What are Knowledge Questions?

 
Knowledge questions are:
·         questions that directly refer to our understanding of the world, ourselves and others, in
connection with the acquisition, search for, production, shaping and acceptance of knowledge
·         open-ended and intended to open inquiry into the nature of knowledge.
·         uncover possible uncertainties, biases in approach, or limitations related to knowledge, ways of
knowing and methods of verification and justification appropriate in different areas of knowledge.
 
 
Knowledge questions can begin in many different ways:
How do we know…        if a knowledge claim can be trusted?
                                    what is morally right or wrong?
                                    what basis our conclusions rest on?
 
How does…                  language come to be known?
                                    mathematics relate to the world?
                                    the social context of scientific work affect the methods and findings of science?
 
How…                          reliable are our feelings and intuitions?
                        does living a moral life matter?
                                    trustworthy are our senses?
 
Is…                              reason purely objective and universal, or does it vary across cultures?
                                    historical knowledge open to criticism?
 
Does…                         art have to have meaning?
                                    truth differ between the human and natural sciences?
 
To what extent…           can we act individually in creating new knowledge?
                                    does personal or ideological bias influence our knowledge claims?
                                    is emotion biological or “hard-wired”, and hence universal to all human beings?
                                    is emotion shaped by culture and hence displayed differently in different
societies?
 
Can…                           human behavior be predicted?
                                    mathematics be characterized as a universal language?
                                    history be unbiased?
 
 
Knowledge questions usually contain TOK language and ask about:
·         the WOKs
·         the AOKs
·         related knowledge terms: authority, belief, certainty, culture, evidence, experience, explanation,
interpretation, justification, reliability, truth, values
 
 
Knowledge questions can be related to:
·         the ways of knowing and their definition / use / importance / limitations / negative effects in
relation to an area of knowledge, e.g. does some knowledge lie beyond language or can there be
creativity without emotion?
·         the areas of knowledge, e.g. is mathematics present in nature or how reliable is ‘proof’ in the
natural sciences?
·         distinctions & connections between areas of knowledge, e.g. how the different subjects are
defined and what makes them different from one another or what the relationship is between one
area of knowledge and another, for instance is mathematical proof necessary for the development
of scientific understanding?
 
  
Adapted by from workshop material produced by Mary Garland and Paul Hart, 2014

Extracting Knowledge Questions

 
 
The most important part of the planning for the TOK presentation is the extraction of the knowledge
issue. If you get this bit right then everything else falls into place and so it is a very good idea to check
your knowledge issue through with your teacher right at the start of the planning process to make sure
that you don’t head off in the wrong direction.
 
What does ‘extraction’ mean?
To extract means to ‘pull out’ – you might have had teeth taken out or extracted, especially if you had
braces fitted and the TOK syllabus uses the word in exactly the same way. Essentially, you need to
pick a Real Life Situation and pull a knowledge question out of it.
 
What’s a knowledge question?
There’s no definite, clear cut answer to this but really good knowledge questions will often come in the
form of very high level questions that talk about knowledge or how knowledge works. Many of the
questions we discuss in class and that you write about in your reflections are knowledge questions.
 
The Four Different Levels:
One of the best ways of understanding what counts as a knowledge question is to begin by picking
out things which aren’t knowledge questions, or at least aren’t very good examples them, and working
up from there. One helpful way to do this is by using the following table. The table on the left explains
what is going on while the one on the right is an example:
 
 
Real Life Situation   Real Life Situation
(An event in the real world at either a global, The simulation of a Big Bang at the Large
local or personal level) Hadron Collider at CERN.
   
Not A Knowledge Question   Not A Knowledge Question
(Often this will be a very factual question and will What is a Hadron?
sound like something you will study in one of (This sounds like a physics question)
your subject lessons)  
 
A Weak Knowledge Question   A Weak Knowledge Question
(This will explore the current issue but will tend to Will the LHC destroy the world?
lead to a GCSE style For / Against debate where (Simple Yes / No debate style question)
one person argues one side of the case, their
opponent argues the opposite and in the end
they either compromise or agree to differ. Often
weak questions will start with verbs like ‘will’,
‘can’, ‘do’, ‘is’, ‘have’, etc ...)
 
A Medium Level Knowledge Question   A Medium Level Knowledge Question
(This will begin to talk about knowledge more How can we know the LHC is safe?
explicitly and will be a more open ended question (The word know makes the focus more
without a simple for and against answer. Note explicitly on knowledge and the question is
however, that it is still tied too closely to the more open, so it’s a good question, but we can
original real life situation ) take it one stage further.)
 
A Strong Knowledge Question   A Strong Knowledge Question
(This should be a question that explores Is there any knowledge that it is too dangerous
knowledge and how knowledge works in an open to pursue?
ended way at a very high level – it needs to be (Notice how this question seems to have taken
high level so that you can compare the same
issue from the perspective of different AOKs or
WOKs. Often strong questions will start with
words or phrases like ‘how’, ‘to what extent’, ‘in
what way’, etc …)
 
a huge leap away from the original topic of the
LHC and this is what enables you to compare
different AOKs – there could conceivably be
knowledge that it is too dangerous to pursue in
the Natural Sciences, but can the same be said
of the Arts, History or Maths? Now this sounds
like a really interesting question)

More Knowledge Questions

 
Here are some example knowledge questions that you might like to use as inspiration for your
presentation. These suggestions are taken from the 2009 to 2015 Subject Reports and the Guidance
to Examiners.
 
Truth & Knowledge:
·         Does the word ‘truth’ have different meanings in different contexts?
·         What are the best grounds for saying that we know something rather than believe it?
·         In what ways can we overcome problems of knowing to arrive at an understanding of things as
they really are?
·         How do provisionally accepted but distrusted beliefs become ones we are certain are true?
·         Are there areas where it is not necessary to rely on one’s experience and culture to understand
something?
·         To what extent can we understand knowledge claims from a different culture?
·         How do provisionally accepted but distrusted beliefs become ones we are certain are true?
·         How does understanding differ, if at all, from knowledge?
 
Justification:
·         What does it mean to say that a belief is justified in different areas of knowledge?
·         What constitutes a strong justification in any given area?
·         To what extent are the methods of justification different in different areas of knowledge?
·         On what basis are methods of justification selected in different areas of knowledge?
·         How can we know when to suspend judgement on a knowledge claim?
·         Do the changes in knowledge over time imply changes in the standards for justification
 
Conviction & Certainty:
·         What is the relationship between a convincing theory and a correct theory?
·         Who needs to be convinced by a theory?
·         Which features or functions of theories are most effective in making them convincing?
·         How convincing does a theory need to be in order to be accepted?
 
Generalisation:
·         How can we be sure that general patterns represent genuine features of reality and thus can act
as a sound basis for knowledge?
·         Why is generalisation seen as very important in some areas of knowledge and does it follow that
these areas of knowledge are seen as the most secure?
·         Are we as likely to be mistaken in looking for generalisations as in looking for particular patterns
and how does that affect our knowledge and understanding?
 
Value Judgments:
·         How important is the role of value judgments in different areas of knowledge?
·         What makes a knowledge claim valuable?
·         To what extent should it be expected that areas of knowledge make normative judgments
(deciding what should be the case) rather than merely descriptive ones (describing what is the
case)? 
 
Assumptions:
·         What counts as an assumption? What are the respective roles of conscious and unconscious
assumptions in the construction of knowledge?
·         What are the possible reasons why an assumption may be untestable?
·         At what point does assumed knowledge justify action?
           
Simplicity & Truth:
·         What does ‘simplicity’ mean in different areas of knowledge?
·         How does the human need for easily graspable and readily understood explanations and
certainties manifest itself in different areas of knowledge?
 
The Role of Experts:
·         In what ways and areas would the absence of experts most severely limit our knowledge?
·         Under what circumstances should we ignore the opinions of experts in the various areas of
knowledge?
·         On what basis might we decide between the judgements of experts if they disagree?
·         To what extent is the knowledge that experts possess transferable?
·         What role does authority play in the shaping of personal knowledge?
 
The Role of Doubt:
·         To what extent do different areas of knowledge incorporate doubt as a part of their methods?
·         Under what circumstances might doubt undermine the construction or acquisition of knowledge?
·         Why is the possibility of doubt needed for knowledge?
·         Since doubt can be taken to be lack of convincing support for a claim, how can this lead to a
situation in which the claim has convincing support?
 
The Role of Disagreement:
·         On what basis should differing views be taken seriously in different AOKs?
·         Why might there be different amounts of disagreement in the natural sciences and the human
sciences?
·         Why might some ways of knowing be more likely than others to generate and sustain
disagreement in the natural and human sciences?
·         At what stage in the production of knowledge is disagreement helpful to the pursuit of
knowledge?
·         To what extent is disagreement a vital part of scientific methods?
·         What methods are employed in the natural and human sciences by which disagreement may be
converted into consensus?
·         What might be the consequences of a broad consensus about knowledge within scientific
disciplines?
 
The Use of Evidence and Examples:
·         What counts as evidence in various areas of knowledge?
·         To what extent are we obliged as knowers to provide evidence for our beliefs?
·         How can we know when we have sufficient evidence?
·         What could be the value of an unsupported belief?
·         When is quantitative data superior to qualitative data in describing a phenomenon?
·         How do we deal with experiences and evidence which contradict or appear to contradict our
theories?
·         What kind of relationship to an example must we have in order for it to promote understanding?
·         When does the burden of supporting a knowledge claim lie with the claimer and when with the
appraiser?
·         Do all knowledge claims require evidential support?
·         Are there areas of knowledge in which the support for knowledge claims is not provided in the
form of evidence?
·         Under what circumstances might it be sensible to accept knowledge claims in the absence of
evidence?
·         What counts as evidence in different areas of knowledge? Do all areas of knowledge rely on
evidence?
 
Content vs. Methodology:
·         To what extent does the methodology of an academic discipline remain constant?
·         What counts as a method in the natural sciences and in the arts?
·         To what extent does the methodology of an investigation limit or determine the outcomes that are
possible?
·         Why might we be more concerned with process rather than product in the search for knowledge?
·         Is there always a clear distinction between content and methodology?
 
Absolute / universal truth:
·         To what extent does truth exist in each area of knowledge regardless of whether we can
recognize it?
·         To what extent is knowledge dependent upon having absolute distinctions between what is true
and what is false?
·         How difficult is it to establish universal truths in various areas of knowledge?
 
Progress in Knowledge:
·         Are there viable universal criteria for measuring progress that are applicable in all areas of
knowledge?
·         Which ways of knowing are most useful in measuring progress?
·         What are the problems associated with progress in various areas of knowledge?
·         To what extent should academic disciplines be ranked according to their usefulness?
·         Why can new historical or scientific or ethical theories explain the same events in completely
different ways to old theories?
·         What does it mean to ‘expand’ knowledge in ethics as opposed to knowledge in art?
·         What might constitute progress in an area of knowledge, and how could we know that it has been
achieved?
·         Is it possible to reach universal agreement that progress, rather than merely change, has taken
place? If so, on what basis?
·         What is it that makes progress often seem easier to identify in the natural sciences than in the
arts?
·         Can progress be measured entirely within an area of knowledge (with reference to knowledge
alone) or only with reference to ísome benchmark outside it (such as its practical application)?
·         Can an increase in the amount of knowledge always be considered to be progress?
·         Can the rejection of knowledge ever be considered to be progress?
·         To what extent is the ability to make progress a measure of the worth of an area of knowledge?
·         How can we know that the deployment of ways of knowing that exists in areas of knowledge is
the most effective arrangement for the pursuit of knowledge?
 
Prediction:
·         What is it about the methods of an area of knowledge that allow it to make predictions?
 
Observation & Experiment:
·         What is the relationship between observation and experiment?
·         Can introspection and reflection count as types of observation?
·         Is there a role for observation or experiment in every area of knowledge?
·         Can activities that are unplanned or lacking a clear prior purpose count as experiments?
·         Do observation and experiment have roles in the production of personal knowledge?
 
Discarding Previously Accepted Knowledge:
·         Is the discarding of accepted knowledge a routine feature of areas of knowledge?
·         By whom might an accepted knowledge claim legitimately be discarded? Who is empowered to
accept it in the first place?
·         Is it a good thing that knowledge claims are accepted, only to be abandoned later and
superseded by other knowledge claims?
·         Are there different standards for accepting or discarding knowledge in different areas of
knowledge?
·         Do the processes of accepting and discarding imply that progress is being made in areas of
knowledge?
·         Given the continual accepting and discarding of knowledge, what are the implications of
maintaining that knowledge is justified true belief?
·         Under what circumstances does it make sense to question all knowledge claims that one
encounters?
 
The Role of Models:
·         In the construction of a model, how can we know which aspects of the world to include and which
to ignore?
·         What aspects of the world are not amenable to representation by models?
·         How is new knowledge acquired through the use of models?
·         Since a model is, strictly speaking, false how can it lead to knowledge traditionally thought of as
being true?
 
Differences / Similarities  Between AOKs:
·         To what extent can we maintain a viable distinction between knowledge and understanding
across various areas of knowledge?
·         Are some areas of knowledge more about knowledge than understanding, and others more
about understanding than knowledge?
·         What roles do the ways of knowing play in giving us knowledge and understanding and how do
those roles differ across different areas of knowledge?
·         What counts as evidence? Does this vary from one area of knowledge to another?
 
Objectivity / Subjectivity:
·         Does ‘objective knowledge’ mean different things in, say, the Social Sciences and the Natural
Sciences?
 
Assumptions:
·         Do the principles of ethical theories and the axioms of mathematics perform the same functions
in their respective areas of knowledge?
·         Are some areas of knowledge more dependent on (sets of) assumptions than others?
·         If sets of assumptions underpin all areas of knowledge, what does that imply for knowledge as a
whole?
·         Are there particular circumstances in which assumptions facilitate our attempts to know the
world, and other circumstances in which they limit these attempts?
 
Facts & Theories:
·         What is the relationship between facts/data and theories and how does this differ in different
areas of knowledge?
·         Can facts and theories be successfully distinguished on the basis of their degree of certainty?
·         To what extent does the insensible or deliberate twisting of facts undermine theories in different
areas of knowledge?
·         Under what circumstances might it be justified to “twist facts” in the interests of a theory?
·         Are there circumstances in which problems might arise from twisting theories to suit facts?
·         To what extent does the concept of theory change across areas of knowledge and how might we
compare and contrast those theories? What is the influence of ways of thinking on the collection
of data or facts?
·         How can the discovery of data or facts and of new ways of thinking work together in the
production of knowledge?
·         What counts as a fact in different areas of knowledge? Do all areas of knowledge deal in facts?
·         To what extent can areas of knowledge be characterised by their factual content
and organised structure? Is this a sufficient description?
·         What criteria could be used in order to organise facts in a systematic fashion?
·         What room is there for personal interpretation / cultural differences in a system
of organised facts?
·         What are the roles of facts and theories in the creation of explanations
 
Knowledge & Culture:
·         Are there areas where it is not necessary to rely on one’s experience and culture to understand
something?
·         To what extent can we understand knowledge claims from a different culture?
·         What is the impact of culture in the production and distribution of knowledge in various areas of
knowledge?
·         Are our beliefs or our knowledge more susceptible to cultural influences?
·         To what extent do the perspectives that are fostered through membership of a particular culture
exert positive or negative influences on our knowledge?
·         To what extent are we aware of the impact of culture on what we believe or know?
·         Is there anything which is true for all cultures?
·         Who is best placed to attempt to evaluate a culture (and its impact on knowledge or belief)
objectively?
 
Bias, Selectivity & Neutrality:
·         In what ways can bias and selection make positive contributions to attaining knowledge?
·         To what extent can bias and selection be considered as independent influences on the
construction of knowledge?
·         In order to be accepted as knowledge, must claims be free of bias? Is this possible?
·         What are the roles of deliberate and inadvertent selection in various areas of knowledge?
·         Under what circumstances is it possible to maintain a detached relationship with subject matter
under investigation?
·         How do language, concepts and methodolgy affect the neutrality of questions asked within an
area of knowledge?
 
Questions:
·         On what basis can we decide whether a question is neutral or not?
·         Does the unavoidable choice of words in a  question make neutral questions unattainable?
·         Do neutral questions / enquiries promote the acquisition of knowledge? Are there are
circumstances in which they might hinder knowledge acquisition?
·         What does the nature of the questions asked in an area of knowledge tell us about that area of
knowledge?
 
Creativity & Innovation:
·         What counts as a new way of thinking in different areas of knowledge?
·         How can we know when a new way of thinking is needed?
·         To what extent does creative thinking depend on critical thinking, and vice versa?
·         To what extent does creative thinking rely on established methods that lead to knowledge?
·         To what extent does creative thinking build upon prior knowledge?
·         Is it possible to generate knowledge through creative thinking alone?
·         Is creativity learned or innate?
 
Technology:
·         How might technology influence specific ways of knowing which in turn influence the areas of
knowledge under discussion?
·         To what extent does technology enable or limit the production of knowledge as opposed to the
dissemination of knowledge?
·         Is technology more important in some areas of knowledge than others and what are the
implications for those areas of knowledge?
·         What role do ethics play in how technology is used in the production of knowledge?
·         With what degree of certainty can we know that technology is enabling or limiting and what role
might its historical development play in allowing us to make decisions on this?
·         To what extent has technology changed the nature of the knowledge we gain in different areas of
knowledge?
·         How might we distinguish between the production of knowledge and the acquisition of knowledge
and what might be the similar or differing roles played by technology?
 
Shared & Personal Knowledge:
·         What is the role of personal experience in the construction of knowledge?
·         To what extent can the knowledge gained from CAS be applied in another area of knowledge?
·         To what extent does our particular repertoire of ways of knowing affect our personal conception
of knowledge? 
·         How effective is the distinction between shared and personal knowledge?
·         What is the relationship between shared and personal knowledge in the different areas of
knowledge?
·         Do shared and personal knowledge effect each other differently in different areas of knowledge?
·         Under which circumstances do shared and personal knowledge fail to influence each other?
·         How can shared knowledge contribute to personal meaning and purpose?
·         Is shared knowledge inherently beneficial?
·         In what ways does shared knowledge contribute to individual understanding?
·         How important is experience in the acquisition of knowledge?
 
WAYS OF KNOWING
General:
·         Are ways of knowing best thought of as distinct tools with different functions?
·         To what extents do the natures of ways of knowing vary in their nature according to the areas of
knowledge under discussion?
·         To what extent are we capable of conceptualizing problems for which we do not possess the
appropriate tools?
·         How do various ways of knowing influence the types of question that can be asked?
 
Language:
·         In what ways does language affect how we interpret the world?
·         Might the language(s) we speak affect how we understand ideas?
·         What is it about words that empowers them to do more than simply transfer knowledge from one
person to another?
·         Is it possible for a concept to be incomprehensible to speakers of a particular language if it is
inexpressible in that language?
·         If the vocabularies of different languages carve out different sets of concepts, what are the
implications for knowledge?
·         What impact do specialized vocabularies have on the shaping of knowledge and is this more
dramatic in some areas of knowledge than others?
·         How do the features of natural language assist or frustrate us in the production and acquisition of
knowledge?
·         Do propositional and non-propositional knowledge have equal value?
·         Does all reliable knowledge depend upon clear definitions of terms?
·         What role does naming play in influencing our perceptions?  
 
Reason:
·         To what extent can we distinguish between rational and emotional inputs into decision-making?
·         What is the role of reason in trying to reach truth?
·         What does it mean to ‘rationally criticise’ a knowledge claim?
·         To what extent can reason operate in isolation from other ways of knowing?
·         What is the role of reasoning in making claims beyond our immediate experience?
·         What types of knowledge may be produced through the application of reason?
·         To what extent are habit and reason in opposition, or items on a continuum?
·         Are habits the unconscious products of reasoning? Is reasoning a good habit?
·         In what ways and to what extent can reasoning operate in different areas of knowledge?
·         What might be the implications of demanding logical consistency in knowledge?
·         What is the relationship between instinctive judgments and reasoned analysis?  
 
Emotion:
·         Are there universal emotional responses to some situations that we can all trust as a result? Can
shared knowledge be established upon this basis?
·         To what extent is it legitimate to evaluate the �htrustworthiness of emotions in terms of other
ways of knowing?
·         If some emotions are instinctive, and others social, which are more likely to be trustworthy?
·         Can emotions play a positive role in guiding us towards effective methods for the production and
acquisition of knowledge?
·         To what extent does emotion permeate all types of knowledge?
·         What is the difference between saying that we feel ‘the force of knowledge’ and saying that we
are certain about our beliefs?
·         What are the different ways in which emotion can inform, enhance, weaken, motivate or
otherwise influence knowledge?
 
Perception:
·         Are there limits to what we can learn about the world through perception?
·         How can we address the problems of perception using reason? How can language be used to
persuade and manipulate people in their beliefs?
·         How can our expectations affect how we perceive the world?
·         What is the scope, and what are the limits of sensory information in different areas of
knowledge?
·         To what extent do our senses give us the truth?
·         To what extent do reason, emotion and language (and other factors) affect our sense
perception?
 
Intuition:
·         Under what circumstances can intuition alone be accepted as a justification for a knowledge
claim?
·         Is there any knowledge that is accessible only through intuition?
·         If intuition does not involve conscious reasoning how can it ever be supported by evidence and
how can it be evaluated or contradicted?
·         How can we tell the difference between intuition and fiction?
·         Are some areas of knowledge more productive of explanations that are intuitively appealing?
·         To what extent do intuitively appealing explanations depend on culture or perspective, and how
do these factors influence what can or should be discarded?
·         What roles do intuition and reason play in the support of explanations?
·         Are intuitively appealing explanations more likely to be true than explanations supported by other
means?
·         Is there a sustainable distinction between instinct and intuition?
 
Memory:
·         To what extent is memory a mental agent that is involved in actively shaping our knowledge?
·         Can we know anything through the activity of memory alone?
·         How can we know whether to rely upon memory as a way of knowing?
·         Does it make sense to speak of collective memory, and, if so, how might the knowledge involved
in it differ from that of an individual?
·         In what ways do memory and sense perception interact one another to shape knowledge?
 
Imagination:
·         To what extent does imagination play a role in connecting knowledge across established
disciplines?
·         To what extent is it helpful to think of imagination as an extension of the powers of sense
perception?
·         Does imagination expand the field of knowledge or merely add to the field of conjecture?
·         How can imagination be a way of knowing if it merely proposes possibilities?
·         What are the strengths and weaknesses of using imagination as a basis for knowledge?
·         What is the relationship between imagination and various ways of knowing across the areas of
knowledge?
·         Are there limits to what can be imagined?
·         How can we decide when to trust our imagination?
·         In what ways can knowers support claims that derive from their imagination?
·         To what extent is the role of imagination constant across different areas of knowledge or does it
mean different things to specialists in different areas?
 
Faith:
·         Is it possible to have knowledge without a contribution from faith?
·         Where is the boundary between faith and confidence or hope?
·         To what extent is faith a personal way of knowing or a shared experience?
·         Is it possible for faith and reason to work compatibly together in some areas of knowledge?
 
Instinct:
·         What kinds of instinctive judgments are made within the various areas of knowledge?
·         When should instinctive judgments be questioned and when should they be accepted?
·         What is the relationship between instinct and the other ways of knowing?
 
AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE
General:
·         Does each area of knowledge contain within itself a common groundwork of explanation? What
might this imply for creation of such a common groundwork across disciplines?
·         Why would we want to create a common groundwork of explanation across all the disciplines?
·         Why might it be impossible to link facts and / or theories across some disciplines?
·         Do the traditional boundaries between disciplines correspond to differences in the facts and
theories found on either sides of these boundaries?
 
The Arts:
·         What kinds of truth are the arts capable of expressing?
·         To what extent are the insights available from the appreciation of a work of art dependent upon
the intentions of the artist?
·         What could be meant by artistic truth?
·         What might be meant by a ‘lie’ in the context of an artwork?
·         To what extent are the limits of art defined by morality?
·         Do the arts allow us to discover truths that are difficult to express in straightforward language?
·         Is knowledge in the arts the intentions of the artist, the art work itself, the views of the consumers
of the art?
·         Is artistic knowledge something that cannot be expressed in any other way?
·         How can an imaginative process such as that employed by the arts lead to knowledge about the
world?
·         What similarities and contrasts are generated when the arts and a different area of knowledge
tackle the same topic?
·         Are ways of knowing exploited in radically different ways in the arts as opposed to other areas of
knowledge?
·         Given that the product of literary activity is often fiction, how can it contribute to an understanding
of real individuals and societies?
·         To what extent is there an overlap between the contributions of literature and science to the
understanding of individuals and societies?
·         Is there more agreement in the natural sciences or the arts regarding what is ethical?
·         To what extent does the natural exploration of ethical issues in the arts intensify scrutiny of the
methods employed?  
·         Are there circumstances in which the value of the products of the natural sciences overrides any
concerns as to how these products were arrived at?
 
History:
·         To what extent should, or can, value-laden language be avoided in the writing of history?
·         To what extent can the use of reason bring us closer to the truth in history?
·         To what extent does the use of language in history influence our understanding of the past?
·         To what extent is historical reasoning dependent on the language used by the historian?
·         It has been claimed that a good historian cannot be neutral. If this is so, could the same be said
of the providers of knowledge in other areas?
·         What is the role of history in making judgments about artistic value?
 
Ethics:
·         How do moral judgments differ from other types of judgment?
·         Is there an analogue to the appeal to experiment in the natural sciences by which ethical claims
can be tested (such as, for example, appeals to ethical intuitions)?
·         To what extent can we use reason to evaluate two competing ethical systems?
·         Are there ethical claims that are true regardless of what anyone thinks of them?
·         What knowledge (if any) is completely independent of ethical responsibilities?
·         How can we know whether / when knowing something brings with it an ethical responsibility?
·         How can we be confident of the ethical responsibilities that may arise from knowing something
when that knowledge is always provisional or incomplete?
·         To what extent does the recognition of the ethical responsibilities of knowing influence the further
production or acquisition of knowledge?
·         Is there any knowledge that is completely independent of ethical responsibilities?
·         What do we mean by ‘ethical theory’ as opposed to ‘mathematical theory’ or ‘historical theory’?
·         What constitutes ‘moral wisdom’?
·         Is it the practitioners in the natural sciences and the arts or is it the societies in which they
operate which exerts a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in these areas of
knowledge?
·         To what extent do ethical judgments about methods in the natural sciences and the arts vary by
time or place?
·         At what point do the means of knowledge acquisition become unethical?
 
The Natural Sciences:
·         How can we be sure that scientific evidence gained through the use of technology is genuine?
·         How does a scientific explanation distinguish between correlation and causation?
·         How can we know when we have a good scientific explanation?
·         Is it true that all scientific beliefs are held provisionally and is this what makes science unique?
·         How does the scientific method allow scientists to develop explanations? Is there an equivalent
method in other areas of knowledge?
·         What is the nature of a scientific ‘fact’ or a scientific ‘theory’?
·         In what ways are scientific facts connected and combined to ‘build’ science?
·         How do scientists and the institutions of science cope with ‘facts’ and ‘explanations’ that change
or are falsified over time?
·         Could it ever be claimed that the natural sciences contribute more to the understanding of
individuals and societies than the human sciences do?
·         In what way can re-testing make knowledge claims more secure?
·         If re-testing means the exact reproduction of experimental or observational conditions, to what
extent is this possible in the given areas of knowledge?
·         What assumptions need to be made about the nature of scientific or human scientific knowledge
in order for re-testing to yield validity?
·         To what extent is the method of re-testing vulnerable to the problem of induction?
·         To what extent is re-testing purely a psychological requirement of human investigators?
·         What other forms of protection against research error and bias are available to scientists, and
how important are they as compared with re-testing?
·         On what foundations should ethical judgments about methods in the natural sciences and the
arts rest?
·         Are there circumstances in which the value of the products of the natural sciences overrides any
concerns as to how these products were arrived at?
 
The Human Sciences:
·         What are the strengths and limitations of quantification in the human sciences?
·         How can we distinguish causal relationships from mere correlation?
·         Are there general laws that describe human behaviour?
·         Are there areas of human experience which cannot be quantified? If so, why?
·         If an aim of the human sciences is to change the future, what is it about their nature and methods
that make this possible?
·         To what extent do the human sciences provide an understanding of the past?
·         Are the human sciences adequate to fully understand an individual?
 
History:
·         How can we draw a clear line between fact and interpretation in history?
·         How does perception work to actively interpret events in History?
·         Does our interpretation of knowledge from the past allow us to reliably predict the future?
·         How do historians look for a convergence of rational and empirical evidence to provide support
for knowledge claims?
·         It has been claimed that a good historian cannot be neutral. If this is so, could the same be said
of the providers of knowledge in other areas?
·         What methods are used in history to go about understanding the past?
·         If history is unable to change the future, what is it about its nature and methods that make this
impossible?   
 
Maths:
·         Are mathematical statements true because we define them to be so, or because we discover
them to be so?
·         To what extent do mathematics and ethics make use of the ways of knowing in similar manner?

RLS / KQ Pairs
These sets of Real Life Situations and Knowledge Questions are taken from the 2009 to 2014 TOK
Subject Reports.
 
Real life situation: BBC article: Why the brain sees maths as beauty
Knowledge issue: What is the role of aesthetic pleasure in mathematical knowledge?
 
Real life situation: The assassination of John Kennedy 50 years ago
Knowledge Issue: How can we separate myth from reality in history?
 
Real life situation: Article in The Economist regarding the success of modern science
Knowledge Issue: Does competitiveness in science augment the production of knowledge?
 
Real life situation: Map showing the top twenty world arms exporters
Knowledge Issue: Does the possession of knowledge carry an ethical responsibility?
 
Real life situation: 2013 Nobel Prize in economics given to trio who disagree about market efficiency
Knowledge Issue: What is the role of disagreement in the production of knowledge?
 
Real life situation: Examples of geographical maps which distort the territory
Knowledge issue: How can distorted representations give us knowledge?
 
Real life situation: The correlation between smoking and lung cancer
Knowledge Issue: How does emotion help or hinder our understanding of correlation?
 
Real life situation: UN warns of looming food crisis in 2013
Knowledge Issue: How do we know what is a fact?
 
Real life situation: The Ekeko amulet of the Andean Altiplano believed to bring wealth to its
worshipper.
Knowledge Issue: Why do people hold beliefs for which there is no evidence?
 
Real life situation: Wiki Leaks and the publication of secret information and news leaks.
Knowledge issue: Should there be censorship of knowledge for the public good?
 
Real life situation: The works of Salvador Dali
Knowledge Issue: To what extent do we have to know about an artist to understand his or her art?
 
Real life situation: Attempted assassination of Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai for promoting girls’
education.
Knowledge Issue: Why do we need a tragedy before we act on knowledge that we have?
Knowledge Issue: To what extent can we use reason to evaluate two competing ethical systems?
 
Real life situation: Renaming of cities in India
Knowledge Issue: To what extent do labels affect our perception?
 
Real-life situation: Vesalius in 1543 disproving the Galen theory that men had a rib less than women
Knowledge Issue: What is the role of emotion in shaping our beliefs?
 
Real-life situation: Whistle-blower Edward Snowden and NSA’s obtaining of American telephone
records
Knowledge Issue: How do we know which perspective to believe?
 
Real-life situation: Airbrushed make-up advertisements banned because they mislead
Knowledge Issue: How do we know when we have a moral obligation to act?
 
Real-life situation: The painting “On Strike” by Hubert von Herkomer
Knowledge issue: What role does language play in the accumulation of knowledge in the visual arts?
 
Real-life situation: An article about robot warrior technology and the future of warfare
Knowledge Issue: How can we distinguish between innovation and progress?
 
Real life situation: Scientific study, which shows that 1970s predictions about the environment were
wrong
Knowledge Issue: Must all good explanations make successful predictions?
Knowledge issue: How can we know when we have a good scientific explanation?
Knowledge Issue: To what extent is a scientific explanation more convincing than other types of
explanation?
 
Real life situation: Historian David Irving‟s views on the Holocaust
Knowledge Issue: How can we know which interpretation of an event in history to accept?
Knowledge Issue: How can we draw a clear line between fact and interpretation in history?
Knowledge Issue: What makes an event historically significant?
 
Real life situation: Scientists present new findings in their search for the Higgs boson.
Knowledge Issue: How much evidence do scientists need before they can accept a theory?
Knowledge Issue: How can we be sure that evidence gained through the use of technology is
genuine?
Knowledge Issue: What is the scope of the scientific method in attempting to establish truths?
 
Real life situation: The Anders Breivik mass murder case in Norway
Knowledge issue: To what extent should emotion play a role in the evaluation of knowledge claims?
Knowledge issue: To what extent is emotion a better guide to what is ethical than reason?
Knowledge Issue: Are there any absolute moral truths?
 
Real life situation: Widespread use of publicity in English in my Spanish speaking country
Knowledge Issue: To what extent does use of a non-native language affect attitudes to knowledge?
Knowledge issue: To what extent does the language we use affect our perception of the world?
 
Real life situation: Marc Quinn‟s "Self", a frozen sculpture of the artist‟s head made from his own
blood.
Knowledge issue: Are there limits to what is acceptable in art?
 
Real life situation: Messages taken to outer space in the form of diagrams
Knowledge Issue: To what extent are diagrams less culturally dependent than language?
 
Real life situation: A move to make history a compulsory school subject up to age 16
Knowledge Issue: To what extent should academic disciplines be ranked according to their
usefulness?
 
Real life situation: The use of a personality test to assess students in the class
Knowledge Issue: What are the strengths and limitations of quantification in the human sciences?
 
Real life situation: The connection between being a smoker and one‘s parents being smokers
Knowledge Issue: How does a scientific explanation distinguish between correlation and causation?
 
Real life situation: The cartoons of Prophet Muhammed published in Denmark in 2005
Knowledge Issue: How can we know if and when artistic freedom of expression should be limited?
 
Real life situation: The end of the Cold War as depicted in the song 'Winds of Change.'
Knowledge Issue: In what ways do the arts influence people's perspectives of current events?
 
Real life situation: Collecting data in physics class but correcting it to match the 'proven' theory
Knowledge Issue: To what extent is faith a reliable way of knowing?
 
Personal and Shared Knowledge
 
 
What is the difference between personal and shared knowledge?
The distinction between personal and shared knowledge is a way of recognising the difference
between the knowledge that we possess as individuals and the knowledge that we possess as a
group, community or society. The difference is best captured by the diagram below which compares
the knowledge that a number of different individuals might have about, for example, butterflies.
 
  

Here we can see that Person 1 knows very little of the shared knowledge about butterflies and
possesses only a small amount of the knowledge that is ‘available’ in this field in general. In contrast,
Person 3, the professional entomologist knows much more of the ‘available’ knowledge about
butterflies, hence her circle is bigger that Person 1’s. Interestingly, however, her knowledge of
butterflies is not any more personal than that of Person 1, even though she has had much more
contact with them. This is because most of her experience with butterflies has been under
experimental conditions, often carried out in teams and, furthermore, the vast majority of this
experience been turned into scientific knowledge that has been shared with the rest of her knowledge
community in published journals. Person 2, who is a student of the professional entomologist, is
somewhere in between the two – he knows more than Person 1 because he studies the subject and,
as we would expect, some of his shared knowledge overlaps with that of his professor. Obviously,
however, the overlap between the personal and the shared knowledge will vary depending on the
individual in question, the community that this knowledge is to be shared with and the topic.
 
 
Why have the IB recently introduced this distinction?
The answer to this seems to be that the IB is trying to make it clear that in most situations the vast
majority of our knowledge is neither personal nor individual, it’s actually shared with the rest of our
knowledge community. Too often we take the easy way out of a debate and say that what is ‘true’ for
you might not be ‘true’ for me and that we can both have our own ‘truths’ and that’s all right. However,
that’s clearly an over-simplification because there are many situations where that kind of compromise
doesn’t apply – even in subjective areas like the arts it seems that there can be interpretations that
are more convincing and thus ‘better’ than others and very few people would seriously argue in ethics
that cold blooded murder is fine. As such there are good reasons to believe that a lot of our
knowledge, even in subjects like these, is shared.
 
As such, these diagrams are meant to suggest that although there are times when knowledge really is
personal (perhaps I really am the only person to truly know how I feel when I hear Beethoven’s
midnight sonata) this is really an exception rather than the rule and we have to bear in mind that much
of our knowledge is generated in conjunction with others: the pursuit of knowledge is a communal
undertaking
 
Beyond this, the diagrams seem to be designed to make us think about this personal / shared
distinction in as sophisticated a way possible as they suggest that there an infinite variety of different
relationships possible between the individual knower and his / her knowledge community. The exact
nature of the relationship will depend on the topic in question, the educational experience of the
individual, the methods used by that individual to acquire the knowledge in question … etc.
 
 
How should I use this in my assessments?
As with anything, the real answer is ‘only when it’s relevant.’ So keep your eyes open for situations in
which this distinction between the personal and the shared might apply to the topic or question that
you are exploring … however, one potentially effective way of including this distinction between the
personal and the shared is as a way of exploring different perspectives on the same knowledge
question. For example, if you are answering a question about whether progress is possible in the arts
then it might be interesting to compare the personal with the shared / communal perspective on this
question. From a personal perspective it seems clear to me that I am capable of making progress in
my own individual understanding of the arts and in my skill as an artist but it’s not as clear that the
entire global community of artists who already have access to all of the skills and techniques of art
from throughout history, can progress in quite the same way. It’s also worth bearing in mind that the
tools that the community have at the disposal in their pursuit of knowledge are not necessarily the
same as those that the individual has at his / her disposal.

Examples of TOK Presentation

2015 Presentation Model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K3RPhENBYY

How to do a TOK Presentation Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJYvNDrbGBU

Causation vs Correlation : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGUD3k62nyw#action=share

Ethical Science : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p14ITfEVqk#action=share