Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
(These teaching notes are for reference purposes only. Quotes may not be exact and many are paraphrased. Do not reproduce from these
pages EVER! Use the original book.)
As you read through these pages please note (on these sheets if you have copied them, or in your binder if you are using my class set) all
“Strengths and Limitations” you find for each of these Ways of Knowing.
Chapter 1—Knowing
(Read the following 2 pages for homework.)
p. 9 Who’s in the centre?
As you go through this course, you can be critical (as in looking at things critically) but this doesn’t
necessarily mean that you are looking for negatives—you can also appreciate and note the positives you find
as well.
Examining and evaluating allows us to sift the ideas we have been given in order to affirm the ones with the
best claim on our belief, by considering the reasons that support different claims. (This is your job during this
course.)
p. 15 When students from around the world are asked to draw a “map of the world” we often find differences
depending on where that student lives. We learn from this that our pictures of the world, and our knowledge
of the world, are learned within our own contexts and our own cultural worldviews.
A map is created by human beings, and we put a lot of our personal and human knowledge into it. These
precious images, which pack so much knowledge onto a small surface, are a product of our history, our
technological skill, and our politics.
We link ourselves to it with ideas of belonging to certain places and not to others. And sometimes with grim
consequences, we link it with ownership (borders and names).
With a map, colonizing nations have laid claim to territory, dispossessing or killing indigenous people who
had no concept of “ownership” of their homeland, no deeds of possession, no flags.
… Maps represent not what we see but what we believe.
(It is not wrong that maps represent our worldview as long as we acknowledge there are other world views.
However, if we are using the map for practical purposes our maps must correspond to the world itself.)
p. 16 Here is one of the major challenges for all of us-- to build our understanding of ourselves and our world.
There are so many different representations around us. How can we simultaneously appreciate the variability
of worldviews, and at the same time insist on some standard of accurate representation with which to evaluate
them all? How do we deal with worldviews that clash? In attempting to understand, evaluate, reject, or
reconcile multiple views, we are taking on possibly the most interesting and significant challenge of living in
an international, intercultural world.
p. 18
Mission statement from IBO
“The International Baccalaureate Organization aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable, and caring young
people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.
To this end the IBO works with schools, governments, and international organizations to develop challenging
programmes of international education and rigorous assessment. These programmes encourage students
across the world to become active, compassionate, and lifelong learners who understand that other people,
with their differences, can also be right.”
Your recognition of differing perspectives from different geographical centres is only the beginning in ToK
and a step toward a larger goal of trying to become, if you choose, not just “international” (as is
EVERYONE, from someone else’s point of view) but “internationally minded”.
How can you start thinking more internationally?
In growing more aware of your own perspective and understanding it is one possibility among many, you
become more internationally minded without needing ever to travel from your home. (Note: "Many
perspectives" does not mean they are all equally correct…. that is where we need to continue to be critically
aware.)
1
P. 20 HOW DO WE KNOW?
Regardless of where on the planet we live and regardless of all the influences upon us, we gain our
knowledge as human beings in similar ways:
1) Sense perception—This refers to information gained by our five senses (sight, sound, smell, touch,
and taste). Although our senses have many limitations, they are a “window to the world”, because
we gain so much knowledge through them. Our senses and the technologies we have invented to
expand them play a role in how we gain knowledge in all disciplines (Areas of Knowledge such as
natural science, history, the arts etc.).√
2) Language—Through language we report, give instructions, have conversations, and archive stories
(written or in our minds). In one way or another, language is involved in most of the knowledge you
have gained from others (including cultural knowledge passed on by your family, information
through books etc.) Like perception, language has its limitations and even deceptions, but it is so
crucial to knowledge that some consider it essential even to a definition of knowledge.
3) Emotion—We may act emotionally so swiftly we may not even be aware of it (when lightning
flashes it may provoke fear and an instant search for shelter). Emotion can be a way of knowing that
is private and deeply personal, and which affects knowing other human beings. (We may sense
something is wrong with a friend even when she says nothing.) More than any of the other ways of
knowing, emotion has had its flaws emphasized by individuals, historical epochs, and cultures.
However, emotions provide us with an avenue to knowing ideas, people, and situations, and modern
scientific findings even indicate that emotions are essential to reasoning. (Damasio, A.2005. Descartes’
Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, USA. G.P.Putnam.)
4) Reasoning may come so naturally to us that we may rarely stop to think about how we arrive at our
conclusions. (Although by the end of this course you probably will!!) Yet reasoning is the way of
knowing that allows us to reach sound conclusions, as well as convince others that our arguments are
valid. It does have its limitations and can be applied carelessly, yet it interacts with the other ways of
knowing to contribute powerfully to our knowledge.
2
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 21 SENSE PECEPTION (Remember to mark strengths and limitations are we go through this. In fact, please
point them out, when you think you have spotted one.)
We do not sense all the stimuli that we’re potentially able to sense. There’s too much going on in our environment for us to handle,
and we unconsciously ignore many stimuli.
Our five senses are like threads that connect us to our inner selves and, crucially, to the world outside ourselves.
p. 23 Knowing how other animals gain sensory information makes us aware of our own specifically human perception of the world,
a world that most people assume to exist outside themselves. We are not perceiving the world as it is, in the only way it can be
perceived. We are sensing it in a human way, and building our knowledge from a limited range of all the sensory
possibilities of all the species on the planet.
Our sense receptors are human as also are our interpretation of our senses. Note: ALL perception involves interpretation.
Technologies (microscopes, ultrasound, video cameras, smoke detectors, etc.) have given us access to knowledge of the world
beyond that which our senses allow us. An interesting question, to be explored when we discuss the natural sciences, is how we can
know what we are detecting, through these devices, what we think we are detecting.
Interpretation:
√Turn to page 26 and read the text box at the bottom of the page
Even when we are not consciously aware of interpreting our perceptions, our brains are actively engage in doing so.
p. 27 According to the Gestalt theory of psychology, we tend to perceive objects visually as meaningful patterns or groups, rather
than as collections of separate parts. We tend to simplify visual information, grouping it in patterns that are easier to process. (It
works quite well for us, except that sometimes we tend to recall what’s not there.) Also, optical illusions and mirages can point to
how easily we can be tricked.
However, the fact that our brains interpret new stimuli based on past experiences is critical to our being able to use perception as a
way of knowing. If we perceived very new sensation as a unique experience, without any associations from the past, we would not
be able to act in the world, and probably not survive in it either.
p. 28 Perception and Selection (√Group exercise on object or eye witness and then discuss questions.)
Note #1 on eye witnesses: Even when their senses are functioning perfectly well (which is not always the case) and even with the
strongest of intentions to tell the truth, witnesses may vary considerably in their accounts of an event. Indeed, all may tell the truth,
and still not give the same account because of all the factors which influenced what they selected, consciously or unconsciously.
Note# 2 Expectation also has a huge influence on perception (Emperors new clothes!)
What we perceive, ultimately, is much affected not just by what is there but by who we are, biologically, personally, and culturally.
√As a class read paragraph on page 29—Columbus’s encounter with the Native Americans, and √Page 30- Cultural concept of the
cow
p. 31 Some factors which may affect perception are:
Characteristics of the object or incident under observation - size, colour, familiarity, length of time it can be seen or heard etc.
Characteristics of the observing conditions: quality of light, background noise or distractions, positive or negative reactions of other
observers
Characteristics of the observer: normality of the person’s senses at the time, emotions, degree of interest, expectations, background
knowledge.
p. 31 Discussion Questions on Perception:
1) The sciences use perception in gaining knowledge, gathering observations with great care in order to converge in a common
understanding of what the world (assuming that it exists outside our sense information) is really like. How does science seek to
overcome individual or group variability in pursuit of truth?
2) The arts use perception as a source for their more divergent work. How do the arts (such as literature, art or music) use
individual or group variability as a strength?
3) How might the other ways of knowing—emotion, language and reason blend with perception when considering gaining
knowledge in science or the arts?
3
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 32 LANGUAGE
Much of the power of language is rooted in its symbolic nature, the use of sounds to stand for things or ideas
with which they have no necessary connection, within a grammatical system which enables the symbols to be
combined to connect ideas. There are several theories suggesting exactly how language creates meaning.
Central, though, to all forms of symbolism is the use of one thing (an object, an image, a sound, a word, for
example) to stand for something else.
p. 34 This capacity to move into symbolism, using our sounds meaningfully, opens to us as human beings
vast possibilities for thinking and communicating; we can think and talk in abstractions removed from our
immediate sense experiences; we can speak not just of what is there before us but of what has been, will
be, might be, or could be only in the imagination. We are able to connect our own lives with the lives of
others in our language community, giving words to categories or experiences that we seem to share and
allowing us to create meaning socially. Words group the sensations that we associate in the neuronal
networks of our sense perception—or possibly give us a grouping that influences our perception of them.
This capacity for symbolism to group and classify our experiences, with its impact on thought and culture
profoundly affects what and how we know.
p. 36 Language as a symbolic System:
The words we use are not isolated. We do not possess just independent word-symbols; the entire system is
symbolic and gives us nearly infinite possibilities for meaningful combinations.
Describe in a couple of sentences what is happening in the cartoons on page 36.
Discus the influence of perception on language and after this read through the questions at the bottom of page
36 and top of 37.
P. 37 How do we learn language?
√Read It doesn’t translate # 2 Gender and #3 Structure or politeness
p. 38 There are questions as to how we learn language. Noam Chomsky’s view is that human beings are born
already possessing the capacity for symbolic manipulation, a universal grammar of language that provides a
kind of template for learning the particular language of the local speech community. (This also includes sign
language.)
Precise or Suggestive?
Words gain their meaning not solely through their reference (to something) but through associated ideas that
come to our minds when we use them. (Theatre and poetry really encourages us to do this!)
Even words for which the reference seems obvious, we quickly encounter ambiguity.
Picture in your head the image/idea you imagine when you hear the following words:
Chicken, skinny, justice, angel, evil, liberator
Choosing the right word can be a struggle in all areas of knowledge, but the nature of that struggle—whether
it is to try to pin down definitions more and more precisely in order to use language entirely
DENOTATIVELY, or whether it is to choose words deliberately for exactly the right aura of
CONNOTATIONS—depends of the area of knowledge. The goals of language are important. How might
different goals affect our language use of the following words:
Sunlight, gold, gardens.
√Read poem on page 40, and the information on language in science, denotations and connotations, and
language in poetry.
√ It doesn’t translate #43 on page 41.
p. 42 In the past it had been suggested that the particular language we speak causes us to think in a certain
way (Sapir-Whorf’s hypothesis of linguistic relativity). We now consider differences between languages to be
4
the surface of a deeper symbolic capacity. The variation, however, is far from trivial for those seeing a
window into the cultural worldview of others.
All day long we use language as we think, interact socially and connect with others, give factual reports,
express our emotions, create using language for literature or humour, persuade, give instructions, make
request, affect actions, make vows that change our lives etc.
For some of these clarity and precision are important… for others ambiguity is less of a problem or even an
advantage. (which ones?)
p. 43 Language, emotion and values:
*This is important for all the AoKs (Science, History etc.)
When judging whether or not we are being given a factual report we need to consider:
1) Selection: Out of all the possible events or details that could have been reported, what has been
chosen? Is it possible to compare the description with another by someone else? We can be grateful
the writer selects the important details but what does important mean to him? What is the purpose of
the report and its intended audience? To what criteria were the selections picked?
2) Emphasis- Out of all the events or details reported, what has been stressed as the most important,
and what do the guiding values or criteria seem to be for this emphasis? How has this emphasis been
achieved: through placement of ideas in a certain structure in the sentence or part of the report?
through more detailed treatment of some details rather than others? (I may tell you my story of Anne
Boleyn here, beware!)
3) Word choice: What kind of language is used, and does it seem to be appropriate to the apparent
purpose of the description? Is it denotative, factual language, or is it connotative and suggestive?
What emotions, values (positive or negative) are expressed or suggested? It there evidence of bias?
Is a person described as lazy, relaxed, courageous or reckless etc. (The choice of words in the
description may tell you more about the writer’s values than about the person being described.)
4) Context- In what context has the description been placed, and how might this framing affect the
overall meaning of the passage? What does its purpose seem to be?
5) (My question: What bias or perspectives do you add to the article as you read it?)
√Read page 45 Take back the language: words tell a story of their own
√p. 46 Metaphors of time and space: the case of the Aymara culture
√p. 46 Metaphors as pervasive figures of thought
√P. 48 – Looking at the pictures discuss what symbols we use that are more readily comprehended by
different cultures or do they all have to be learned? In what AOK are these symbols most commonly used
and are they more or less effective than symbolic language in these areas?
Last thought on language: Expanding your vocabulary gives you better tools for drawing distinctions and
understanding shades of meaning. As a result, you increase your potential for exploring ideas and
communicating effectively with others. Learning another language may help increase one’s awareness of that
culture and expand our international-mindedness.
5
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 50 EMOTION
Emotions are reactions or responses related to sense perceptions, internal states, thoughts, or beliefs about
things or people, real or imaged. (Feelings and emotions are basically the same thing, this book says.)
Knowing your Emotions:
If you say, “Right now I am happy” you mean that your direct experience and personal familiarity with
yourself leads you to this conclusion.
(Although sometimes others – a friend, parent or teacher) may help you become more aware of, or help you
understand which emotion you are feeling. (i.e.: Some say that anger is often really a result of being hurt and
that if you remedy that feeling of hurt you will also dissolve the anger.)
Some of the ways of identifying our emotions include language, sense perception, and reasoning. All three
provide highly interconnected ways of associating the emotions we experience with those that other people
experience, and allow us to emerge from solitary introspective awareness into some degree of shared
knowledge.
Knowing through perception:
Highly acute observers, often not even conscious of their swift reading of tiny signals, are often considered
intuitive in their capacity to “sense” how someone else is feeling.
In observing a particular pattern of actions or gestures, we come to associate it with a particular emotion
(through the naming of language and generalizing of reasoning). Observation of others’ emotions and actions
can then give us a context for recognizing our own actions and emotions (and vice versa). You can realize
that you are angry as you notice that you are sounding and acting like an angry person.
(Observation alone, however, can be misleading in determining how someone is feeling as they may mask
their feelings, may fake them, or may embellish them etc.)
p. 53 Emotions are affected by (or created by!) our physical state, such as our biochemical balance; and our
physical state, even our health, is affected by our emotions. (Note: If you have ever had a bad flu or food
poisoning, you may have found it difficult to care about ANYTHING while you were feeling that way.)
Knowing Emotion through language:
Emotions are even more difficult to classify than perceptions, not just because we cannot see them, but also
because they may mix together in a way that our perceptions do not. (It is possible to be sad and happy at the
same time—at a wedding; feel love and jealousy over the same person etc.)
The naming and classifying of emotional responses and their combinations have not been without debate.
It is probably unsurprising, given the variability of ways of classifying and thinking about emotions, that
different languages reflect, and possibly reinforce, particular feelings. The words that different cultures use to
describe the emotional worlds of their members give us a clue about the way different structures mould the
emotional experiences of their peoples. (David Matsumoto p. 54)
√Read Kohei Noda p. 54
Knowing through reasoning:
p. 55 The capacity to see the place of the “particular” within the “general” adds to being able to understand
how emotions can affect people. We might also gain a greater understanding of our own emotions as we
recognize them to fall into patterns within human experience—experiences of grief or conflict, for example.
Reasoning also can help us to project consequences and to judge whether a reaction “makes sense” in its
context. (We might conclude we need to seek help to manage our anger, for example, or to combat phobias.)
Emotions are also affected by our beliefs upon which we draw heavily. Two people’s beliefs of what is fair
(i.e.: slave owner compared to an abolitionist) might evoke a very different emotional response to a situation.
6
Some feel that emotion is a something to be overcome. It does have a reputation for “clouding” our reasoning
or preventing us from thinking clearly. Manipulations by leaders through combining language with emotions
can manipulate or brainwash people. The instant reaction often posed by emotion can also be both negative or
positive depending on the situation. However, recent research indicates that reason and emotion are much
more complementary than has often been thought, and that each keeps the other in balance. (The classical
case of Phineas Gage [who in 1848 suffered brain damage in his frontal lobes, which prevented him from
feeling any emotion and from making any decisions] is often cited to demonstrate the close connection
between our emotional and reasoning centres. (Ratey, J.J. 2001. A User’s Guide to the Brain: Perception, Attention, and the
Four Theatres of the Brain. New York, USA. Panthenon Books.p.231) ☺_______☺
▲
√ If time, look at how reasoning can guide emotions on p.57, and read examining the emotions behind
certain collective beliefs (i.e.; your attitude towards your country) p.58
√ Read The Happiness Machine; Better Living Through Chemicals, and Brave New World paragraph p.59
p. 60 As we grow up in a society, shaped by different influences—family, sports organizations, school
systems, community groups, religions and so forth, we receive guidance about what emotions are acceptable
to display, and which should be kept within us.
p.61 The complexity of emotional education increases further as we consider what empathy involves. Many
teachings such as the Dalai Lama’s loving kindness to others, and Jesus Christ’s teaching to love they
neighbour as thyself, emphases the relationship between oneself and other people (standing in someone else’s
shoes).
When emotional outreaches crosses cultures there may be further gaps in assumptions, experiences, values,
and communication. 1) A first step in cross-cultural awareness is to realize that people everywhere are just
like you, 2) A second step, without denying the first, is to realize that they are not! 3) A third is not to give
up the attempt.
The feeling of empathy is a very important way of knowing as through empathy we can make connections
with others.
7
teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 65 REASONING
(Note on emotion and reasoning: Decision-making relies on emotion as well as reason. All logic and no
emotion may not allow us to feel love, anger or choose what we prefer to eat for lunch.)
Language and Reasoning:
p.68 Language is also a huge part of reasoning. Having mental concepts, for example of “dog” and “cookie”
allows us to live in the world without having to treat every new encounter with a dog or a cookie as unique.
Establishing categories, naming them and classifying are part of the inductive reasoning process: it begins
with particular observations we take in through our senses, and it results in generalizations applicable to all
the members of the class or category. Because of this, Induction is not fool-proof but we sure do use it a lot
as when it is based on good evidence it is pretty reliable.
Deductive Reasoning
Deduction starts with generalizations (such as all, some, no, or none) and can be established as either valid or
invalid if the REASONING PROCESS is logical. To determine whether a statement is true or false, we need
to examine its context and its meaning. We need to look at evidence, justifications, and reasons why we
consider the statement to be true.
By-the-way—the relationship between the validity of an argument and the truth of its premises (called the key
assertion of deductive reasoning) is: If the argument is valid and all premises are true, then the conclusion
must be true.
p. 72 An argument in reasoning is entirely peaceful. It is a clear and orderly progression from the
assumptions (or premises) that we start with to the conclusions which we draw from them.
Very simple deductive arguments (syllogisms) have two premises (often called assumptions) and one
conclusion.
Example:
Argument 1
Premise 1 (major):
Premise 2 (minor):
Conclusion:
All IB Diploma students are geniuses
I am an IB Diploma student
I am a genius
In tackling Truth in this syllogism ask:
How can I determine if the major premise is true? (i.e.: I need to examine MANY particular classes of IB
Diploma students)
Note: The way to contradict and demolish the above generalization is to find even one instance where the
there is a diploma student who is not a genius. So to contradict the word ALL in your argument you just
need one or more than one exception. To contradict the word SOME as in “some diploma students are
geniuses” you would have to find out that all of them are not geniuses. Some diploma students are geniuses
cannot be contradicted by “some are not”, as they can both stand together.
Let’s also look at whether or not the conclusion is true. This is a valid argument, so we know, from the key
assertion of deductive reasoning, that the conclusion must be true IF all the premises are true. (Remember,
though, that valid and true are not the same thing.)
In tackling Validity in this syllogism ask: Is the argument written in a certain correct pattern? (It can be
invalid even if the premises are true. It can also be valid when the premises are false. Argument # 1 above is
valid)
(The following syllogism is invalid)
All IB candidates are intelligent
Stephen Hawking is intelligent
Stephen Hawking is an IB Dipolma Candidate
A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning such as this one.
8
Valid argument formula
All P is Q
R is P
R is Q
Invalid
All P is Q
R is Q
R is P
p. 75 Counter-Arguments and Counter-Claims
The key assertion of deductive reasoning is: If all premises are true and the argument is valid, then the
conclusion must be true.
There is a logical implication here: if the part following the “if” is the case, then the part following the “then”
MUST be the case. This idea allows us to ENSURE that we can conclude true conclusions from true premises
and makes deductive reasoning certain.
Now, the way you can counter-argue the conclusion stated in an argument is either to:
1) argue that the reasoning is invalid or
2) argue that one of the premises is uncertain, questionable, or false.
VERY IMPORTANT-- in criterion C of your ToK essay assessment it talks about “counter-claims” to your
argument. By asking “what can be said against my argument?” and addressing its weaknesses yourself, you
strengthen your argument by demonstrating that you’ve carefully and thoughtfully considered your premises
and chain of reasoning. (It is very important to address the weaknesses of your own argument and counter
them yourself, if possible, when writing your essay.)
As you write your own arguments and analyze those written by others, keep in mind that a sound argument is
a strong argument. This means the form of the argument is valid (the argument’s conclusion logically
follows from its premises) AND sound (the argument is valid and all its premises are true).
(Also note—Be sure if you make a statement like” Everyone feels this way… that there is not even one
person that feels differently. Perhaps that is why it is less tricky to say, “Some people feel this way…”)
9
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 76 Inductive Reasoning
Many of our mathematical arguments (called proofs) are based on deductive reasoning.
In the case of the premise, “All right –angled triangles have a 90 degree angle”,
we can be 100% certain that all future cases of a right triangle will be a right angle, because if something
doesn’t have a right angle then it wouldn’t be a right triangle. (Yes, definitions are circular by definition.) In
contrast, the inductive methods such as classical induction, statistics, and analogical reasoning, will not
provide us with generalizations that are applicable to all possible present and future instances, even if we
often have excellent reasons to trust them despite that. (For example, you can be pretty certain that the sun
will rise tomorrow or that someday you will die, but you cannot be 100% certain.)
One of our challenges with inductive reasoning is thus to decide how much we can trust the inductive
generalizations about the world that we and others make.
Classical Induction—Classical induction involves a leap of faith (and perhaps this is where intuitiveness and
emotion can help). Reason alone can’t get us to make a decision if first we have to be certain. Again, if you
have only seen white swans and you have seen millions you might use classical induction to decide that all
swans are white. Much of our knowledge about natural science is based on generalizations backed by
repeated observation of phenomenon. (However, again you can not be certain you will not see a red swan at
some point.) (The story of the Thanksgiving Turkey also follows this pattern.)
p. 78 StatisticsStatistics enables correlations to be drawn between things that are observed in the world and possible factors
that contribute to their occurrence. Numbers and statistics can convey a lot of information in a condensed
form and might seem to you to be the most neutral of all possible ways of representing reality. But each result
is based on an experimental design (how was the random sample selected?) and on a methodology (How was
the data analyzed? Does this assessment stand up to your scrutiny? A well, you miss “the stories” when only
using numbers. What does six million mean to a Holocaust survivor? Do all your loved ones who died just
become another statistic?
Mark Twain famously attributed to Benjamin Disraeli the remark that “there are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics”. (British Broadcasting Corporation. How to Understand Statistics. 28 July 2 003.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1091350 (accessed 14 November 2006). When misused, distorted, and
misinterpreted, this can indeed be the case with statistics. The strength of well-applied statistics, however, is
that it does not attempt to generalize beyond what the data allows, and offers us a measure of that uncertainty.
p. 80 Analogical reasoning- Analogical reasoning is based on two steps: 1) there is a recognition of
similarities between two or more things, and 2) there is an assumption that if two or more things are similar in
one way, they will also be similar in other ways. (In medicine analogical reasoning helps diagnose patients.
By reasoning that “this medicine is effective in 96 % of patients” doctors apply these statistics to new cases.
If 96% of people react a certain way they make an educated guess in treating you using this information. )
Hypo-deductive reasoning
The hypothetical-deductive method is a continual interplay between deductive and inductive reasoning,
mediated by testing done in the real world.
√ (Try the captain’s game on p. 81)
(Perhaps what attracts people to the natural sciences is that they enjoy cracking puzzles.)
Creative Reasoning: In creative reasoning you are looking for a pattern—but you might have to “think outside
the box”.
√ (Try to solve the puzzles on the bottom of page 82.)
10
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 83 Classification
Classification is profoundly significant for what and how we know. Carl Linnaeus in the 1730’s started
developing his impressive Species Plantarum and Systema Naturae (which put species into
kingdoms/phyla/classes/orders/families/genera/species). It was aimed to classify all the elements of the
natural world! You can image how hard it was to decide on the criterion on which he would make his
selections (Would it be texture, shape, weight, smell etc.) Linneaeus based his classification system mostly
on the way things looked and their shape. Over a period of 35 years Linnaeus continually revised his system
including in the 10th edition classifying whales as mammals instead of fish. [Uppsala University. Sytema
Naturae-an epoch-making book. http://www.linnaeus.uu.se/online/animal/1_1.html (accessed 14Novmember
2006).]
Language plays an important role in classification because everything needs to be named. Language is a
conventional system of symbols because everyone agrees that certain words (i.e.: dog) stands for a fourlegged creature – not a piece of cheese. The words used in a language symbolize or stands for that thing.
Classification systems are subject to change when more information becomes available, or when objects that
don’t fit into a pre-existing category are invented or discovered.
(Classification in the world of industry, etc. can also be based on many other things such as use, cost, type of
workers and so forth.)
Classification is not permanent and may be abandoned when not relevant or useful or may be changed
dramatically through revolution.
See page 85 for complete summary of ideas about classification. Here is the shortened version:
Classification is: interpretive (our brains do the groupings),
may be deliberate or not,
is passed down generation to generation through language,
may be very specific to content,
may depend on the person doing the classification,
may exist on higher or lower levels of generality (and the criteria for classification will
provide what system you use),
may be ambiguous,
have both denotations and connotations,
and by be elastic or rigid.
Some classification is filled with stereotypes and prejudice. However, examining how perception, language,
emotion, and reasoning combine to give us our beliefs about the world, may be one step toward
understanding prejudice and setting the stage for dismantlement.
When you have time on your own, read √On Racism p. 87 Also, if time you should try √Project Implicit: our
hidden assumptions on p. 88.
11
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 90 KNOWLEDGE AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
No book can ever be complete in its coverage of a large topic or be completely neutral in its treatment, even if
it were to adopt completeness or neutrality as its goals.
What is knowledge—What goes into the category of knowledge????
*****There is no such thing as “knowledge” lying around in the world waiting for us to notice it, pick it
up, and weigh and measure it. We create knowledge ourselves, through our four ways of knowing—our
sense perception, language, emotion, and reasoning. Then we use these same ways of knowing, in
differing combinations and balances, to judge whether or not certain statements are appropriately called
“knowledge”.
We can classify knowledge in these ways:
1) Knowing through direct experience (knowing a friend, and knowing you hate spinach)
2) Knowing how (to play soccer, to solve a math problem)
3) Knowing that (a triangle has three sides, my bank account number is) (Knowing that… must be an
assertion presented as being true.)
Exercise to do with the class:
Which ways of knowing—perception, language, emotion and reasoning—are most relevant to each of the
categories above?
Do you consider wisdom to be a particular blend of these three categories, or another kind of knowledge
entirely?
√CAS activities Read Emily Myles, Canada on CAS p. 95
p. 95 Our classification scheme revisited
1) Knowing through direct experience is personal and private and sometimes cannot be put into words.
It is sort of “raw” material sometimes, but it can also lead to making connections with others. You
may not be able to fully put into words how you feel when you draw, but others may still appreciate
your artistic gifts and identify or gain understanding from them. (The arts can help us share common,
private experiences.)
2) Knowing how/skill- can also be a private experience that no one but the doer can possess. Yet in
skills there is a strong element of demonstration in learning, teaching and testing. They can be
publicly shared (and taught) and duplicated. They can be taught through demonstration and through
language.
3) Knowing that/KNOWLEDGE CLAIM -- This is an assertion of certainty (a claim presented as
being true) through language and since it is made public it can be examined.
Evaluating Knowledge Claims
On page 99 there is a great example of how you might critically evaluate knowledge claims (found, for
example, in newspapers, reports etc.) This may be helpful in you history studies as well as when you work on
your presentations and essays for ToK. Use the book for the complete version. (Also, page 114 is an
invaluable tool for assessing Knowledge Claims.)
In brief here is a synopsis:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Look at the overall visual presentation for reasons to doubt or accept
Is the writing style inclined to make you reject or accept the information
Identify the knowledge claims
Do you consider those making the knowledge claims to be reliable sources? (Why or why not…How
can you check their reliability???)
12
5) Are you able to check the information given in this article? Why or why not?
6) Is there evidence of stereotypes?
7) Is it placed in the magazine/book/newspaper beside other information that may affect your
inclination to believe, reject or judge it in a different way?
8) What reactions do you find in yourself? What background do you bring to the article that might
influence your opinion of it?
9) Does it matter if the article is true or not or if you believe it or not? (I think this is a great question.
For example, can people’s response to this article cause any positive or negative change in attitude
or action?)
p. 100 Knowledge claims: Tests for truth*
1) Coherence Test— (Has to do with “Thinking”—Does it fit with what I already know?) Coherence
demands harmonious fitting together of all the knowledge claims without contradictions. You test
the truth of the claim on the basis of what you already know. (I know that August averages around
25 degrees Celsius so if someone tells me it is minus 20 I probably do not believe them.)
Questions concerning this Test: What are some problems with using a body of beliefs already held to
judge a new claim?
Why is it possible for two people using this test to reach different conclusions?
Sum up the strengths and limitations for this truth test.
2) Correspondence Test (Go and check!) This test does not just rely on thinking it demands that the
claim matches or corresponds to what is happening in the world. You either go or check yourself or
check with observations others have reported. (Is there enough evidence to make the claim
reliable?)
Questions concerning the Correspondence Test: What are some problems you can see with
correspondence as a test for truth? Is it possible for two people using the correspondence test to reach
different conclusions? Sum up the strengths and limitations for this truth test.
3) Pragmatic Test (Does it work?) You evaluate the knowledge claim for whether or not it can be
applied effectively in practice and accept or reject it. We use this test in accepting assumptions: we
may not be able to prove that we exist to someone who doubts, but consider it useful to assume that
we do. The pragmatic test gives a tentative, not an absolute truth, asking not for evidence but for
what the practical consequences would be of accepting the knowledge claim.
Questions concerning the Pragmatic Test: What problems can you see with a society accepting what
works for it, and calling it truth? Is it possible for two people using the pragmatic test to reach different
conclusions? Sum up the strengths and limitations for this truth test.
It may be difficult to decide which of these truth tests work best. Perhaps they can be used in
combination, or useful depending on what we are examining. Some might wonder why we have truth
tests at all because everyone can just believe in what is “true for me”. However, true for me is a
personal, subjective concept but to be meaningful one needs to consider a more general truth—truth for
all.
Some suggestions to help deal with the problems of these truth tests:
p. 103 Let us enlarge our circle of coherence beyond the particular individual to communities of
knowers—or ideally all people; let us consider pragmatically what works for all and cancel out the
particular self-interest; let us establish criteria for our evidence for correspondence, and restrict its
conclusions to the physical world. (And perhaps we will have to modify our ideal goals a bit and accept
plausibility and probability as the achievable goals for most of our knowledge claims, laying aside the
expectation of finding absolute, unmistakeable truth and certainty.)
Certainty—Note: some people can be absolutely certain because of their belief but this is not
epistemological certainty—but psychological certainty.
p. 104 JUSTIFCIATON “good reasons” for belief
√ If time, discuss exercise on page 105 applying truth tests and making conclusions
13
Kinds of Knowledge Claims:
Rational claims: These claims are steps in rational thinking, such as 1 +3 = 3 + 1. They are justified by
reasoning, and tested for their consistency within a system by the coherence truth test. (May also include
definitions.)
Observational claims: These are statements about what we can observe with our sense perceptions.
These kinds of claims are justified by observation, including observation extended by technology, and
tested by further observation using the correspondence test. (Can go and check “observe”—often
sciences use this.)
Value claims or value judgements: These claims evaluate on a scale not calibrated in measurable units.
That is cold! (Are you talking about the water you are swimming in, an arctic winter day, or Pluto’s
temperature?) You are beautiful! (Well, you can just imagine all the discrepancies here!) (Until a claim
is put in observational terms, it is not fact but opinion.)
Metaphysical (“beyond the physical”) Claims: These are statements about the nature of reality outside
physical reality, such as claims about the nature of time, the soul, or God. These claims differ from
observational claims in that they cannot be tested with sense perception. We cannot do the God lab! Like
value judgements they have a large number of people agreeing or disagreeing with them, but their very
nature cannot be proved true or false by our truth tests (Not if you are looking for “True for All”
instead of just “True for Me”)
p. 108 JUSTIFICATIONS FOR BELIEF (IMPORTANT!!!)
Justification can be by:
1) Reasoning—You make the claim or accept the claim because it gives a conclusion you figured out
logically yourself or understood by following someone else’s rational thinking. This reasoning gives you
justification for your belief and like the coherence test, you check by evaluating consistency and freedom
from contradiction.
2) Observation- You accept the claim because you have seen, heard /touched it. Your sense perception of the
world gives you a justification for the belief. Like the correspondence test you check this by observing. The
observations of others, reported or recorded, are also a justification with the added complication that you are
accepting a report through language without first-hand observation.
3) A reliable source- You accept the claim (through language) from an expert source which is considered
appropriately knowledgeable and trustworthy or through general consensus (a combination of sources
agreeing with each other—hence passing the coherence test).
4) Memory- You make the claim or accept the claim because you remember previous claims and their
justifications. (Sometimes with the passing of time your memory may be your only justification, and is only
accessible through you.)
5) Emotions- You make the claim or accept the claim because you feel that it is right, even if you cannot put
your reasons into words easily. You may do this through intuition (a hunch that you cannot fully explain) or
faith (an acceptance without the demand for further justification).
6) Revelation- You make the claim or accept the claim because a divine or supernatural power (i.e.: God)
showed himself to you or communicated with you. (This justification only applies to metaphysical beliefs
and gives rise to further private justification in the form of sacred texts or books).
√Read “Intuition takes us beyond the limits” p. 109
p. 110 Definition of Knowledge:
Knowledge is belief that is publicly justified and currently passes tests for truths.
Knowledge first is a sub-category of belief. It is a claim that you have accepted, regardless of your degree of
confidence, emotional intensity, and sense of significance. I can say, “I believe that the book is on the table”
or “I believe that the meaning of life is to reduce suffering” – and both statements, widely unlike, are together
in the same category of statements I have accepted psychologically.
Knowledge is a belief that is true—not just “true for me” (or in other words, believed) but true for all.
Already you are aware of some difficulties here: the truth tests are imperfect, and they do not work on all the
claims that we make. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase: knowledge is a belief that is held in areas where
the truth tests work, and true as far as we can tell using them. It cannot, at least, have been proven false. In
light of the over-simplicity of the true/false distinction, it may be that we should keep “truth” as an ideal
14
guiding concept and, in determining the difference between belief and knowledge, give more attention to the
concept that has gradation and degrees built right into it: justification.
Knowledge is justified by methods that can be demonstrated to others such as reasoning and observation. You
hold a BELIEF for GOOD REASONS—the best reasons you can find. And knowledge has to be public so it
can go through truth testing and examination of justification. It does not include value judgements and
metaphysical claims for which the truth tests do not work and for which, arguably, justification cannot be
demonstrated publicly. * This definition does not reject values judgements or metaphysical claims it simply
does not include them within the category of “knowledge”. (Indeed some beliefs that are most important to us
in our lives are not, in this definition.)
Also Note: There are some difficulties in the truth tests—they are imperfect, they do not work on all claims.
Our world is ambiguous and complex and concepts that are meaningful are not necessarily precise! (In other
words, it ain’t always cut and dry!) However, we should never turn away from pursing knowledge.
Complexity can be far more interesting than simplicity, and our ways of knowing, although imperfect, have
allowed us to develop amazing areas of knowledge.
√*****IMPORTANT ASSESSMENT TOOL- USE PAGE 114 “A GUIDE TO EVALUTING
KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS” when doing your presentations and studying subjects such as history. (This
chart is REALLY good. It gets you to look at the source, the statements and yourself.) (SEE
PHOTOCOPY BELOW)
15
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 115 Persuasion and Propaganda
It is a challenge to keep thinking critically and actively evaluate claims so that we can accept those that persuade us for good
reasons and reject those who seek to persuade us without justification.
Sense Perception:
√Read over Persuasion with maps p. 116 and do # 1 Persuasion with photographs. Answer this question: A photograph does not
make explicit statements that can be judged true or false. Can a photographic record, then, ever tell the truth?
Language: Communication is constantly affected by the four principles of representation (applied language, maps, photographs, and
statistics) regardless of its goal.
Here are some methods for persuasion in language:
1. Repeated affirmation. (Repeating key points, catchy slogans, emotionally powerful words… drumming them into the minds of the
audience) Read Hitler’s words p. 117
2. Jargon- Jargon lifted out of context to impress.
3. Innuendo- indirect suggestion to imply something (i.e. faults in an opponent). In the recent Democratic race to be the next
Presidential hopeful Michelle Obama, the wife of one of the candidates said, “Our view is that if you can't run your own
house, you certainly can't run the White House. (The insinuation here is that other candidates do not have secure, family lives.)
4. Persuasive Metaphors- A candidate might liken his enemy to a disease and he is the healing doctor.
Emotion:
Here are some methods for persuasion using emotion (You may note that many of these are used in advertising):
1. Appeal to pity- Embezzler crying in remorse….portrayed as a victim (Key decisions here should be resolved on the facts not the
feelings)
2. Appeal to anxiety or fear—Doesn’t that public figure you are accusing handle your mortgage agreement? Do leaders of countries
ever secure their positions in part by focusing the attention of their people on a common enemy and exaggerating the threat?
3. Appeal to belonging- We Serbians/Americans/Christians/Moslems/ women can no longer tolerate this affront to our
rights/dignity/religion/way of life. We must…
4. Borrowed associations- Using celebrities or associating names/beautiful woman /a person in a white lab coat on tv…..
5. Misleading use of sources- Citing a particular person, publication or organization as a source can be irrelevant to that claim, or we
may be asked to accept only on that reputation. People are discredited or credited on soft information about their lives that deflect
attention away from the actual issues. Also, a general comment such as scientists say… may give no real source.
p. 122 Reasoning (This is a VERY condensed version of p. 122 to 126. You might want to read it in its entirety, when you have
time.)
Here are some methods for persuasion using reasoning:
1) Problematic premises--only when the premise can be identified can the essential question be asked: Is this true
The dubious premise (possibly true, possibly false) and the implied premise (ambiguous in its meaning) can lead to the wrong
conclusions.
√Read “Recognizing invisible assumptions of culture p. 123
2) Flawed generalizations --which are arguments based on ignorance, hasty generalizations or manipulation of statistics.
√Read persuasion with statistics p. 125.
3) Slips on the grey scale-- Black and white thinking (over-simplification—our heroes, their villains), or only grey thinking (which
denies or obscures any real differences), or truth the middle (Compromise is great, but can be applied erroneously when the truth is on
one side… Between the claims 5 x 7 = 35 and 5 x 7 = 41 should we conclude that the correct answer is mid-point at 38?
4) Flawed cause- a) Post hoc- You confuse a sequence of events in time with a casual cause (i.e.: You walk under a ladder and later
that day you break your leg.)
b) Confusion between correlation and cause-- In 2005 the percentage of students taking IB rose by 15% and so did the crime rate for
youth? Is there a correlation?
By being aware of persuasion and propaganda techniques you should be better equipped to recognize and deal with the difference
between justified persuasion and the persuasion of propaganda.
√Read “Persuading toward war P.128
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
16
AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE
(Again as you read through these AoK’s be sure to make note of their strengths and limitations.)
p. 132 Creation of knowledge doesn’t just happen. Real people create it, individually or in groups,
affected by the social context in which they live and the natural world which surrounds us all; that
context may provide a background influence or may become itself the subject of study. The works
created are received and evaluated by members of their own knowledge “community” (their peers from
similar fields, as well as the general public). These communities will be involved in the judgement of the
knowledge in various ways, to differing extents and in differing combinations.
(The next Section is VERY IMPORTANT. This may help you with some of your IB subjects as well
as your presentations and essays.)
p. 133 Knowledge starts with these knowledge issues:
1) Knowledge creators- Who are they? What skill, knowledge, talent do they need/ What motivates,
supports or restricts them? What social conditions influence them? Do they share the same goals as
each other or their critics?
2) Works of knowledge—What are the characteristics of a work in this area? What kinds of knowledge
claims are made? How are they justified? Is there a method that distinguishes the area? What tests
does a work have to pass in order to be accepted as a work appropriate to the area? What internal
formal features must the work have?
3) Knowledge community—Is there a community of peers? Who are the critics who evaluate the work
for its strengths, weaknesses, worth? Are they peers, experts, or experts in criticism? What is the
attitude of the critics towards variability and change? What is the role of the general public in the
criticism? How much power does the knowledge community wield in determining which works of
knowledge are produced and which are not? (Also note: creators can be critics as well.)
4) Context of society-- How does the society (historical time, economic conditions, political climate,
cultural worldview etc.) affect what knowledge is created and how it is judged. How does the
knowledge affect its social context and contribute to the cultural and historical record?
5) Context of the natural world- To what extent does the natural world influence what is studied and to
what extent does the knowledge that is studied or created affect the natural world? Is the natural
world the subject of study itself and what is the attitude towards it?
p. 134 Mathematics
Mathematics stands apart from other areas of knowledge, concerned only with its own internal workings.
Generally speaking, mathematics is the study of patterns and relationships between numbers and shapes.
One question is—is it invented or discovered, or a bit of both?
Pure math and applied mathematics are quite different. Pure math is really theoretical mathematics—which
includes abstract fields such as algebra, analysis, geometry, number theory, and topology. These fields are not
concerned with the direct applications of their labour. Applied mathematics, focuses on developing
mathematical tools to enable and enhance research in other areas of knowledge. Applied math includes
numerical analysis, scientific computing, mathematical physics, information theory, control theory, actuarial
science, and many others. (There is some “fuzziness” between these two types of math which you can read
about on page 136)
Mathematics as a language:
Because it is symbolic and can be manipulated into meaningful statements, mathematics has many
characteristics of language. It does not have the range of functions of language and needs to be taught
through language, but as a symbolic system for abstract, rational thought it has features which make it
superior to language.
1) It is precise ( 3 is always 3)
2) It is compact Pythagorean theorem is c² = a² + b² (Now try to put this in words!)
3) It is completely abstract. It manipulates its statements solely with its own rules.
17
4) In a way similar to deductive argument, mathematical statements can be manipulated in a step-bystep fashion according to clearly defined rules, leading to new conclusions that were not readily
apparent.
(You can also apply these abstract ideas to the real world. When buying a fence you can use the formula c² =
a² + b² to determine the shortest distance between two points.)
For mathematics, this precise, compact, abstract, and transformable symbolic system provides the vocabulary
and grammar which enable us to talk about abstract relationships such as symmetry, proportion, sequence,
frequency and iteration. So mathematics provides a way of analysing not just patterns found in the world by
the sciences but also those created in the world by arts.
There are some neat art/music/literature activities to pair with math on page 138. (This could be helpful if
you are doing an essay around how they affect each other, or if there are similarities etc.)
p.138 Creating an axiomatic, deductive system
For mathematics, assumptions known as axioms provide the foundation, and through the process of deductive
reasoning, step by step over the centuries mathematics carefully erect a building.
Different mathematical fields such as geometry, algebra, set theory and number theory are axiomatic,
deductive systems. Each of these fields is based on a different set of axioms, but relies on the same
method to develop new knowledge. By using the axioms at the foundation as premises and applying valid
deductive reasoning to them, mathematicians obtain—through a process called mathematical proof—
new statements called theorems.
A critical knowledge issue is how can we know that the axioms on which mathematics is based, are true?
Euclid who identified the first known set of axioms considered they were to be true, derived from experience
and requiring no proof!
No challenge came to Euclid’s system of plane geometry until the 19 th century, and even then the challenge
was not to its validity but to its truth. What if Euclid’s axioms, the very foundation of his system, were not
true—or were not the only possible truth?
The first four axioms of Euclid could be verified by drawing figures on the sand. The first required joining
two points with one, and only one, line segment; the second required imagining that this line segment
continues forever on the flat ground; the third required constructing a circle centred on a point. And the fourth
required only that people compare right angles they could easily draw and conclude the angles were
congruent. But the fifth axiom—known as the “parallel postulate” we more problematic. How could anyone
ensure that you and draw only one line through a point P that is parallel to a given line? Verifying the truth of
that axiom would require someone to accompany the line forever, to ensure that it never intersects the first
line.
Despite theses quirks countless generations have benefited from the theorems proved by Euclid such as the
sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
In the early 1800’s Carl Friedrich Gauss noticed geometry could be built without including Euclid’s 5th
postulate, and then later Nikolai Lobachevsky and Bernhard Riemann developed other non-Euclidean
geometries. (Riemnan assumed that no parallel lines exist through P). Reimann's geometry happened on the
surface of a sphere instead of on an infinite plane surface like Euclid’s. On a surface of a sphere, more than
one line can be drawn between two points, and lines cannot be extended indefinitely. (Loy. J. 1998. NonEuclidean Geometries. http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/parallel.htm (accessed 22 November 2006). These
non- Euclidean geometries – consistent and valid—shook the very foundations of mathematics.
If the Euclidean geometry was true according to the correspondence truth test, accurately describing space,
how could other consistent geometries be built using different axioms—geometries that did not have any
bearing on reality? The answer to this changed the whole notion of mathematical truth.
p. 140 Mathematical truth came to be understood as truth within a system: mathematical statements could be
true within the Euclidean system, or true within the Riemann system. The only truth test relevant was the
coherence test, or in other words the consistency of every other statement within is own axiomatic system.
18
Now we consider axioms to be not “self-evident truths” but to be the assumptions, premises, definitions, or
“givens” at the base of a mathematical system.
(Euclid’s geometry is more useful when building a house, and Riemann when flying an airplane.. and as of
yet Lobachevsky’s has no practical use.)
Note: Once a mathematician adopts any specific set of definitions and rules, however, he must play by
them—very, very strictly.
p. 141 Mathematical proof: challenging and beautiful
In math knowledge is created by means of the characteristic method of justification of the proof. To create a
proof, the mathematician takes as her premises the foundational axioms and all subsequent theorems and
proofs based on them. Then, with a problem or conjecture in mind, she reasons toward a new conclusion,
taking immense care to avoid error in any step. In manipulating ideas in the process of pure thinking, she
creates new knowledge. That new theorem, in turn, provides a base for further reasoning.
The elegant or beautiful proof is incisive and ingenious. It is economical in using as few steps as possible and
holds a little jolt of surprise as ideas fall neatly into place.
√Read on p. 142- 143 about “Fermat’s last Theorem (FLT). The story of this proof illustrates many
characteristics of mathematics as an area of knowledge. It shows something of its humanity—its fascination,
the challenge, the creativity, the aspiration, the disappointments and the sense of triumph. At the same time it
reflects the more ordinary side of mathematics—the level of care and detail demanded, the peer review and its
difficulties when the work is new and complex, and the respect given to achievement that the lay public does
not understand and for which there may be no apparent practical use.
----------------------Once a proof is satisfactorily proved, the proof is permanent in all places and all times, and the proven
knowledge claim earns its place as yet another brick in the math knowledge house (regardless of time or
culture).
p. 145 Critics (who are usually mathematicians themselves — in other words peers of the knowledge
creators) applies critical thinking to a balanced examination of the justifications of the knowledge claims,
seeking to appreciate both their strengths and limitations. At even a higher level are mathematicians who
may evaluate the entire area of knowledge, examining it for knowledge claims and their bases. Sometime
philosophers or meta-mathematicians are looking at such issues as the reliability of the foundations of the
mathematics and the nature of proof.
In the early 20th century a shocking conclusion was reached: that mathematical knowledge has flaws and
limitations, implying that mathematicians do not have an absolutely unshakable basis for their knowledge
claims. One such flaw was in Bertrand Russell’s “paradox” Bertrand (and Alfred North Whitehead) had
(using arithmetic) attempted to construct the real number system using mathematical sets as tools. In 1901
they were disturbed to discover a contradiction regarding those sets which are, or are not, members of
themselves. If the set is a set of chocolate bars, for example, the set is not a member of itself. However, if the
set is a set of all those things that are not chocolate bars, then the set is a member of itself.
Russell’s’ paradox had implications for all mathematics: if mathematics had its own internal rules and
expected to be free from contradiction, then what claim does it have to knowledge if there is an inconsistency
within it.
In 1932, Kurt Godel published his “Incompleteness Theory” which basically states that the dream of having
mathematics reach a state of completeness is impossible to achieve. There cannot be a guarantee, within any
axiomatic system, that the axioms adopted will not give rise to contradictions. There will always be, in any
formal system, statements that are not decidable within it. Thus, no axiomatic system can ever prove its own
consistency.
(However, most mathematicians do not lose sleep over this. Pure math does not have to deal with the
inconsistencies of the “real world” because it can exist in the world of pure thought.)
19
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 148 The Natural Sciences, Human Sciences and History
As we move from mathematics to look at Natural science, human science and history consider these
questions:
1) Pure mathematics is concerned only with the connection of abstract ideas. What, in comparison, is
the subject matter of these three areas of knowledge?
2) The only justification for knowledge claims in mathematics is reasoning and the only truth test is
coherence. What justifications and truth tests, in comparison, are used in these three areas?
Metaphysical or spiritual explanation:
Note, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Christian and a Muslim working together on the same research team may have
the same level of doubt or questioning regarding the knowledge claims of their field and the same skills of
investigation. Each knows the same thing. However, each may integrate that knowledge into a coherent whole
of her beliefs and understand the knowledge differently. (A scientific explanation would have no spiritual
significance to an atheist but the Buddhist, for example, may relate the understanding of cause and effect in
the universe with his idea of Karma.)
Researchers may not differ in their knowledge but differ in the meaning they attribute to it and the place they
give it in their larger worldview. An examination of where we converge in our knowledge may be incomplete
without a complementary recognition of where we diverge in our understanding.
p. 152 The Natural Sciences
Science is not like mathematics because they do study the material world, and they are not a spiritual
worldview because they only study the material world.
What science is after is to find those reoccurring patterns, the regularities of nature about which they can
generalize. Scientists search for the regularities and recurrent relationships that exist within the physical
world, both to describe and to explain.
Learning science—does not often give the:”moving” picture in the process of the creation of science.
Scientific knowledge is always changing—like a moving picture, not a still frame so unfortunately any
textbook will not remain current for long. In IB experimental science you are learning not only the
information but the process of science, not only “I know that” but also “I know how”.
p. 155
In science you learn about its methods of inquiry and its currently accepted information and theories. But the
limits of science—those grey regions of knowledge that hovers between what we think we know and what
we’re sure we don’t know are also explored by:
Experimental scientist: Usually designs experiments to measure something you are seeking.
Theoretical scientist: Works mostly with mathematics, writing equations with pencil and paper or, more
commonly these days, performing complex mathematical calculations on computer. They analyze and try to
explain data.
Field scientist: Goes out and observes natural phenomena.
Pure scientists: Tend to look at “why” (why does this happen like this?) and
Applied scientists: Look at “how” (how can we do this more effectively or in a way that is less expensive)
p. 156 Scientific method- (This book says that no fixed scientific method of a common sequence of steps
unites all of the kinds of natural scientists who work in very different ways on very different problems in very
different aspects of the natural world.) However, the broad approach outline in your IB science program still
prevails—combining background knowledge, creative conjecture, testing and finally publishing. However
generated, the hypothesis must be tested and even if it fails it may provide new information.
√Read p. 157 Interview with Dr. Patrick Decowski (very interesting—talks about how we only see 4% of the
total mass of the universe and also the role of imagination in science.)
20
Scientific Knowledge:
p. 158 The knowledge creators—
Just as in math where Andrew Spry said, “it is the patterns, the searching for them and the joy of discovering
them, that captivates me most.” so do natural scientists search for patterns. But scientists are a diverse
group—some are collectors, classifiers, compulsive tidiers-up, explorers, artists and artisans. Often they also
work in teams of different scientists (physicists, chemists, environmental scientists, and biologists etc.)
Some scientists spend years, even decades researching one aspect of something. It is exciting when (and if)
they reach a new explanation for something—as it puts a new nail in the large “theoretical house” of science.
It is an A-AH! moment. More dramatic works achieve the kind of generalizations that the natural sciences
seek --the identification of regularities. Perhaps a scientist manages to identify a pattern in the specific, minor
results published by large numbers of scientists. A few of the research papers produced by scientists do
propose such generalizations called scientific laws.
p. 160 Scientific theories—major scientific work
The best scientific theories have several characteristics: ( Klemke, E,D., Hollinger R. and Kline, A.D. 1980. “Introduction
to Part 3, Theory and Observation”. Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. New York, Prometheus Books, pp. 142-143.)
They:
1) encompass scientific laws, which are deductible through them
2) make existential or factual claims, such as “electrons exist and have a charge of minus one”
3) refer to unobservable entities or properties that stand behind the measurements we make: for
example atoms, natural selection, the curvature of space
4) are interrelated in such a way that they explain not only a particular law or phenomenon, but
whole ranges of each (diverse laws or phenomena can be explained within a common framework)
5) provide an enormous predictive power
p. 161 Scientific Explanation:
√ (If time: Do class activity on how scientific hypothesis, a scientific theory, a scientific model and a scientific
law is dealt with in your specific IB science course.)
Description and explanations may be seen as different kinds of patterns that scientists search for in nature.
The description is the map: “this is what it looks like”. The explanation, though, involves something we do
not perceive through our senses but construct with our minds: “cause”.
√P 163 (You can look at p. 162 if fractal patterns interest you)
Natural scientists do not make their observations randomly, but purposefully seek pattern where the
predominant theory suggests that it would be most fruitful to do so. In doing so, they have the advantage of
being able to research and communicate within a common conceptual framework of theories, models, laws
and vocabulary. However, they also have the disadvantage of being directed away form patterns not
illuminated within the theoretical framework. (The theory of chaos could have been discovered long ago but
because a huge work on the dynamics of regular motion didn’t lead in that direction it was not discovered.)
Scientists, too may need to change their direction when new information arises, which may be a bit difficult if
they have been working for years perceiving things a certain way.
The chaos theory is interesting because through the power of the computer to compute long-term
consequences it showed that tiny differences can add up to affect the course of events in the future
(sometimes called the butterfly effect). Unless we have perfectly precise knowledge of every influence in the
present, no matter how minute, our predictions become increasingly off the mark as we cast them father into
the future. Nevertheless, the computer technology that exposed the limits of prediction simultaneously
revealed patterns within the predictable.
In addition, the chaos theory demonstrates graphically the idea of pattern that recurs through many areas of
knowledge—through mathematics in the patterns created rationally by the mind, in the sciences in the patterns
found in the world of sense perception and through the arts in the patterns created form all the raw material of
experience. In each area of knowledge their practitioners are apt to have moments of pure admiration: “It’s
beautiful!”
p. 164 Natural Scientists, their work, and the world: Truth
For natural scientists they identify patterns not for their beauty—though they may appreciate it—but for their
truth.
21
For the scientist what kinds of evaluations do they use for their knowledge claims:
1) Correspondence test for truth—They must offer evidence in the form of replicable results. It is
essential that every time something is measured, the same result be obtained.
How much evidence is enough evidence for declaring a statement of the natural science true?
As you will recognize from descriptions of how the sciences work, their statements are never
assuredly true forever, in the manner of mathematics. Indeed, by the very nature of scientific
generalization in inductive reasoning (see page 76), it is possible to refute statements – falsify them
– but not prove them true. Scientists work with probabilities and accept as true (for now) the
conclusions best supported by the evidence available at the time. They call this provisional truth.
2) The Coherence Test for truth demands that the statements we make be consistent with each other.
The hope expressed by some natural scientists is that, with progress over time, the sciences will
eventually read a grand unified theory, as all scientific theories become merged into an overarching
explanation that brings them all into harmony.
3) Pragmatic test for truth demands that the statements work in practical terms. In sciences we
accept certain assumptions without empirical proof, like axioms, because they happen to work. For
example, we assume that nature is regular and understandable, and that the laws of physic we
develop are applicable over the physical universe. Interestingly enough, for many years we assumed
that the scientific observer could stand outside the experiment and not affect it, but Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle demolished that illusion. When we study the realm of the atomic and
subatomic, we affect our data by the very act of trying to measure it.
The axioms of science, despite their occasional failure serve us well.
necessarily true in an absolute sense? NO. But at least for now, it works.
Is the explanation that works
p. 167 The natural sciences and their critics:
Like mathematicians, natural scientists have had their moments of distress on realizing the imperfections in
the claims their areas might make to truth. Yet it is only if you expect to be perfect that you consider
imperfection a failure.
Critics in the 20th century have given science a more realistic expectation of itself. These criticisms have
been various and looked at things such as:
1) the fallibility of sense perception, even when extended by technology and the fallibility of indirect
technological observation.
2) The limits of inductive reasoning (how can we make accurate generalizations about all phenomena when
we only have access in study to some)
3) Human fallibility – Fallibility in experimental methods, replicating flaws by others, or being influenced
by their expectations
4) Bias that comes with through and observation—scientists look where they expect to find and when they
see, interpret with the bias of previous knowledge
5) There are implications because of the uncertainty principle (shows the very act of observing can affect
the results) and the butterfly effect ( limit our ability to predict)
There are also criticisms from pseudo-science that science is closed-minded. However, these are rarely
themselves criticisms using sufficient evidence. (To read more on pseudo-science read p. 168)
(By –the-way—it is great to consider many perspectives on things but many perspectives DOES NOT mean
that they are all equally correct.) √ Read The natural science and their social context-- an interview with Dr.
Maarten Jongsma p. 169-170)
22
Teaching Notes on Theory of Knowledge—Oxford Companion Book
p. 171 Human Sciences
Human scientists look for patterns in human society and individual human actions (to the extent that their
human subject matter will allow).
Human sciences have sometimes been described existing in a state of tension between generalizing and
particularizing perspectives. Some human scientists do seek highly regular patterns (for example, studying
perceptual characteristics common to all universal brains, or universal features that might structure all human
societies). Others expect to make generalizations about most in a large group, or about the range of human
abilities and responses. Still others hold that individuals or societies can be understood only in terms of their
particular local conditions. Still others, and whole fields, such as cultural anthropology, argue that a
comparative method provides the greatest understanding of human beings: particular societies are best
understood within the context of the human range of possibilities.
Yet the very nature of the evidence in the human sciences increases the possibility of different theories
co-existing, each with its area of applicability, each shedding light on different connections within a causal
web. Different broad theories, or different perspectives, give rise to a fuller understanding of societies, or
market places, or the workings of the human mind.
In their studies, human scientists take a range of approaches, using all the ways of knowing. When observing
the human world---advance planning is essential.
p. 177 Some of the difficulties of studying humans – and conducting experiments are that they are enmeshed
in such an elaborate web of interconnected variables that it would be impossible to change one variable
while keeping the others the same. Another thing is human beings often object to the idea of having tests
done on them. (“Let’s tell the woman her dog died and see how she reacts.”) You can see there is a sense of
ethical responsibility one needs to use when researching on human beings—respect for their rights and
concern for the effect of the investigation upon them.
Another concern is validity: does the experiment measure what it claims to measure? Researchers need to
agree on how to define “psychological pressure”, to decide what kind of pressure to apply to human beings
(within ethical constraints), and to ensure that their operational definitions can be accurately communicated
to other scientists who wish to replicate or compare results. They would need to agree what they mean by
“what happens to people” under psychological pressure: which of several manifestations of responses to
psychological pressure will they measure, and how will they measure it or them?
Other problems: People aren’t identical
Can’t retest the same subjects
Expectations of examiner, subjects etc. may interfere with results etc. √ (see p. 178)
Inside methods
—Unlike the natural sciences, the human sciences are not confined simply to observing and testing. These
“outside” methods are joined by “inside” methods of interviews, questionnaires, or polls. Language, used for
thinking and communicating can become a research tool in interacting with the subject matter. (a
complicated bonus!)
“Inside” understanding involving emotional empathy may also be relevant in human science research – but as
it is variable from interaction to interaction, it would be nearly impossible to construct it into a method.
When you use a questionnaire to research you have to be very careful in the interpretation of results.
√Do exercise on bottom of page 179 and 180. √Look at the fascinating graphs on page 181 that shows the
same results on two different school graphs which makes the information look EXTREMELY different.
p. 182 In capturing the “essential features” theories are both influenced by, and influence the social context
within which the area of knowledge is set. The beginnings of anthropology were influenced, for example, by
the assumptions of the 19th century Europeans that they were “civilized” and that the peoples about whom
they were curious were “primitive” with all the connotations of values that go with these words. (Since then
anthropology has also coined the word “ethnocentrism” learning about other peoples and about its own
methods of investigation – and given understanding of its influence on what and how we know.) And on it
23
goes… In economics, theories are not separable from the assumptions and values of a larger social context.
The influence of our own age is possibly harder for us to see, thought some assumptions about “essential
features” of explanations are currently forced to our attention.
The human sciences: who’s in the centre?
The human sciences not only gain knowledge about human beings but also provide, in reflection, knowledge
about how human beings gain knowledge.
Thus, the human sciences have made a major contribution to our understanding of what is “obvious” to us,
and the process by which it becomes so.
In our knowledge, we do look through “lenses of our own grinding”. It is not a fault that we do so; we cannot
do otherwise as human beings.
A huge part of education is to open up understanding of other ways of thinking in this way: Knowledge can
lead to greater understanding of knowledge. (An advantage of being part of the Tok course is that it teaches
you to be internationally minded and to position you to see the “whole” regardless of which area of
knowledge you wish to pursue in the future.
Read “Metaphors in areas of knowledge” p. 185
p. 187 History
Like natural science and human science, history asks a lot of questions, tries to understand the causes of
things, and likes to explain. Also, like them, it gives serious attention to evidence and interpretation—and
tends to be rather self-critical in drawing its conclusions.
Here are some questions to ask before we begin:
In what ways do all areas of knowledge, not just history depend on records of the past?
The human sciences and history both aim to describe and explain human activities. What are the differences
between the kinds of descriptions and explanations that they give? What about a scientific report on
something in the past (like a volcano eruption that wiped out a village?)
When we study history we have to again look at the reliability of sense perception, variability of reports, and
the four principles of representation (applied language, maps, photographs and statistics) as they form our
records. The reliability of sources, issues of identifying cause, methods of persuasion and propaganda, and the
complexities of studying human beings all have to be examined.
√Eye witness account p. 189 (May be a good lead into a presentation topic)
p. 189 Perspectives in history
Historians face a central challenge in the knowledge they give us: they cannot experiment or make repeated
observations of the events they write about.
Only records remain. To compound the challenges, much is lost from these records, destroyed over time.
The historian is rather like someone trying to assemble a complex puzzle or make a pattern out of only
scattered pieces.
All historians are not trying to do the same puzzle. They research the past with certain interests or questions
in mind. (Note, all scientists are not researching EVERYTHING at once. There is a lot yet to be discovered in
all AoK’s!)
One of the ways historians contribute to knowledge is to find similar features between human experience in
the past and human experiences in the present to shed understanding on patterns in our lives.
We connect our present day to the history of the past, and as the present is ever-changing, so often is our view
of history.
In history, where variables cannot be controlled or tested, and where the subject matter is the past, the causal
links that historians make between there and here demand considerable interpretation. A work of history
becomes an argument for a particular interpretation, justified by evidence (with characteristics that
are different from that of the sciences).
24
Here are some knowledge issues to consider:
How do we know whether a particular history is telling us the truth? What truth tests are relevant, and how
would you apply them?
If there are historical interpretations of the past that are not only different in centre of interest but actually
conflict, how can a critical reader determine which to believe? How can we deal with differing versions in a
way that gives us the best understanding of the past?
√Read Latin American colonization: two perspectives skit P. 191
Below are Summary points from Knowing the past: interview with historian Charles Freeman p 191:
1) One of the most important attributes for the historian of any era is common sense. You must
understand what humans are and are not capable of and how the natural world conditions human
activity. (It must be humanly possible, first… and then you look for reliable evidence)
2) Science is often used to assist historians.
3) Also, like literature, great historians convey the motivations of those who created the past and allow
us to empathize with them. This is, in essence, a literary skill and is essential if history is to be
communicated in an effective way.
4) We all have our beliefs and no historian achieves complete neutrality.
5) Today’s world is complex (both global and fragmented) and it will be surely hard for historians to
reflect the totality of any modern society.
6) My advice to historians is not to stick to one single period. Ideas, knowledge and skills learned from
the study of one era can often be transferred to help provide a fresh approach to another. (This might
be helpful in context to your IB history studies.) Also, realize that evidence does not come only from
texts. I have learnt a lot from looking at art and architecture of the periods I have been studying.
p. 195 Question:
To what extent do the arts provide particular works about which history might generalize? What kind of
social records do such arts as literature, architecture, sculpture, and painting provide for historians to
interpret?
What are the differences between the forces studied in physics and the forces studied in history?
√**Look at the great visual on p. 195 to see how the systems of math, sciences and history deal with
multiple perspectives. (This is a great comparison!) IMPORTANT
History and Patterns/Classifications
Facts are just facts until they are interpreted. Unlike scientific facts established by direct observations,
historian must interpret the facts in order to reach any understanding, and then use that understanding to argue
for a perspective or point of view. No historical account can possibly be a neutral record of the past “as it
happened.” (Of course, not anything goes, and historians also cannot describe everything.)
Another question is how do historians classify their subject matter.
Do they treat human beings as individuals (liberal view) with the emphasis on individual motivation and
particular views of human nature, or as social group (Marxist) with an emphasis on group dynamics,
specifically to class struggle? A historian may treat gender relations or certain trade relations as universal,
making assumptions without noticing their approach because they share these assumptions with the rest of
society or culture.
As they develop and argue for their interpretations, historians may also be influenced by their beliefs about
the larger patterns of history within which they place their own accounts. Is history a cycle, or linear, a story
of Great Men, or is history continually shaped by opposing forces which fuse together, only to be opposed in
turn by a new force that arises?
An example of this that much of European history from the 19th into the 20th century is enmeshed with the
idea of progress. What could have been described as imperialist conquest and exploitation of lands have been
described as a story of progress: Europeans carried enlightenments and the true religion to dark places of the
world, and nobly took on the white man’s burden of civilizing primitive people. What constitutes progress,
25
and what changes are beneficial to a society, are issues for debate within contemporary approaches to
development?
Historians of an age are influenced by the ideas of their age. It falls to later historians to look back on
secondary sources, reinterpreting them in hindsight of their own work. (Perhaps this should be considered an
essential aspect of the historian’s job?)
P. 198 The interpretations that we accept of history may affect us deeply in the way that we live in the
present, as in many ways they provide a collective memory of a social group. The version of history told
within families and communities is part of the CULTURAL IDENTITY of the group.
Versions of history taught in schools have often reflected not only the inevitable biases of each part of the
world but also deliberate attempts to create distorted vision of the country or its enemies. History, in the
history of the world, has often been used for the purposes of propaganda.
On a positive side, there are some attempts for truth and reconciliation concerning atrocities of the past.
Clearly, the versions of history that we accept influence how we understand our present.
p. 206 THE ARTS
The sheer variability of the arts challenges their classification together.
More than any other field the arts may foster a resistance to critical analysis – perhaps because the creator and
the critic in this area are not necessarily using criteria of judgement universally accepted within their
knowledge community, or perhaps because the experience of creating and enjoying the arts can be so
personal and emotional.
Arts from the perspective of the creator (which could be YOU!)
If you enjoy participating in the arts you might want to ask yourself:
What motivates you to do it?
What do you get out of it?
What knowledge do you need to do this art form?
For you, is your art a way of communicating with others?
Do you think someone from a different culture or another epoch would understand any communication from
your art?
What do you come to know through doing your art—perhaps information but perhaps also something about
yourself or others?
p. 207 The arts embrace our sense perceptions and our feelings, our thoughts and our critical perspectives.
They reflect worldviews and feelings—and also create them.
They also make knowledge claims—sometimes powerfully. In literature, writers often treat social or political
issues, for example, with the goal of revealing problems or arguing solutions.
The arts make not only observational claims such as these, but metaphysical claims as well (i.e.: religious
paintings depicting significance of certain events). The arts also make value judgements (apartheid is unjust,
this coronation is triumphant). These ideas can be articulated in words (novels, poems etc) or without
language they can be implied (although sometimes ambiguously). (Obviously, art and music does not “tell us
in words” its message (if it has one) so it is interpreted by us.)
The arts are capable of stirring deeply both our senses and our feelings (i.e.: a long of aching love). It is not
surprising that the arts have often been enlisted in the service of propaganda in an attempt to bypass rational
and critical thinking and this has made some people suspicious of the arts as an AoK.
For an understanding of the arts as an area of knowledge, however, it is necessary to put aside such suspicions
in order to recognize the complementary nature of reasoning and emotion. To understand the experience of
the arts demands some attachment from our experiences of the worlds of art in order to study or analyze
them—to describe common features from which generalizations can be drawn and to explain the interactions
between artists, their works, their knowledge community, and the context of society and the natural world
within which the interactions are embedded.
26
p. 208 Being moved by music or responding with imaginative identification to characters in literature can
create a sometimes startling awareness of common humanity—of sharing our experience as human beings.
(Although it is personal and there is no rational test for it, through the arts we may feel/see own lives in the
lives of others—and recognize human experience that just might be “true for all”.)
p. 208 Knowing the arts from the perspective of the audience:
(Participating in the arts helps you draw on yourself, your own personal taste, culture, training etc.) If you
evaluate what you have done—this is quite different as you are trying to see it from another’s point of view.
You would try to put your performance in the context of expectations of form, technique, or expression. If
you wish to gain a greater understanding of your experience, you will also look at the features of the artwork
itself, and the context in which your experience is set. Becoming critically aware in the arts, just as in other
areas of knowledge, involves some consideration of how the area works.
√ (If time do activity on arts from the world p. 208-210)
p.211 Creation and criticism Discuss these questions:
In what ways do creators in the arts build on each other’s work? In the relationship of new works to previous
works, to what extent do the arts resemble other areas of knowledge? What other areas do they most
resemble – and most contrast with—in this regard?
What knowledge precedes judgement?
In other areas, the need for specialized knowledge before evaluating works is evident: the works may be
incomprehensible to those who are not creators or peers within that particular field. The general public is
involved in evaluation of natural science, for example, not in judging whether a specialized research paper
contributes effectively to its field but in judging, within the social context, the broad direction of the natural
sciences and the ways in which the knowledge should be used.
(Note: Background knowledge in all AoK does increase understanding, and often interest and pleasure.)
√DO—Activity follow-up discussion 2 p. 212
√Read activity follow-up discussion 3 p. 213 (Basically this says that in the arts you can shine a spot light on
the many ways arts can be viewed —all of which may have their place in the big picture of the arts.)
p. 213 Critical perspectives
1) Do you evaluate the artwork with emphasis on the artist? (Critical focus is on the biography of the
artist, the artist’s intentions and the creative process, and the expressive quality of the work.)
(From this perspective, some critics further argue that the essential criterion for a work to be considered “art”
is that the creator must have intended it to be so.)
2) Do you evaluate the artwork with emphasis on the artwork itself? (Critical focus is on the formal
features of the work, its composition and technique.)
(A work is aesthetically beautiful if it is beautifully composed and has mastery of technique (even if the topic
is grotesque). The aesthetic approach to the arts is often held to be contrary to any that involve the emotions,
as a formal response is described as contemplative, even rational. It is a recognition of pure pattern. (Seems
to me the word pattern comes up a lot in Tok!)
3) Do you evaluate the artwork with emphasis on the knowledge community (peers, critics, general
public? (Critical focus is on the effect the work of art has on the audience.)
What impact does the work have on the general public? Some critics argue that art exists only within this
response.
(This perspective highlights how music may make people sing with pleasure, take them into a new territory,
speak to the audience long after the creator is gone, brings attention to ethical issues/social criticism etc.)
4) Do you evaluate the artwork with emphasis on the context of the natural world or society? (Critical
focus is on the effectiveness of the work in representing its context, and its role as a social and historical
document or artefact.)
Many critics give attention above all to the way the arts can give a vivid portrayal of the world. Literature,
for example, may reflect keenly observed details of psychological and social interactions or depict our
27
societies with all their flaws and glories. Artwork can also capture a record of people, places and times
providing evidence of their tastes, values and experiences.
√Read p. 218 Choreographer, dancer, and critic: roles in the arts
p. 220 What is good art?
The arts, clearly, can be appreciated from many perspectives. How though do we evaluate the quality of a
work?
First the answer may lie in the 4 perspectives we just discussed, above. But which is most important?
In the arts the role of criticism is also to look closely at a work—but there is not a single set of criteria for
judgement, nor need there be. A work of atonal music does not logically contradict a classical symphony, nor
does a Cossack dance falsify a ballet; two novels giving opposing depictions of the same society do not
violate the coherence test for truth. And we do not add up the landscape painting of the world and average
them to find a general view. The arts give innumerable particular views and can simultaneously accept works
quite unlike each other.
p. 221 ETHICS
Ethics does not study how humans act (as in human science) but how they SHOULD act.
√Read Kofi Annan (Secretary General of the United Nations) words on how humans should treat each other
p. 222
Ethics takes moral judgement as its only topic and seeks to be general—to comment not just on individual
stories but to comment on them all—to give general perspectives that can apply to particular areas. (It seems
that ethics has no equivalent area that is specially its own. Ethics treats specific subject matter and methods
of all other areas of knowledge AND examines our everyday decisions and actions—both private and public.)
Ethics is formalized critical thinking applied to all that people do (and possibly think).
Ethics might be the most difficult subject matter of any of the areas of knowledge—but the questions in it
may be some of the most important to us. (Just because it’s difficult to analyze or understand does not mean it
is unimportant!)
Ethics, then deals with moral choices—choices that we make that reflect our values. In everyday language,
choices that meet with approval are called “moral” and those which are condemned are called “immoral”.
(Amoral is when the choice is subject to no moral judgement.)
p.225 Argument is the method of ethics, with flaws in the assumptions or the steps taken from them
generating further arguments in support of opposition. The goal of arguments and counter-arguments is to
reach the conclusion which has the best reasons given in support. (I find this comforting, because each
side might have good and bad points but one should stand above the other through reasons.)
Persuasion is based on reasonable assertions and coherent following of their implications. (Ethics is the only
area of ToK which is a branch of philosophy. But in ToK we are not “doing” science or history or ethics—
instead we are seeing how they are made and considering their implications for other knowledge and potential
actions.)
Reflection Questions:
How did you gain your own sense of right and wrong? How do you justify it?
(Write this down on a piece of paper.)
Now get together in small groups and discuss points of similarity and differences with your other group
members. Conclude by making a summary list of the sources suggested in your discussion.
What is the source of morality??
Is it :
1) Human nature-- (Interestingly enough, the same result—a desire for a cooperative society—can be
reached by reasoning that human beings are “naturally good” and tend toward cooperation with
others OR human beings are “naturally selfish” and find that cooperation with others maximizes
their own benefit.
2) Religion—codes of morality through some type of Supreme Being or other forces beyond the
material world
28
3) Observation or reasoning-- (recognizes moral obligations and can through observation and
prediction anticipate the effects our actions have on each other). Reasoning leads to concepts of
judgements
4) Emotional Empathy-- Emotional concern and development of relationships leads to nurturing and
care for others.
(I’m wondering if different people get to morality in different ways or in combination.)
p. 229 In investigating how people do act rather than arguing for how people should act, the sciences add
perspective to ethical debate, although they cannot replace it. In natural science you might examine the socalled “selfish-gene” or in human science Kohlberg’s work of stages of moral development to help you
examine moral actions through observations. Yet the idea of morality and its definitions are not in
themselves the material of the sciences.
Ethics does not aim to describe but to prescribe: it does not tell us what people do but what people should
do.
Thus, ethics may become the basis of another kind of law, the legislated laws of society. (Although
unfortunately ethics is not the only basis for legislations which opens the argument of whether all laws should
be obeyed. Speaking ethically, we might argue that people should not obey certain laws of society if there are
ethical reasons for acting otherwise (e.g. defying the South African laws of apartheid).
√Read the moving article “Human Rights” p. 229
√Also discuss Dilemma set1 p.228 and “Dilemma trio: set 2 on p. 230
After reading these examples discuss: Do you think that human beings adopt different moral behaviour on
the small scale or on the large scale?
√Read the ethical dilemma p. 230
The critical perspectives from which ethics can be viewed are:
1) Evaluating the action with emphasis on the moral actor and intentions
(Although a difficulty arises in knowing for sure the feeling or emotions of others or knowing if
what they claim is how they really felt.) (Also note: One distinction between moral and amoral
action is that the moral actor must have chosen the action.)
2) Evaluating the action with emphasis on features of the act itself, and principles of what is right and
wrong. Principles and duties can be derived in different ways such as through religious rules.
Reasoning may provide quite a different source of justification. Immanuel Kant’s test of whether an
action was ethical was by generating a thought experience of wishing that everyone would act that
way. “Should I lie?” “Would I wish everyone to lie?” Moral teaching, or reasoning to determine
rules or duties, may lead to “absolute principles” one feels they must follow. (Problems really arise
here if principles which “must be obeyed conflict with each other. You promised a friend you would
keep a secret but then she tells you she is in mortal danger. (Do you lie and tell someone or do you
preserve her life?)
3) Evaluating the action with emphasis on the effect on others—the consequence of the Action
[Utilitarianism]. (But are you taking about “immediate consequences, long term consequences,
broader consequences to society etc. And how can predict the consequences of an action? How do
we weigh which consequences are most important?)
4) Evaluating the action with emphasis on the moral code of the surrounding society.
(Do you evaluate the action from your rules of your school, community, circle of friends etc?)
p. 235 The tension between RELATIVISM and ABSOLUTISM
Ethical relativism argues that there is no such thing as right and wrong outside the values of the particular
individual or, broadening the judging body, the values of society. The weakness of relativism in logical terms
is that it is self-defeating; if all ethical claims are just relative to the particular group or person, then so is
relativism itself. Also in practical and emotional terms most people would find it repugnant that it implies
that no judgement can be made on slavery, infanticide, torture etc. What relativism may contribute to the
ethical debate is an emphasis on developing personal values and possibly tolerating those of other people.
Ethical absolutism, on the other hand, argues that there is such a thing as right and wrong applicable
universally. Its weakness is that no moral judgements have been established to be held without exceptions
29
across societies, so that it cannot be justified observationally. Its further weakness in practical and emotional
terms lies that although it opposes the chaos of relativism, it argues for inflexibility. What absolutism
contributes to ethical debate is its challenge to all systems to try to rise above immediate circumstances and
establish a guide that would be applicable worldwide. Its universality might also challenge traditional codes
of behaviour to be open to change.
The two positions, extremes in the ethical spectrum, remind us that ethics is not an area of knowledge where
a right answer can be established that easily commands universal agreement.
It has been argued that without justice within a society or the world as a whole, it is difficult to apply
meaningfully notions of individual justice. Ethical ways of arguing may illuminate such problems rather than
giving clear solutions.
While illuminating the surrounding complexities, ethics often does deliver answers. The answers may be to
create social justice, as ethics begins to fuse with politics. The justice of distribution of benefit (for example)
is defined in a range of political ways: give to each equally, give to each according to his merit, give to each
according to his need…. Each perspective of political ethics can present good arguments for a version of
social justice which may seem unjust from the perspective of others. However, if societies remain unjust the
cause cannot entirely be attributed to different concepts of social justice. Ethics can give good advice. It is
up to people in political and economic spheres of influence to follow it.
p. 237 Convergences and Controversies
The question for ethical consideration is not whether terrorism is good. There is enormous world
convergence (agreement) on this. Many individuals and societies argue, however, that killing is acceptable in
some circumstances as a means to an end—as a way of achieving consequences good enough to outweigh the
harm. Arguments for capital punishment or war take this line of reasoning. However, they stop short before
arguing that the deliberately targeted killing of innocent civilians is justified. Terrorism does not. As is often
said, one person’s “terrorist” is another person’s” freedom fighter” and for some “fighters” no cost is too high
for “freedom”.
Is it possible that we ourselves carry some kind of ethical responsibility to try, for the good of all, to
understand what persuades people of a perspective that approves the methods of terrorism? Should we
concern ourselves with the definitions of “war” which is commonly thought to sanction violence, and who
can declare it on whom? Can either terrorism or a “war on terror” be considered a “just war” and on what
grounds might a world consider it so, or not so? Should we also concern ourselves over how people came to
be terrorists—what social and economic conditions nurture ideologies that sanction terrorism and what
measures might be taken to eliminate not just terrorism but the causes of terrorism (poverty, indoctrination,
powerlessness, revenge etc.) Should we also look at what social and economic conditions nurture ideologies
that fight terrorism with fighting? (There are no excuses for terrorism but possible causes may illuminate our
ability to see what unethical situations caused someone to act in such a manner and try to remedy these.)
Do we carry any kind of moral responsibility to gain knowledge, see from different perspectives—even try to
grasp a perspective repugnant to us—and try to understand the complexities of the world within which we
make our decision and take our actions?
√p. 238 Read “A perspective on religion, spirituality, and concern for others’ well-being” by His Holiness
the Dalai Lama. (Short quote(s) as examples:
“This is why I sometimes say that religion is something we can do without. What we cannot do without are
these basic spiritual qualities.”
“In Tibetan, we speak of shen pen kyi sem meaning ‘the thought to be of help to others’. And when we think
about them, we see that each of the qualities noted is defined by an implicit concern for others’ well-being.”
[My call for spiritual revolution]…….. is a call for a radical reorientation away from our habitual
preoccupation with self.
How large is your circle of caring? (CAS)
Do you experience service as something you ought to do, or as something you want to do? If you are
concerned for the welfare of others, how large is your circle of caring?
Questions for reflection:
Do I have any moral responsibility to inform myself about society and the world?
Do I have any moral responsibility to act for the good of others?
30