions which cannot be changed, we can at least confront the consequences of those actions. One way of doing this is to imagine what range of effects might have occurred had any of the variables in the past been different. We can do this by modifying one of the facts from a past event or action and assessing the vastly different consequences of the change.
For example, you can reflect on your current financial situation by imagining how things would be different: ‘If only I hadn’t spent all my savings on that old car…’ The consequences can be better or worse than what actually happened: ‘…I wouldn’t constantly be getting it repaired and losing more money…’ or ‘If I’d not saved up so much in the first place, I’d be in debt’. The resulting emotions can be either more or less hurtful/pleasurable than what you originally felt. Perhaps, guilt, regret and frustration in the first example; relief and gratitude in the second.
On a practical level, this counterfactual approach can help release emotions you might not let yourself feel at the time or it can give you a clearer sense of where blame or responsibility lies in the situation...
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...