1

The TOK essay

A. TOK essay introduction – abridged textbook chapter……………………………….1

B. How to structure a TOK essay ……………………………………………………….12

C. Unpacking titles…………………………………………………………………………14

D. Scaffold for planning from the IBO …………………………………………………..16

E. Sample titles from 2018………………………………………………………………..17

F. Three Model essays …………………………………………………………………...18

1
 2

Writing a TOK essay

by Richard van de Lagemaat

‘Most people would rather die than think; in fact they do so.’
BERTRAND RUSSELL, 1872–1970

‘You aren’t going to have good ideas, unless you have lots of ideas and some principle of
selection.’ LINUS PAULING, 1901–1994

‘It is dangerous to read about a subject before we have thought about it ourselves . . . When
we read, another person thinks for us; we merely repeat his mental process.’ ARTHUR
SCHOPENHAUER, 1788–1860

‘I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.’
WILLIAM FAULKNER, 1897–1962

‘What is written without pain is read without pleasure.’

SAMUEL JOHNSON, 1709–1784

Introduction
Theory of Knowledge (TOK) is concerned with questions that do not have definite
answers. This does not make such questions redundant. On the contrary, many of the most
important questions in life do not have definite answers. When writing a TOK essay, it is best
to think not so much in terms of answering a question as of illuminating a problem. That is
what you are trying to do. A certain amount of humility is in order here. You are unlikely to
come up with the definitive solution to the problem!
To illuminate a problem is to do such things as: explain what the problem is and why it
matters; clarify the meaning of key words; consider different ways of thinking about
the problem; construct arguments and counter-arguments; give examples; assess
supporting evidence; explore implications; make relevant connections; and uncover
hidden assumptions.
Since it deals with open-ended questions, an essay is essentially personal in nature. Other
people may have come this way before, and you can doubtless learn a great deal from their
explorations. But your essay should be more than a summary of other people’s opinions or a
loose paraphrase of some textbook or other. You need to have the courage – at least
occasionally – to strike out on your own; for this is your attempt to illuminate the problem.

Prescribed titles
You have to choose one essay from a list of four ‘prescribed titles’, which are set by the IBO
(International Baccalaureate Organization). These essays are usually comparative in nature:
you are expected to compare and contrast different ways of knowing (perception, language,
reason, emotion) and/or different areas of knowledge (mathematics, natural sciences,
human sciences, history, ethics, the arts). 2
 3

Assessment criteria

Understanding knowledge questions

- sustained focus on knowledge questions
- connected to the prescribed title
- developed with investigation of different perspectives
- linked effectively to areas of knowledge and/or ways of knowing.

Quality of analysis of knowledge questions

- arguments are clear
- arguments are supported by real-life examples
- arguments are effectively evaluated
- counterclaims are extensively explored
- implications are drawn.

Your essay will be graded in accordance with the following criteria:

Has the student:

- Understood the prescribed title?
- Understood the knowledge questions that are explicit and implicit in the prescribed title,
and/or linked the prescribed title to knowledge questions?
- Developed a comprehensive and cogent point of view about the topic and appropriate
knowledge questions?

Structure
An essay’s structure is what holds it together and gives it a sense of direction. You will need
to think carefully about how to order your key points so that they flow naturally and help the
reader to follow your argument. Here are some points you should keep in mind:

Introduction
An introduction can be thought of as a contract between writer and reader. You tell the
reader what you are going to do and then in the body of your essay you deliver the goods.
There are three things you should try to do in your introduction: get the reader’s attention;
explain what you understand by the question; briefly outline how you plan to tackle it. One
way of arousing the reader’s interest is to begin with something surprising or puzzling. Take,
for example, the question ‘Compare the roles played by reason and imagination in at least
two Areas of Knowledge.’ You might begin with the following anecdote: ‘When the German
mathematician David Hilbert (1862–1943) was told that one of his students had given up
mathematics to become a novelist, he said, “It is just as well – he did not have any
imagination!”’ This is surprising because we usually identify mathematics with reason, and
literature with imagination. So we begin to wonder what Hilbert meant by this comment and
how, if at all, it could be justified.
When it comes to explaining what you understand by the question, you might want to:
formulate it in your own words (but be careful not to change its meaning) indicate key terms
that are unclear or ambiguous (what is meant by ‘reason’?) say why the question is
interesting or important (perhaps it challenges an entrenched stereotype).
You might also need to impose your own limits on the question. For example, if you tackle
the question on reason and imagination, you might limit yourself to comparing the roles they 3
play in mathematics and literature.
 4

An introduction usually includes a thesis statement. This is the fundamental claim you are
making in your essay and is the thread, which runs through it and holds everything together.
With reference to the above essay, your thesis might be that reason and imagination play an
important role in both mathematics and literature but, while the imaginative insights of
mathematicians must ultimately be provable, those of novelists need only be reasonable. In
planning your essay, the thesis will probably be the last thing you come up with and you may
find that you modify it in writing your first draft.

Paragraphs
The point of breaking an essay into paragraphs is not to make the pages look pretty, but to
signal the introduction of major new points in your argument. A well- constructed paragraph
typically consists of a cluster of arguments and evidence that bear directly on a specific sub-
theme. You might think of it as a mini-essay with a beginning, middle and end and its own
clear line of development. Ideally, you should begin with a topic sentence which, as the
name implies, sets up a new topic for analysis; and end with a sentence which makes clear
how it contributes to the development of the thesis. When it comes to the length and order of
your paragraphs, three points are worth mentioning:
 Devote more space to important points and less to minor ones, and avoid getting
sidetracked by trivial or irrelevant details.
 Pay particular attention to the transitions between your paragraphs and organise
them in such a way that one flows smoothly into the next.
 Think of your readers and help them by occasionally signposting where you are in
the overall development of your argument.

Conclusion
To prevent your essay ending abruptly, you should write a conclusion which draws things
together and gives your reader a sense of closure. Rather than repeating what you have
already said, try to find a new way of formulating your key insights. You might also mention
unresolved issues and the broader implications of your argument. Think in particular about
your final sentence: a striking and well-crafted last sentence acts as an effective full stop and
helps to give your reader a positive overall impression of your essay.

Quick tip
Get someone to read the first and last sentence of each paragraph of your essay. If it is well
structured, this should be enough to give them an idea of its main points.

Style
Different styles are appropriate to different tasks. I would summarise good essay- writing
style in three words: clarity, economy and precision.

Economy
Since you are writing to a 1,600 word limit, it is important that you make every word count.
Although your essay should flow, you should try to express yourself succinctly and eliminate
the extravagant use of adjectives and other unnecessary words. When you have written a
first draft, go through each sentence and ask yourself: (i) Does it say anything? (ii) Is it
relevant to my argument? If you cannot answer ‘yes’ to both questions you should strike the
sentence from your essay.

4
 5

Precision
Since there is a danger of a TOK essay floating off into empty abstractions, you should,
where possible, try to be precise rather than vague. Three points are worth making here:
Avoid death by a thousand qualifications. While you may need to qualify some of your
assertions, if you are too vague and hedge them around with too many qualifications, you
will end up not saying anything.
Choose your language with care and be aware of subtle differences in the meanings of
words. There is, for example, a difference between belief and faith; and a generalisation is
not the same thing as a stereotype.
Be particularly cautious with words like ‘clearly’, ‘proves’ and ‘all’, which are often misused or
inadequately justified.

Quick tip
When you have finished your essay, read it out loud to yourself. This is a good way of
seeing how well it flows and whether there is a natural rhythm to what you have written.

Factual accuracy and references

Since TOK can be corrosive of accepted truths, it is important to keep in mind that there is a
difference between a fact and an opinion: as the US senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
(1927–2003) once observed, ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own
facts.’ In your essay you cannot simply help yourself to ‘facts’ that are patently false. Since,
for example, the atomic number of gold is 79, you cannot announce that it is 52. At the same
time, you should keep in mind that some alleged facts may turn out not to be facts at all.
Despite being widely believed, it is not the case that we use only 10 per cent of our brains or
that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from space.
You may need to include some references in your essay to show the source of your
information. While there is no hard and fast rule about when this should be done, here are
some guidelines:
You should reference surprising, counter-intuitive or little known claims, but not well-known
facts or commonly held opinions. If you are closely following another person’s line of
argument – albeit it in your own words – it is intellectual good manners to acknowledge
them. If you are quoting someone’s exact words, you should put the quotation in inverted
commas and reference it. You can use any accepted referencing system. All that matters is
that the reader should be able to trace the source of your information and check its
accuracy. Try to be consistent in the way you reference; and if you are citing a website,
remember to include the date you accessed it. Key features of a TOK essay
The points we have made so far are relevant to writing a good essay in any subject. We now
need to talk more specifically about what makes a good essay a good TOK essay.

Content
Despite being an unusual subject, TOK does have a specific content – not in the sense of a
syllabus to be memorised and reproduced, but in the sense of a range of questions to be
explored and reflected on. (The IBO Teachers’ Guide to TOK consists almost entirely of
questions.) From the start, you need to be clear about what distinguishes a TOK essay from
a subject-specific essay on the one hand and a general essay on the other. Here are three
pointers: TOK is focused on knowledge issues The central question in TOK is ‘How do you
know?’ and the course asks you to assess the strengths and weaknesses of knowledge
claims in various Areas of Knowledge. TOK deals with second-order questions TOK is not
primarily concerned with first-order questions within a subject – e.g. ‘What were the causes 5
of the First World War?’ – but with second-order questions about a subject – e.g. ‘How, if at
all, can the past be known?’
 6

TOK is interdisciplinary and comparative TOK asks you to compare and contrast various
sources and types of knowledge. To write an essay that is sufficiently rich in TOK content,
you will be expected to demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ways of knowing and
areas of knowledge you choose to discuss. Above all, avoid vague, superficial, cliché-ridden
characterisations of, say, mathematics, the natural sciences, or the arts. For it is impossible
to give a worthwhile analysis of a subject you do not understand properly.
Since the lifeblood of TOK is critical thinking, you should also ensure that description is
always a prelude to analysis. You might, for example, briefly describe the theory of evolution
in order to analyse the extent to which it is a genuine scientific theory. But, if you find
yourself writing at length about Darwin’s adventures on HMS Beagle, you have drifted on to
the reef of descriptive irrelevance and will, assuredly, be shipwrecked.

Quick tip
Ask yourself if your essay could have been written by someone who has not followed the
TOK course. If the answer is ‘yes’, then it does not contain enough TOK content.

Personal thought
In writing a TOK essay, a mixture of insecurity and inertia might tempt you to follow doggedly
in another person’s footsteps and do little more than recycle their thoughts and opinions.
Given the importance that the IBO place on personal thought, you should resist this
temptation and limit any recycling urge to your dealings with household garbage.
According to assessment-criterion B, you must demonstrate ‘independent thinking’ and
shape your essay ‘in a way that shows both a personal, reflective exploration of the
knowledge issues and significant self-awareness as a knower’. Such talk can sound
intimidating, but the expectation is not that you come up with a Big Idea that no one has
thought of before (unlikely) or summarise your personal philosophy of life, the universe and
everything (undesirable). What is required is that you show personal thought in a variety of
more modest ways – such as:
 the position you take
 the points you raise
 the way you organise them
 the comparisons you make
 your choice of examples
 your use of language
 your awareness of bias.
Keep in mind that an accumulation of small examples of personal thought will, when taken
together, give your essay a distinctive voice. Once you start to focus on a specific question,
you will find that new ideas occur to you in the process of planning and writing a draft, and
you may be surprised by the freshness and originality of your final essay.

Definitions
There is a convention, with which you are probably familiar, that you should begin an essay
by defining your terms. There are several dangers with this convention.
The first is that, rather than making a judgment about what needs definition, you simply
define everything in sight. The second is that you give facile dictionary definitions of key
terms and then wash your hands of them. Part of the problem here is that many dictionary
definitions are worthless. For example, defining knowledge as ‘the state or fact of knowing’
gets you nowhere because it is an empty truism. But the main point to grasp is that TOK is
full of what might be called contested concepts. The hallmark of such concepts is that they 6
are both important and up for grabs, in the sense that there are substantial disagreements
about what they mean – disagreements that cannot be resolved simply by consulting a
 7

dictionary. There are numerous examples of such concepts: ‘knowledge’, ‘science’, ‘art’,
‘democracy’, ‘justice’, ‘love’, ‘terrorism’, etc. These concepts are worth arguing about
because something hangs on how we define them. If, for example, ‘science’ is defined in
such a way that astrology can be described as a science, then why not teach astrology as
an IB subject? And if the Popular Front for the Liberation of Habagashi consists of freedom
fighters rather than terrorists, then why should we fight them?
What emerges from this discussion is that if you define a word you need to show
why the definition matters and what hangs on it. (If nothing hangs on it, then it is probably
not worth defining.) Furthermore, you should think in terms not so much of pinning down the
meaning of a word and drawing a circle round it as of analysing a concept. While you might
begin with a preliminary definition, you will probably need to refine it during the course of
your essay. You might, for example, begin by saying that knowledge is commonly defined as
justified true belief, and then find that you need to say more about what counts as an
adequate justification. The point, in short, is that a definition should be the beginning rather
than the end of reflection.
Instead of relying on a dictionary to elucidate a concept, you might adopt the following three-
part strategy: (a) gather typical examples; (b) find common characteristics; (c) test your
concept. If, for example, you are trying to analyse the word ‘art’, think of some iconic works
of art, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, or Mozart’s Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, or
Tolstoy’s War and Peace. Then ask yourself what they have in common that justifies our
calling them all ‘art’. You might say that they all exemplify beauty, or show skill, or appeal to
our emotions. So far, so good; but don’t stop there. You now need to test your idea by trying
to think of counter-examples. Can you think of examples of things that are not beautiful, nor
skillful, nor emotionally engaging that you would still want to call art? . . . From this brief
sketch, you can see that you are now on the way to a much richer discussion of the nature
of art than anything that can be conjured out of a dictionary.

Arguments
Some students do poorly in their TOK essay because they do not know what an argument
is. An argument is not a series of statements loosely related to a theme, but – to quote a
famous Monty Python sketch – ‘a connected series of statements intended to establish a
definite proposition’. While loosely related statements merely state things, an argument
gives reasons (premises) to support a claim (conclusion). To see the difference, compare
the following two sets of statements:
Astrology is the belief that the position of the stars at the time of your birth affects your
destiny. There are ten times more astrologers than astronomers in the United States.
Despite its popularity, astrology cannot be classified as a science.
One of the hallmarks of a genuine science is that it makes testable predictions. Admittedly,
astrologers do make predictions, but they are so vague that they cannot be verified or
falsified. So, unlike astronomy, astrology cannot be classified as a science.
The difference between (1) and (2) is that, while (1) makes three unrelated assertions about
astrology, (2) makes a claim – ‘Astrology cannot be classified as a science’ – that is
supported by reasons.
There is a simple test – called the therefore test – for determining whether or not a series of
statements constitutes an argument. If you can put a therefore in front of one of the
statements and the series makes sense, then it is an argument. (You may need to reorder
the statements if the claim is in the beginning or the middle of the series.) You can see that,
while (2) passes the ‘therefore’ test, there is no way of ordering the statements in (1) so that
it would make sense to put a ‘therefore’ in front of one of them. If you make such a series of
unsubstantiated assertions in your essay, then – even if they are vaguely relevant to the title
– you will get no credit for them. Quick tip When you have finished your essay, go through it 7
and make explicit all of the implicit therefores. This will enable you to see how many
arguments your essay contains.
 8

Evidence
Even if the arguments in your essay are logically valid, they will only be as good as the
reasons on which they are based. To return to argument (2) above – which is a valid
argument – your readers will only find the conclusion convincing if they are willing to accept
that science makes testable predictions and astrology does not. To give weight to your
argument, you might want to flesh it out by comparing the kinds of predictions made in
astronomy – e.g. ‘The next total solar eclipse will be on 1 August 2008’ – with those made in
astrology – e.g. ‘An ambition that you thought was just a dream comes into much sharper
focus in the week ahead.’
Since you cannot justify every assertion you make without getting caught in an infinite
regress, you will need to make a judgment about which assertions need to be supported with
further evidence and which can be accepted as ‘common knowledge’. As a rough guide, you
should give supporting evidence if what you are saying is: (a) central to your argument; (b)
disputable or surprising. The more that hangs on an assertion and the more disputable it is,
the more evidence you should give in support of it. (As the astronomer Carl Sagan, 1934–
1996, once observed: ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’)
You will also need to think about the strength of the evidence you appeal to. Some of it
should be drawn directly from your own experience; but a lot will be derived from second-
hand sources such as class notes, books, TV, newspapers, discussions with friends and
acquaintances – and, of course, the Internet. Exercise caution here! Rather than accept the
sources you use at face value, you should, where appropriate, be willing to question their
reliability and trustworthiness. This is particularly necessary in the case of the Internet,
which is now most people’s first port of call when seeking information. Keep in mind that,
despite the existence of many good websites, the Internet is not an electronic oracle that
infallibly dispenses truth.
What is required when using any of these sources is that you approach them
critically. Ask questions such as: Who says? Do they have the relevant expertise? Are they
trustworthy? Do they have a vested interest? What’s the evidence? How plausible is it? Do
they show both sides? Do they use emotive language? Do other experts agree?
Since evidence, whatever its source, is ultimately based on perception or reason
or intuition, you may at some point want to discuss these ways of knowing in more detail.
You might, for example, draw attention to the fallibility of perception, or the limitations of
reason, or the unreliability of intuition. However, it is important that you do not confuse
critical thinking with destructive thinking; and you should, where appropriate, draw attention
to the strengths as well as the weaknesses of any such sources of knowledge. In particular,
you should avoid a kind of idiot skepticism, which mindlessly questions everything. Your goal
is not to reduce the edifice of knowledge to rubble but to engage in the difficult task of
distinguishing between more and less reasonable claims to knowledge. Counter-arguments
Your TOK essay should not just consist of arguments backed up by evidence: you must also
consider counter-arguments. To the extent that you question the strength of your supporting
evidence (see above), there is likely to be a natural movement from argument to counter-
argument. To help this movement, try to think of your essay not so much as a monologue
but as a dialogue. Ideally, it should contain two (or more) voices, one proposing various
arguments and the other opposing and suggesting alternatives. Since controversial issues
are the meat and potatoes of TOK, you should be able to find at least two sides to every
question. If you have kept good notes from TOK class discussions, then you will have a
preliminary bank of arguments and counter-arguments on which to draw. You should be able
to supplement this through background reading, trying out arguments on friends, and –
above all – personal thought. If you cannot think of any counter-arguments to what you are
saying, then it is probably so obvious that it is not worth arguing for at all. You should,
however, avoid the straw-man fallacy of constructing and then demolishing weak or spurious 8
counter-arguments. If you plan to take a position on an issue, the best way of carrying
 9

conviction is to show that it can withstand even the strongest criticism that can be levelled
against it.
Once you have given a counter-argument, you will need to decide how it affects your original
argument. There are two main types of response you can make:
Refutation
You reject the counter-argument by showing that it is mistaken or unlikely or unimportant.
Concession
You allow that there is some truth in the counter-argument and qualify your original
argument to take account of it.
Here are two abbreviated examples to illustrate each of the above patterns of response:
We usually assume that human beings are capable of genuine altruism (claim); but it could
be argued that even so-called altruists are simply doing what they most want to do – and so,
in a sense, are being selfish (counter- claim). However, if everything anyone ever does is
described as selfish, this effectively robs the word ‘selfish’ of its meaning (refutation).
The language of universal human rights reflects a widespread belief that values are
objective (claim); but some people argue that the sheer diversity of moral practices means
that there are in fact no objective values (counter- claim). Admittedly, different cultures
have very different views about, for example, sexual morality (concession); but I would still
argue that there are some core values common to all societies (qualification of claim).
These examples are just rough sketches and they would need to be fleshed out to carry any
conviction in an essay; but they should at least give you an idea of how you might respond
to counter-arguments.

Sound reasoning
The arguments you use in your essay will not get you very far unless they are good
arguments. To avoid sloppy reasoning, check that the claims you make aresupported by the
reasons you give for them. Guard, in particular, against the following commonly committed
errors:
 Hasty generalisation This is the fallacy of generalising from insufficient evidence.
Above all, avoid superficial caricatures of subject areas and cultures.
 Black-and-white thinking This is the fallacy of going from one extreme to the
other. For example, just because we cannot achieve certainty, it does not follow that
any opinion is as good as any other.
 Inconsistency Check the overall consistency of your essay and ensure that your
various points do not contradict one another.
 Quick tip Go through your essay and highlight every generalisation (e.g. ‘All
scientists . . . ’, ‘All Buddists . . . ’). Check that they have been properly justified.

Depth
Your TOK essay may be focused on knowledge issues and contain sound arguments
supported by evidence, but if it comes across as thin it will still not achieve a top grade. You
need to give it weight. In general, the more good points you make, the better you are likely to
do. (However, keep in mind that such points will only have value if they are crafted into a
meaningful whole.) In writing your essay, you might think of yourself as operating with two
different lenses: a zoom for depth and a wide-angle for breadth.
Depth is about taking your analysis to the next level. Among the factors you might think
about here are:

Depth of dialogue
Try to extend your dialogues beyond the cursory ping- pong of argument and counter-
argument, and think of a response to the counter-argument and a counter-response to that. 9
You will, of course, need to think about: (a) the quality as well as the quantity of such
 10

exchanges; (b) at what point to bring them to a close (this is likely to depend on how
important the particular argument is to your overall thesis).

Weight of evidence
The more supporting evidence you can give for your arguments the more conviction they will
carry. For example, if you are trying to argue that literature contributes to our knowledge of
the world, then saying that it not only illuminates the human condition but also teaches us
sensitivity to language is probably better than making only one of these points.
Relevant distinctions
Introducing relevant distinctions will add subtlety and finesse to your argument. You might,
for example, distinguish between knowing how and knowing that; or between inductive
reasoning and deductive reasoning; or between an empirical proposition and a metaphysical
proposition. You should also be aware that when you talk about an area of knowledge such
as, say, the arts, there are many different art forms, and that what holds true of one will not
necessarily hold true of another.
Key implications
By exploring the implications of your argument, you show that you are thinking around the
issue. Ask yourself what follows from the point you are considering. For example, you might
argue that: If knowledge is equated with certainty, then it follows that we know almost
nothing.
If all values are relative, then it follows that we can no longer speak of universal human
rights.
If human free will is an illusion, then it follows that we can no longer hold people responsible
for their actions.
Background assumptions
Ask yourself - What assumptions am I making here? and, where appropriate, be willing to
question them. Since we often confuse what is cultural with what is natural, and unthinkingly
assume that the practices we have grown up with are ‘normal’, you should pay particular
attention to any cultural biases that may be colouring your analysis.

Breadth
When it comes to breadth, you should think in terms of making connections. As was
mentioned earlier, TOK essays are usually comparative in nature and you will be expected
to consider the similarities and differences between various ways of knowing and different
Areas of Knowledge. As a brainstorming exercise, you should be able to think of an
interesting link between any given word on the TOK diagram and every other word on it.
This will help to get you thinking in a sufficiently broad way. You must then decide which of
these connections are relevant to your chosen question. You will also need to ensure that
you do not achieve breadth at the expense of depth. If, for example, you tackle the
question mentioned earlier, ‘Compare the roles played by reason and imagination in at least
two Areas of Knowledge’, I would suggest that you consider two or three Areas of
Knowledge but do not try to cover all six. To attempt the latter in 1,600 words is to condemn
yourself to writing an essay that is nothing more than a superficial survey of the territory.
As well as making connections within the TOK diagram, you should also try to
come up with some different perspectives on your chosen topic. To do this, you might ask
yourself : how would an X look at this? where an X is someone of a different age, gender,
profession, culture, or historical era. (You could even ask how an animal or a Martian would
look at whatever it is!) This will help you to think beyond the confines of your own viewpoint
and may bring to light hidden assumptions in your own thinking.

1
0
 11

Examples
In your essay, you are expected to give examples that are ‘varied and effectively used’.
Such examples will add colour and conviction to your writing and help the reader to grasp
some of your more abstract points. There are a number of factors to keep in mind here:
Hypothetical examples While occasional thought experiments have their place, real
examples generally carry more conviction than manufactured, hypothetical ones.
Clichéd examples ‘A bachelor is an unmarried man’ is not the only example of a statement
that is true by definition; and Copernicus’ ‘revolutionary’ claim that the Earth goes round the
Sun, rather than vice versa, is not the only example of a paradigm shift.

Representative examples
Try to ensure that your examples are representative
so that you do not distort things by focusing only on extreme cases.
Varied examples
Try to take examples drawn from different sources such as: personal experience, the news
media, different subject areas and a variety of cultures.
Brevity of examples Keep your examples relatively brief and make sure that they illustrate
what they are supposed to illustrate.
Examples vs statistics
Keep in mind that, as Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809–1894) once observed, ‘Most people
reason dramatically, not quantitatively.’ A colourful anecdote may be rhetorically convincing,
but in some cases dry statistics are a more reliable guide to the truth.

Quotations
You may wish to include a few well-chosen quotations in your essay, but you should be
aware of two common pitfalls:
Cut-and-paste essays
Make sure your essay does not degenerate into a cut- and-paste montage. While two or
three short quotations are one thing, an essay that is stitched together out of other people’s
words is quite another.

Note According to the IBO definition, plagiarism is ‘the representation of the ideas or work of
another person as the candidate’s own’. If you are found to have plagiarized in the TOK
essay you submit for assessment, you will not be awarded your diploma. To avoid
plagiarism, the IBO says that: ‘Candidates must always ensure that they acknowledge fully
and in detail the words and/or ideas of another person.’ Be punctilious here and, when you
quote another person, be sure that you put their words in inverted commas and give
appropriate references.

1
1
 12

Suggested structure for an essay (not the only way to approach it)

Part Contents

Write your Begin with some reflective thoughts on the prescribed title
Introduction 1-3 sentences
Paragraph Could include subsidiary Knowledge Questions (KQs) here
(Part 1) State your Main Claim
100 -150 Preview the first AOK/WOK combinations you will use (could include subsidiary
words KQ1)
Preview the second AOK/WOK combinations you will use (KQ2?)
Transition into Paragraph 2, mention the possible Implications (what we
can/should do) as a result of you successfully proving your main claim

Paragraphs 2- State your first claim in an area of knowledge and how it supports your Main
4: First Claim. Your first claim should have a question that you can attempt to answer in
AOK/WOK’s your paragraph. You could begin your paragraph with a subsidiary knowledge
800 words question.

Use an example from the real world (not hypothetical) to support your first claim.
Explain this example in 1-3 sentences without going into too much detail and
without using clichéd examples. If you have trouble finding an original example,
put in a clichéd one and come back to it later. Make sure that you cite where you
got your example. Explain how your example connects to the prescribed title and
include any WOKS that are relevant. You would also connect or consider various
perspectives and this should lead you to your counterclaim to your first claim.
Explain your counterclaim and as above, use a real world example to illustrate it.
Explain the links in your counterclaim to the prescribed title and discuss any
relevant WOKS.
Connect everything to your first subsidiary knowledge question. Transition to part
2, perhaps with a link to another subsidiary knowledge question and claim.

In paragraphs 4-5 you can repeat the above with your second AOK/WOK’s
Combination.

Paragraphs 5- In the final set of paragraphs you should make sure that the subsidiary
6 knowledge question allows you to discuss your main claim. This could be your
400 words strongest argument for your main claim. In these paragraphs you should consider
another perspective on your main claim (counter claim) and then refute the
counterclaim. If your Main Claim is a qualification, then your Main Counter
should explain the possibility of taking one side or the other (or both)

Conclusion State how your AOK/WOK1 and AOK/WOK2 work together and how they support
100 – 200 your Main Claim and respond to the prescribed title.
words Restate your awareness of other possible ways of looking at the prescribed title.
Present other possible Knowledge questions that your investigation may have
produced.
Explain the implications that the successful explanation of your claim has…in
other words, now that you have proven what you set out to prove what should
we as a reader and/or a society do differently in our lives when presented with
similar questions? 1
2
 13

Knowledge Question:

Thesis:

Body 1

The AoK or WoK

The claim
The example (for the claim)
The counter argument
The example (for the counterclaim)

Body 2

The AoK or WoK

The claim
The example (for the claim)
The counter argument
The example (for the counterclaim)

Body 3

The AoK or WoK

The claim
The example (for the claim)
The counter argument
The example (for the counterclaim)

Conclusion

Why is it important that we know about this?

What are the implications of this finding?
What is a different view on the subject?

After you have completed your outline, you should keep referring back to it as you write your
essay.

1
3
 14

Follow these steps to unpack the title and prepare for the essay
outline.
1. Underline the terms and phrases in the title that are central to the essay and will
need to be explained and dealt with in the introduction.
2. Identify contestable concepts
3. List any ambiguous terms in the title
4. What are the action words, commands? (eg. explore, compare, consider, agree,
analyse)
5. Does the title make an assumption? Do you need to challenge this assumption as
part of your response? Identify assumptions in the title.
6. How many different angles, perspectives, or viewpoints are there in the title?
7. Rephrase the title in order to check your understanding.
8. Figure out exactly what the PT is asking you to do. This is VERY IMPORTANT if you
don’t respond correctly it can throw off the entire essay and you will get a low score
even if you do everything else well. Important! Many prescribed titles have two parts,
you must respond to both.
9. Think about to what extent you agree with this statement?
10. Identify knowledge questions in the title – you will eventually choose some of these
knowledge questions to structure your essay around.
11. Create a thesis position sometimes referred to as a main claim in response to what
the title is asking. Write it down.
12. Decide which AOKs or WOKs you will discuss (in general you will have 2 AOKS)
13. What counter claims, counter examples, objections to your thesis position or
limitations can you introduce into your discussion?
14. What specific examples will you use? Be sure to use a variety chosen from; your
studies in other courses, the materials covered in this course, your experience and
knowledge of other places and situations, global events.

Writing the essay

A direct question that is included in the prescribed title itself – You must answer the question
they are asking, if you go off on your own tangent you will lose marks.
For example:
Direct question prescribed title:
Should key events in the historical development of areas of knowledge always be judged by
the standards of their time?
For this title you must respond with either “Yes they should”, “No they shouldn’t” or a
qualification…”In X circumstances they should but in Y circumstances they should not”

Two part prescribed title:

“Facts are needed to establish theories but theories are needed to make sense of facts.”
Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Part 1: Fact are needed to establish theories, Part 2: Theories are needed to make sense of
facts…you must address both parts throughout your essay or your response will be
incomplete.

Develop your Main Claim in response to what the PT is asking 1

Spend time thinking about it, don’t just go with the obvious answer 4
 15

Try not to completely agree or disagree so much of TOK is about understanding that
there a many ways to answer the same question
The best responses are often qualifications, showing that a PT may be true in certain
AOK’s but may not be true in others
To finalize your Main Claim Choose 2 Areas of Knowledge
(Almost) Always have two even if the prompt doesn’t say to use two
If the prompt requires you to use a specific AOK you must use it
*It is OK to reference other AOK’s as long as you do not focus on them
Think of the spectrum of AOK’s
Objective to Subjective…
Math and Nat. Sci on one side and Ethics and Art on the other
Often an AOK that is more objective will apply very differently to a PT versus a subjective
one…this can be the basis for your qualification
Don’t use AOK’s that are very similar such as Nat. Sci. and Human Sci. unless specified in
the title
Decide which Ways of Knowing you will explain your AOKs with
This is important because the rubric states that you should link AOKs to WOKs
Try to make the linking interesting, everybody links Reason to Mathematics why not try
linking Imagination to Math or Reason to Art?

1
5
 16

Scaffolded TOK essay planning template

TOK prescribed title: What does this title ask you to discuss? How will you
go about approaching the question?

Possible knowledge claims and knowledge questions:

Which knowledge questions have you selected and why? Explain/show how they will contribute to the
development of the discussion.

Which areas of knowledge/ways of knowing will be included in your discussion? Explain how they will
contribute to the development of the discussion.

List and explain your real-life examples. How and why have you selected them? How will they contribute to the
development of the discussion?

What are the counter-claims and different perspectives to your discussion? Show how you will consider these
in your discussion.

What are my academic honesty requirements for this essay? List the references below that require citation or
checking.

1
6
 17

Prescribed titles from May 2018

1. “The fields of study of academic disciplines can overlap, but adopting interdisciplinary
approaches to the production of knowledge leads only to confusion.” Discuss this
claim.

2. “We know with confidence only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases”
(adapted from JW von Goethe). Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of
knowledge.

3. “Without the assumption of the existence of uniformities there can be no knowledge.”

Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.

4. “Suspension of disbelief” is an essential feature of theatre. Is it essential in other

areas of knowledge? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge.

5. “The quality of knowledge produced by an academic discipline is directly proportional

to the duration of historical development of that discipline.” Explore this claim with
reference to two disciplines.

6. “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.” Discuss this claim
with reference to two areas of knowledge.

1
7
 18

Sample essays scoring an A grade (All three essays scored 8/10)

May 2018

“The quality of knowledge produced by an academic discipline is directly proportional to the

duration of historical development of that discipline”.

WORD COUNT: 1600

To what extent is the quality of knowledge dependent of its development? The

proportionality of development of a discipline in comparison to the duration of study suggest
that the longer a discipline is researched and studied, the more advanced the knowledge
acquired would be. For instance, the development of the disciplines of Biology and
Mathematics have progressed at different rates, and their development is influenced by
different factors. The disciplines of the Natural Sciences have been greatly impacted by the
technological innovations of the past centuries whereas Mathematical Studies still rely on
theories and conjectures from the times of ancient Greece.
It is important to specify however, that historical development refers to the period of time that
has been dedicated to the study of a discipline and how this has affected our understanding
of it.
To understand what is “quality of knowledge” we must first define what is knowledge across
differing academic disciplines. In disciplines of the human sciences, knowledge refers to the
level of understanding of a specific topic supported by data and evidence as is the case for
the natural sciences. In Mathematics however, knowledge relies on prior studies and
progresses on the validity of past conjecturesI will focus upon the academic discipline of
these AOKs due to the independent developments each have undergone which present
conflicting perspectives to the claim. From these disciplines the following knowledge claim is
first explored: Knowledge considered valuable, can be surpassed by other studies removing
the value we once attributed on certain research. This neutral claim aims to highlight the
progression of quality knowledge and whether disciplines are more affected by historical
developments or technological developments.
Through the course of the development of the natural sciences, most notably biology, many
scientist have proposed theories which became accepted as truth due to the inability to
disprove them. Such was the case for the theory of Vitalism1. This theory stated that only
inorganic matter when heated could be returned to its original form. This was not the case
for organic material which could not be retrieved when removing the heat source. The theory
therefore concludes that organic matter contains a vital force and heating it removes the vital
force which therefore results in the change of the substance. This theory remained in
practice until the 19th century because of the limited technology and time being spent
studying this topic. The knowledge acquired from this theory was well regarded as being a
staple of biological studies prior to the 19th Century. The quality of this knowledge at the
time was deemed indispensable however it has since been disproven by hundreds of
scientific discoveries and no longer contributes to biological studies.The knowledge derived
from this theory was accepted in the scientific world in the past. Molecular biology was a
new discipline which was truly furthered during the 20th century with the introduction of new
technologies such as more
powerful microscopes. The quality of knowledge in Biology has been dependent more on
technical advancements than time and its quality is dependent upon the context of its
creation and the available resources.

However, there are examples within the area of the Natural Sciences where discoveries 1
have been made several years earlier in a historical period that have withstood the test of 8
time. This claim leads on to a counterclaim of the initial question within the same discipline.
 19

Knowledge is not always surpassed and oftentimes discovery and past practices are the
foundation for further developments: Does historical development always lead to more
accurate knowledge?
For example, current surgical practices have retained surgical methods from the 6th century
BCE. Sushruta was an Indian physician who is nicknamed the godfather of plastic surgery.
In his book titled “the compendium of Susruta”2, he discusses tools and methods that
were so advanced for his time that they are still practiced today. His methods and great
discoveries were not based on other works and were his own. He practiced grafting skin
from toes on his patients to restore scarred skin. He also provided aesthetic nose
reconstructions for the rich. His understanding of the human anatomy and ways to
manipulate it was visionary.
Current surgical practices retain the foundation which Sushruta discussed and practiced. He
understood how the human body heals itself and used this information in his practice.
Therefore it can be concluded that not all past knowledge which was limited by technology
and understanding of the disciplines, loses its value over time to other discoveries. In
The academic discipline of mathematics leads us to our second question: Does knowledge
not always require extensive research over long periods of time to be considered valuable?
Mathematics can be defined as the science of rigorous proof. Eratosthenes of Cyrene was a
Greek mathematician who lived from 276 BCE to 195 BCE 3. He is most known for being
the
first person to “accurately” measure the circumference of the earth despite the very limited
resources available at the time. Studies by astronomers demonstrated that the earth was in
fact a sphere. His study of the earth's circumference derived from him hearing that on the
day of the summer solstice, the sun was directly overhead in the city of Syene whereas it
cast a shadow in his home city of Alexandria. He therefore used the angles of the produced
shadow as well as the distance between the two cities to calculate the circumference of the
earth. The result he found is approximately 10% to 5% of the actual circumference of the
earth. This achievement of his was enabled via his thorough understanding of Euclidean
geometry and deductive reasoning. He knew that in his hometown of Alexandria that the sun
was never exactly overhead and he therefore reasoned that if the earth was in fact round
then it would be possible to calculate its circumference from the shadows angle of incidence.
The accuracy of his result was confirmed more than two millennia later when the first
satellites were launched into space. We now know
that the earth is not a perfect sphere and is slightly flatter at the poles due to the rotation of
the earth which is why his measurement was slightly off.
It can therefore be concluded that certain areas of study only require precise subject
knowledge and excellent reasoning skills, rather than extensive research over long periods
of time to be deemed of quality. The knowledge pertaining to this specific matter marginally
improved despite the creation of extremely advanced technology. The level of improvement
in the quality of knowledge was insignificant in relation to the millenia’s dedicated to its study

In contrast to the previous example, there are some instances where the quality of
knowledge improves through periods of observation and evaluation. Through reasoning and
time, it is possible to judge the effectiveness of economic policies. John Keynes is a famous
English economist 4who greatly changed the macroeconomic policies employed by
governments.
He theorized that in times of a depression, meaning negative economic growth, where
spending is minimal, governments should increase investment and pump money into the
economy. By doing so, they increase economic activity within the country therefore resulting
in increased revenue to the population. Afterwards, Keynesian policies dominated the
economy until the 1970s. The american government believed that the relationship between
inflation and unemployment was inversely proportional: meaning that high levels of either 1
would result in low levels of the other. However in 1980, inflation had reached 12.4 % while 9
 20

oil, which was one of the United states main exports, was selling at $112 per barrel.5 This
was due to the high levels of
inflation and lead to higher levels of unemployment, as the demand for their oil greatly
decreased.
Keynesian governments realised that they must borrow money from overseas instead of
depleting their money reserves to maintain their investments into the economy. Their money
reserves were to be used to correct an overvaluation or a devaluation in the value of the
currency which is why they borrowed money from other countries. However, in the long run
this became unsustainable and lead to high levels of inflation. Stagflation occurs when there
is a sustained increase in unemployment paired with high levels of inflation. Policies to
correct inflation tend to lead to higher levels of unemployments and vice versa for policies
dealing with unemployment.
This is the result of mindless investing by governments with little prior planning to determine
which sectors would most greatly benefit from increased investment. When countries built up
large debts to other countries, inflation and unemployment had reach unfavourable levels of
which the governments were unable to deal with.
Time allowed the defects of Keynesian policies to become more easily identifiable. As a
study still reliant on human behaviour, economic theories are not set in stone and revision of
previous knowledge is necessary
Thus through periods of practice and observation the quality or limitations of certain
knowledge can be ascertained and Economics is an area of study which particularly benefits
from this.

Through analysis of the initial statement, the quality of knowledge seems to not be entirely
proportional to the development of that discipline. For disciplines reliant on technical
advancements, as is the case for biological and financial studies, then extended periods of
research over time greatly improves our understanding of the discipline, therefore leading to
an increase in the quality of knowledge. However, exceptions to this exist, as certain
historical figures have set themselves apart from the rest through the thorough application of
their research and findings.

Bibliography:

Link to information regardin the theory of vitalism and its falsification:

http://ib.bioninja.com.au/standard-level/topic-2-molecular-biology/21-molecules-to-
metabolism/falsifying-vi talism.html access on 18/01/18
Link to historical information on Sushruta https://www.ancient.eu/sushruta/ access on
18/01/18 Link to biographie of Eratosthenes of Cyrene:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes access on 23/01/18 Link to keynesian
policies and their effect:
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/was_keynesianism_discredited_in_the_1970s access on
24/01/18 Link to staglation in the United states:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/1970-stagflation.asp access on
23/01/18

Other links
Formulating knowledge questions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=banHBgFmi-0&feature=youtu.be

2
0
 21

Session May 2017

Prescribed title:

Given access to the same facts, how is it possible that there can be disagreement between
experts in a discipline? Develop your answer with reference to two areas of knowledge

As our world continues to develop, people's understanding of certain disciplines are

deepened. This is done through passing on knowledge and independent research.
Assuming that all experts have access to the same facts, we must also ask ourselves what
qualifies someone to be an expert as well as what is a fact. The two areas of knowledge that
commonly involve experts disagreeing are history and natural sciences. People, even when
faced with a fact or a reality, have different perspectives on it. This is due to a list of factors
that can have an effect on their perspective, for example their cultural background, their
education, the time at which they make these judgements and claims. Therefore it is clear
that the ways of knowing such as emotion, faith, reason and possibly even ethics are
involved in the creation of these people's judgments.
A discipline is a branch of knowledge, typically studied in higher education and an expert is a
person who has a lot of experience in their respective discipline and therefore serves as
someone for others to look to for answers and information regarding that discipline.
The aim of this essay will be to find out what leads experts to have different opinions,
conclusions and judgments.

The first knowledge claim that can be extracted from the question is that emotion influences
our interpretation of facts. The first area of knowledge that involves experts and different
opinions is history. This is a discipline where disagreements happen often and are very
commonly studied by students in order to become aware of different historical perspectives
To begin with, historian Allan Nevins, believes that slavery was only a minor cause of the
Civil war in America. Allan Nevins was an American historian and journalist throughout the
1900s and was renowned for his work on the American Civil War. Nevins opinion was that
slavery was an important factor in causing the war, but not the only one. He believed that
there were too many "fundamental differences in culture, taste and opinions between the
North and the South, which made it virtually impossible for the two societies to live
together"1.
A revisionist historian by the name of James Garfield Randall had an opposing view.

James G. Randall was an American historian specializing on Abraham Lincoln and the
American Civil War. Randall's opinion was that the differences between the North and the
South were not so important as to cause a war, but rather it was a "blundering generation" of
leaders that caused the conflict. In Randall's essay, The Blundering Generation2, he states
that "differences as great
as those between ante-bellum North and South have existed on many a front without
breaking down the processes of statesmanship and producing the debacle of war". This
therefore disagrees with Nevins view that cultural differences were what caused the war.
Both historians have opposing views on the same subject. It is clear that both Nevins and
Randall have done a great amount of historical research and are successful in the world of
academia; we can therefore say that they are both experts. In order to explain this difference
in opinion, we could look into each of the professor's backgrounds. Perhaps personal views
on the opposing cultures have an undermining influence on Nevins opinion. Randall himself
may have
To counterclaim the statement that emotion influences people's judgements, we could claim
that being an expert, your judgement should ultimately be purely based on facts. An expert
should make their judgements singular to their emotional attachment to the subject.
Because of this awareness of historians' different viewpoints, in history class we are given 2
multiple textbooks which include different perspectives from different historians. This access 1
 22

to a multitude of different recounts of historical events, lets the student create their own point
of view and not be subjected to learning off one sole source.
However, because of this wide variety of primary and secondary sources as well as a
multitude of different perspectives, it is indeed very hard for a historian to make a judgement
that is completely unbiased. Since history is ultimately the passing on of facts and figures
from one generation to the next, unless you lived through that very part of history yourself,
you would not be able to be certain of any judgements, conclusions or claims that other
people present to you.
A further knowledge question could be asked such as : How do the conclusions of experts
with personal knowledge differ from those without personal knowledge? The area of
knowledge of natural sciences, where claims are more than often based on reason and
factual evidence, presents multiple examples of disagreements between experts. This is
once again due to many factors, however here we will focus on how the way of knowing of
personal experience
influences scientific conclusions. The example we will be looking at are doctors different
viewpoints on the health risks related to the consumption of meat.
To begin with, Doctor Colin Campbell, a world famous vegan, strongly believes that animal
based products are the culprit of chronic disease and cancer. Campbell is an American
biochemist who specializes in the effect of nutrition on long-term health. His famous book
entitled The China Study3 gives the reader information on health studies done in China
relating
to meat consumption versus plant-based food consumption. The book itself was found by
many to have multiple flaws. Chris Masterjohn, who earned his PhD in Nutritional Sciences
from the University of Connecticut in 20124, believes that Campbell's book was biased and
did not give
sufficient factual and statistical evidence for the health problems related to meat. Masterjohn
reviewed The China Study online and brought up very strong arguments relating to
Campbell choice of wording and sentences in his book. One example of Campbell's
sentences is as follows: "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic
disease... People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to
avoid chronic disease"5. Campbell uses
simple language throughout his book to influence and persuade his reader. For example his
use

of "most" before "plant-based" food and "animal-based food" is a weasel word, added to
protect accuracy. This type of sentence is used throughout the book: Campbell simply
opposes meat eaters and non meat eaters and concludes that the non-meat eaters are
overall healthier. There is a sense of ambiguity and vagueness in his sentences which lead
us to think that confirmation bias plays a part in his judgment. If Campbell chose to do a
study on a group of balanced-diet
grass-fed meat eaters rather than an unhealthy group of meat eaters, the results obtained
could be very different. Being a strong supporter of veganism, we could assume that this has
indeed impacted how Campbell interpreted the results as well as the point of view in his
book.
Therefore, we can say that the personal knowledge that Campbell has acquired even before
having conducted The China study has influenced his conclusions in regards to eating meat.
In this situation, we can see how sometimes experts conduct research in order to support
their opinion. So instead of searching for the truth, they search for evidence that confirms
what they believe.

Another view we have on the subject of eating meat is by John Berardi, a specialist in
exercise physiology and nutrient biochemistry. In his own exploration of this subject, John 2
Berardi conducted an experiment where he turned vegetarian for a period of time. At the 2
conclusion of his vegetarian journey he derived a report using his data obtained. Based on
 23

his personal experience and research, the diet that he would recommend is a combination of
grass fed meat and a plentiful amount of vegetables and fruit. Berardi concludes his online
report with the following two statements: "It’s sometimes possible for two intelligent people to
look at the same information and come up with different conclusions. It’s also possible for
two intelligent people to come up different conclusions that both happen to be correct,
depending on the circumstances"6.
After coming up with his own personal conclusions, Berardi's report seemed the most
convincing out of the three. Because of his personal experience and the awareness of
different interpretations, Berardi come to a more conclusive and convincing report than
Campbell does in his China Study.
To conclude this part, we have two different experts, one strongly against the consumption
of meat and the other who recommends a balanced diet with only grass fed meat, lots of
vegetables and fruit. So it is clear how two people, who both have access to a wide range of
information, and who have both conducted their own personal research, have come up with
different scientific conclusions. Returning to this part's knowledge question, personal
engagement and experience do indeed influence experts conclusions as it brings them
emotionally closer to the subject.

Thus, in summary, we could state that no matter what level of expertise a person has in a
certain discipline, their interpretation of facts will always be consciously or subconsciously
influenced by their emotion, personal engagement and experience. Even with access to the
same facts, it is indeed possible for experts to come up with different conclusions. Historians'
points of view differ because of factors such as emotion, ethics and reason. Scientists'
conclusions can be manipulated to support their original beliefs or expectations; or these
conclusions can be based on evidence of their preconceived expectation of their own idea of
truth.

Bibliography

Social Statics, Or The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified. By Herbert

Spencer. page 469

The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted. By T. Colin
Campbell, Thomas M. Campbell

"Who I Am | The Daily Lipid" Chris Masterjohn. The Daily Lipid. N.p., 2017. Web. 16 Feb.
2017.

"The Meat Debate: Good For Us Or Disease Waiting To Happen?". Precision Nutrition. N.p.,
2017. Web. 16 Feb. 2017.

Nevins, Allan. Ordeal Of The Union. New York: Collier Books, 1992. Print.

The Blundering Generation, J. G. Randall in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review

Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jun., 1940), pp. 3-28.

2
3
 24

Title 3: "Conflicting knowledge claims always involve a difference in perspective". Discuss

with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Research Question: To what extent can we value one way of knowing over another when
weighing up the opposing perspectives?

Word Count: 1600

As The Natural Sciences began developing during the Renaissance, church leaders saw
scientific discoveries as contradictory to established religious doctrine and reacted by
suppressing science as heretical teachings. Ever since, The Natural Sciences (TNSs) and
Religious Knowledge Systems (RKSs) have been engaged in an on-going debate presenting
adverse views as the result of conflicting knowledge claims. Faith provides the fundamental
basis of RKSs as beliefs are established through trust in the doctrines of a religion, based on
spiritual conviction rather than proof, making it a subjective way of knowing (WOK). A person
who relies on faith, in this context , most likely has a religious perspective. Perspective is not
only shaped by factors such as, cultural background, gender, and socio-economic status but
also the
areas in which we choose to look for knowledge whether in RKSs or TNSs, I SEEN I
two conflicting areas of knowledge (AOKs). TNSs rely on reason in order to turn information
presented through experimentation and observation into knowledge, as reason is the ability
to form judgements logically, based on empirical evidence. These AOKs present conflicting
knowledge claims and hence the ways of knowing that support them, reason and faith, can
be compared and evaluated. Due to the subjective nature of faith, is reason more reliable or
does it depend on individual perspective? One can therefore pose
the question; to what extent can we value one way of knowing over another
when weighing up the opposing perspectives? I SEEN I

Historically, society has relied on their faith in RKSs to make unsubstantiated knowledge
claims about both the physical and metaphysical nature of the world. It was and is still
believed, by some, that the universe originated from acts of divine creation by a single deity,
a belief known as creationism. This belief was accepted as there were no other arguments
to refute this belief, however, with the arrival of THSs, the validity of this theory has been
questioned. Those who explored this AOK, most notably, scientist Charles Darwin, formed
their own theories through observation and evidence that could be verified through reason.
The debate still continues between those with religious-based perspectives arguing for
creationism and those with science-based perspectives supporting evolutionism. The theory
of evolution has a significant amount of empirical evidence to support it and hence,
challenges the validity of creationism suggesting that faith is unreliable. To
• have faith in the teachings of a RKS requires the suspension of logic and
reason. This denial of factual evidence is why many argue that knowledge claims supported
by faith are invaluable and that reason is a more reliable WOK. This belief that reason is
more valuable is supported by rationalism. The concept of rationalism maintains that
knowledge should be deduced by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith. French
philosopher, Rene Descartes, argues that knowledge is built upon the realisation of the
absolute truth "I think therefore I am" (Lisle, 2009), which requires no faith and that
therefore, only reason can determine knowledge. The validity of faith is questionable as
there is simply no evidence to support knowledge claims based on RKSs, making it a
fallible reference. However, can faith still be reliable and as valuable as reason despite its
subjective nature?

Despite its subjective nature, it can be argued that faith is a reliable WOK. This view is 2
supported by fideism, a theory that questions the ability of reason to support knowledge 4
claims. An adamant supporter of fideism, philosopher Blaise Pascal, did not completely
 25

reject reason as a basis of knowledge but maintained that faith is reliable and that one
should seek knowledge in RKSs. He argued that if God does not actually exist, one would
only experience a finite loss, whereas if God does exist then one would stand to receive
infinite gains. Another fideism enthusiast, philosopher S0ren Kierkegaard , opposed the
notion of reason , arguing that faith is the most reliable WOK when faced with uncertainty.
For example, teachings in the bible claim that life begins at conception and therefore,
processes such as embryonic stem cell research are morally wrong however; TNSs have
found that such research could lead to the discovery of advantageous medical treatments.
Those in support of this research take a utilitarianism stance to argue that conducting
research on embryos could help find cures for diseases that affect millions of people. The
uncertainty is that we don't know for sure that embryos have souls at such an early stage,
which therefore, begs the question of which view can be valued more. Is it better to
potentially harm a life for the sake of saving thousands of people or is that morally wrong
even if the belief that life begins at conception is unproven? Fideism maintains that in this
situation, it's ultimately better to sacrifice the potential discovery of vital cures in order to
avoid harming a human life. However, a person's view on this issue can depend on their
individual perspective. Perspective has the potential to influence the way in which we
interpret knowledge through faith, making it less reliable than reason.

Knowledge gained through RKSs has the potential to be influenced by

individual perspective and hence knowledge claims made on the basis of faith can become
invalid. According to Greek philosopher Plato, knowledge is "justified true belief'
(Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2014) and hence, faith alone cannot reliably
support the knowledge claims made by RKSs. Therefore, faith, being a strong yet unjustified
belief, is not a suitable WOK. In November of 2015, a series of coordinated terrorist attacks
occurred in Paris resulting in the death of 130 people. ISIL, a fundamentalist Muslim militant
group, claimed responsibility for the attacks while many Muslims around the world
condemned the act claiming that such violence is contradictory to Islamic teachings. ISIL
has previously been involved in similar attacks and claims that by killing infidels, they are
performing the duties of their RKS despite conflicting interpretations of the Qur'an
condemning violent actions. Members of ISIL perceive only what they want to from their
religion in the form of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a tendency to favour
information that confirms our preconceived beliefs, which are the result of our individual
perspective. Confirmation bias explains why individuals tend to seek out information that
confirms their existing opinions and ignore information that refutes their beliefs. This is
evident when analysing, one of the most popular Christian definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1
(NIV): ".. .faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
Therefore, since faith is subject to personal bias and reason is not, knowledge claims made
on the basis of faith are unreliable and cannot be valued over reason.

On the other hand, it may also be argued that reason and faith cannot be compared and that
one cannot be valued over the other as our preferred WOKs depend on our individual
perspectives and hence vary between people. The concept of relativism supports this idea
and argues

that knowledge claims have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only
subjective value according to differences in perspective. Therefore, are all knowledge
claims, even ones made on the basis of rationality and empirical evidence actually
subjective due to differences in individual perspective? I have experienced this dilemma
between reason and faith in my personal life. To this day, I have supported and accepted the
LGBT community as my perspective on this issue has been shaped by my non- religious, left
wing upbringing. On the other hand, my next-door neighbours were extremely catholic and
did not support gay rights, as they believed that; homosexuality is a sin according to the 2
bible. Despite my efforts to convince them that their view was wrong, their perspective had 5
 26

been shaped by their chosen RKS in which they had complete , unwavering faith. In this
situation I relied upon reason to conclude that people belonging to the LGBT community
are biologically and factually human beings and that they should be, logically,
treated the same as every other human being. My neighbours saw their belief as valid
whereas I didn't. If they interpret their claim as knowledge and I also interpret my claim as
knowledge, even though our claims were conflicting , how do we determine which is true
and which is false? I relied on reason and they relied on faith yet we both thought we were
right. We can therefore not value either of these WOKs due to inevitable differences in
perspective.

By exploring the conflicting knowledge claims of RKSs and TNSs, my knowledge and
understanding has developed through the evaluation of faith and reason in relation to these
AOKs from opposing perspectives. Initially, I thought that reason could be valued more than
faith due to its objective nature and that empirical evidence is not subject to interpretation
however, now I can conclude that one WOK cannot be valued over another as knowledge
claims have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only subjective value
according to differences in perception. I have also concluded that the knowledge claims of
RKSs and TNSs cannot be compared. Scripture was intended to teach moral and spiritual
truths, it was never meant to be a science textbook. Furthermore, it is evident that through
the exploration of rationalism and fideism, reason can be valued as a way of knowing
whereas faith should be valued as a way of believing . This conclusion is significant a the
dispute between religion and science continues to produce conflict, which could be avoided
if everyone came to the realisation that faith and reason cannot be compared and hence one
cannot be valued over the other due to inevitable differences in perspective.

2
6