Category: TOK

Posted on

12 Angry Men (1957) and ToK

As of this year, I have a new TOK class so it will be a bit difficult to catch up and getting back on track in terms of TOK.
Anyways, yesterday in our TOK class we looked at a film from 1957 called 12 angry men. At first glance, it seems to be a film that represents the attitude we should have in TOK in the sense that we should be open-minded and not assume certain things about a topic for instance. To have doubt and be open to change so that we do not let our own judgements to cloud certain things as in that we don’t just say that is right that is wrong or something similar to that.
However, I believe, there was a deeper sense of meaning in the film in terms of TOK. In some ways, the art of filmmaking was used to describe the transition and the journey that each of the jurors took to go from deciding whether the boy was guilty to not guilty. At first, all of the jurors except for juror number 8 voted, without any doubt, that the boy was guilty assuming that the evidence they heard was undoubtedly convincing and determined. Yet, as juror #8 decides he wants to discuss about the crime, each fo the juror goes from being angry (mostly because of believing that it was obvious that the boy was guilty and felt that they wasted time discussing), to feel a sense of doubt. Art was used to conveying that journey of emotion, for instance, the transition from the weather being hot to rain (hot-headed to more emotional), removing their jacket (the darkness to visibly lighter converting that emotional transition). However, the reason they switched their vote was mainly due to each of their own personal emotional connection to reason.
In the film, many of the jurors used to reason to decide whether the evidence was certain using logical arguments to make their case. In some ways, they use reason along with other ways of knowing such as intuition, imagination, sense perception, emotion and language. For instance how language is used to determine the motive or causation to action (that you might say I will kill but it is only a threat and doesn’t mean you will actually kill). Another point is using imagination to imagine the situation and using the intuition they have and the sensory perception of the past (the sound of the train and voices for instance. Although a minor point, one could argue memory was used by the jurors because using their own past experiences and judgements shaped by their life to argue about the evidence. In one case, the emotion was used by on juror when the 10th Juror and 5th Juror get into an argument over 10th Juror’s citing the boy’s slum background as evidence for his being “trash.” 5th Juror is angered by this, having grown up in a slum himself.
So in that sense, their emotional response to each of their switch sort of brings up the equation if there is an ability to remove any bias because of the fact that they didn’t switch until something personal came up (like the glasses marks of one juror, to the old man to the juror’s slum background and so on). Therefore, in larger more serious cases like this shown in the film, it would be extremely difficult for individuals to be neutral especially when there is an emotional connection. Although a minor point, speaking with a partner about the “illusion of rationality” and how these jurors believed they were rational but only when they were confronted with some emotional connection, that rationality was lost.
Jurors must have lots of reliable facts to make their fair judgements. But ever having enough facts may well be impossible in order to make completely fair judgements (and what counts as fair is a whole other question, but assume the basic values of what counts as fair let say in the UWCSEA community). This is because these jurors were not there at the act nor were they the actual victim and perpetrators themselves. As of right now, it is impossible to know exactly what another person is saying even if they are big as open and honest as they can. Thus, the jurors can not fully believe in the motive or claim the perpetrator says. Of course, they must use the evidence but there is always a certain of doubt in everything so even if the case is ruled out to be completely true and the perpetrator is found guilty, how can capital punishment be a fair judgement. Therefore, not only is the question of what is fair debatable, but also that we can not truly know the whole truth. That brings up the area of knowledge of ethics because in this film the ethical judgement is that the juror’s decision determines the boy’s life. That also brings another dimension to the film. 

Posted on

TOK End of Year Reflection

TOK has been quite unusual this year in the sense that it has been quite confusing at times. Perhaps it is the difficulty to understand the TOK concepts and so I need to go back to the textbook quite often and look for resources to understand. In the beginning it was really difficult, especially what knowledge questions and statements where but gradually, through self-studying it made more sense.

TOK I guess is the course that allows me and other students to reflect on knowledge and how we know, what we know.  The concepts we’ve been looking at is the Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge

In that, we look at the methodology of each area of knowledge, link to personal and shared knowledge, historical development, the scope/applications as well as the language and concepts.

I kind of enjoy TOK both because I find the philosophy aspect quite interesting but also because it is fun to categorise knowledge into different groups. In some ways, us humans love to categorise and make patterns and links, but of course, there is, unfortunately, a danger to categorise thinks to dangerous concepts like racial categories, or categories people into different groups that could eventually become prejudice or dehumanising these people.

I feel like with knowledge comes responsibility, similar to that with power comes responsibility. Knowledge is also power because in the sense that you have something more useful than others and you know something that others don’t know perhaps. This could be exploited and similar to people having power, one can get consumed by it and eventually has this dire consequences on others of the environment. Using knowledge for good is the key thing and so with knowledge does come to the responsibility to limit any unethical and immoral consequences on others or the environment around us. Knowledge is powerful.

Interestingly, I feel like culture has a huge part in knowledge. In my TOK presentation, he primary knowledge question that I examined is How might culture conflict with the reliability of models in the human sciences? In a way, also can models of human behaviour ever be reliable? Cultural values, which in turn has a large influence on our human behaviour, have played a large role in decision making in politics, communal activities, systems and other models. This is no different to the real life situation of Sweden’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting countries all around the world but each country is experiencing their own epidemic and have used certain models in order to fight back against it. Sweden has been controversial with it’s approach to the pandemic because of the government’s refusal to lock down, approaching the outbreak with a ‘mitigation’ strategy to save lives and to ease the spread. Anders Tegnell, the chief epidemiologist and in charge of the swedish strategy and model, in a quote in the Financial times, described the model as “It’s a big mistake to sit down and say ‘we should just wait for a vaccine’. It will take much longer than we think. And in the end, we don’t know how good a vaccine it will be. It’s another reason to have a sustainability policy in place.”

 This is not a herd immunity approach but rather a model that aims to allow society to continue except for high-risk areas, high-risk groups and the trust to abide by social distancing rules. However with that said, Sweden stands alone in Europe in which some schools continue to remain open and restaurants and bars continue with its business apart from minor precautions. As of June the 1st, Sweden has 37,542 confirmed cases and 4,395 deaths. This is much higher than any of the neighbouring Nordic countries and also keep in mind that the number of confirmed cases may be higher as Sweden isn’t as aggressive at testing as other countries, and mainly test those who are very sick. 

Sweden’s government has made a priority to protect risk groups like the elderly and have strongly encouraged them to stay home and others to not visit them. Groups of more than 50 people are not allowed and all universities and Gymnasium schools are closed. Many work from home and restaurants are ordered to close if they don’t follow social distancing rules. Sweden’s model works by placing trust in citizens to abide in social distancing practices while still being able to live freely.

The use of models through influence of human behaviour and culture is best examined through the knowledge acquisition and application in the human sciences because of the use of assumptions of human behavior and prior knowledge in the field to make models and predictions where culture can play a large role in influencing these models and assumptions. Behaviour is never a fixed thing, we can’t quantify behaviour, so these assumptions must be considered carefully.

In the human sciences, the mathematical modelling behind the creation of models that are theoretical and are to be applied in the real world which can be good representations of what is happening in the real world. All models have to have mathematical representations in order to quantity and be able to apply and predict, with assumptions such as the assumptions of human behaviour. However, some aspects of these models are assumptions where the scientists and in this case the epidemiologists have to be honest with the assumptions they make. Although some things are factual behind the models, the assumptions have to be made as no model can be applied to all contexts. 

What I have learned is that the reason why the model could work in Sweden is because of perhaps three things:

  1. Trust. Trust is seen to be a basic component in Swedish society. Trust is mutually reciprocated: Trust in the government and trust in each other. Instead of the draconian laws established in other countries, the Swedish government has trust that citizens will follow guidelines and behave in a civil and considerate manner. About 70% of Swedes support their government’s approach. In fact, there has not been much public debate or organised opposition to the model proposed by the Swedish government. 
  2. Responsibility and independence. Since a young age, the concept of responsibility is articulated clearly and encouraged across the home, school and workplace environment. Therefore, taking up responsibility without the need of micro-management becomes a social norm and is expected of citizens. Most young people live alone and many children are independent at a very young age. In addition, unlike many other European countries, it was assumed that swedish people meet less people on average, especially in greeting where the kisses and shaking is not as prolonged as in for instance France or Italy. However, unlike in Norway where the nursing homes are much smaller, there was a huge wave of infections in the large nursing homes in Sweden which accounted for most of the deaths, especially in the Stockholm region. This assumption was not taken in and perhaps made the model less reliable.
  3. Long-term thinking. Success is very much attributed to the outcome in the long term. A long term and holistic view is the attitude that Swedes have approached the COVID issue. For instance, Instead of just considering infection rates and fatalities, the total long term impact of lockdown on overall health, on the treatment of other illnesses, academic achievement, employment possibilities and other lifetime outcomes has been taken into consideration. Instead of short term personal benefits, citizens have been accustomed to thinking about what is best for the community as opposed to the individual. 

In some ways I do hope that the Swedish model will work but so far it doesn’t seem so. Anyways, it seems to me that culture really does have a huge influence on knowledge.

Posted on

TOK Arts Common Assessment

What counts as knowledge in the Arts?

 

Knowledge in the arts is something quite subjective and is not as intuitive as other areas of knowledge such as the natural sciences or religious knowledge systems. This may be because the scope of the arts can in some ways seem unlimited unlike other Areas of Knowledge like the Natural Sciences where there is a clear scope and the content lies within the physical and natural properties of the universe. Art can also in some ways feel exclusive yet also too inclusive of everything in that anything can be art. Since art can be used as some sort of social function and in shaping belief to express ideas, that could be the knowledge generated through arts. 

 

However, personal and shared knowledge can be quite different from each other and reveal another possible knowledge created in the arts which are quite similar to the relationship between shared and personal knowledge in mathematics where intuition, emotion and imagination can give huge insights and discoveries in maths. For instance, a parent may have an emotional attachment to a piece of hand-drawn artwork their kid drew them (even if it may not be a masterpiece) however the wider community do not share that same experience of evaluability and knowledge that the parent has. However, where mathematics and arts differ, is the accumulation of shared knowledge. While maths builds upon ideas and creates new proofs, concepts and axioms, the arts can sometimes completely throw down ideas, conventions and values in the art to create something completely different, although some art styles are built upon others. Historically, knowledge in the arts is constantly changing yet there is the point in that most present-day art forms have had influence of older art forms. In other words, it can create confusion about what counts as knowledge in the arts. 

 

Furthermore, what counts as knowledge in the arts can get even more confusing when looking at truth and art expressing that truth of us in humans. On one hand, photography and realistic art could be considered as the highest form there is due to its realistic nature, although, that being said, even photography can lie. A piece of artwork is not actually showing, for instance, an apple, and is instead just a picture. On the other hand, art could also be considered as artificial and is something unique that is only itself which could indicate that there is another purpose or another way to gain knowledge. Despite this confusion, art may create knowledge that is emotional and moral and possibly even something that is attractive or aesthetic to look and experience. Think about the last time you listened to music or read a book or looking at a piece of artwork. You felt some sort of emotion and possibly even some insight into morality or your own self-awareness. 

 

In that case, art provides something for us and provides knowledge that possibly science and mathematics cannot, in which the emotions and thoughts that arise from art counts as knowledge in the arts. While mathematics has direct and explicit rules and knowledge created, the knowledge in the art is vaguer in that it is created in the opinions and thoughts created by the reader through his/her experience. In other words, our interpretation. How the creator and viewer interact with art is both unique and varied, and that knowledge created can be very valuable. What counts as knowledge in the arts is in that case, similar to the proverb—in the eye of the beholder. 

 

Posted on

TOK Portfolio Post: Natural Sciences #1

For a few lessons, we’ve been discussing the Natural Sciences which is the study of the natural and physical world using the scientific method of observation and experiment to find the truth about phenomena. The natural sciences include Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Astronomy and Cosmology. Most people agree that natural sciences is the most reliable and trustworthy of all the Areas of Knowledge in terms of truth, because of the methodology. In other words the scientific method where a hypothesis is made, a prediction is created afterwards and then through experimentation and observation, the hypothesis is either proven wrong (and thus a new hypothesis is created) or it is proven right and along with other hypothesises, it can make a theory. Theories are not like possible truths, they are rather the most closet things to truth there can be. The name itself may seem misleading, and theories could be considered as laws, as they are of the highest form in natural science. However, theories can be tweaked, improved and even falsified with new evidence. Models, assumptions and other methodology also contribute to the reliability of science.

Another important factor in that the Natural Sciences is trustworthy is the application of shared knowledge. Science is always built upon many different individual’s knowledge and improved to get closer to the truth. Science is dynamic and always changing. When a new theory is proposed or added to an existing theory, the science community conduct peer review journals to really validate the claim. In terms of the Ways of Knowing, language, perception, reason and in some cases emotion, intuition and imagination are all ways in which sciences contribute and add to knowledge. Quite surprisingly, emotion and imagination can be important qualities and ways of knowing to science because of the need for curiosity and interest to move forward in science.

Of course, they can interfere which is why reasoning, perception and language are more reliable ways of knowing in the case of the sciences. This is because science is partly based on observations and reasoning from experiments and observations and this is important in the distinction of uncertainty and certainty. Uncertainty doesn’t mean that the scientists are wrong but rather that no evidence can reach 100 per cent certainty. That is why experiments are repeated to reduce the uncertainty for instance. Language is very important in science and they are usually derived from Greek or Latin (more of a traditional reason than anything else) Science uses specific language, models, diagrams, mathematics and graphs to represent, explain and deduct knowledge. In some cases, the same words can mean differently in the public compared to scientific meaning such as positive feedback where it might mean good response in the public but in science, it is a self-reinforcing cycle. As we can see, natural science could be considered the most reliable fo the AOKs

Furthermore, we are going to have a debate and we’ve had a debate (with the whole grade with other TOK teachers and other teachers as well) on natural science and ethics, and a whole grade debate on which has more value, the arts or science. For me, the distinction between science and ethics is simple. Science is just a tool and a system to get closer to the truth but ethics is needed to make sure that the scientific innovations and quest for knowledge is beneficial for us humans and the environment around us. Science is the one that has proven that climate change is real and serious (there is no debate in that) but it is ethics and in some cases other AOKs that allow us to make change and reason what is right, so in this case to solve the climate crisis.

The arts for me has a purpose and no purpose. The arts are uniquely human and depending on different people, the arts have a different purpose to different people. Some find it life motivating, some find it beautiful and care only for the attractiveness of it. Others believe that art gives purpose to life while others believe it should represent life. Some people may argue that the arts are a way to express feelings, emotion, and change for activism while others care only for its symbolic and thought-provoking ideas. Others just see it as fun and enjoyable, to give colour to the arts. I have been told that I can’t say that science and art are of equal value (which is sort of why I believe) so I will choose a side.

At first thought, along with other thoughts, the art has more value because it has always existed and gives life more purpose (because of it’s nature to have any purpose) and also to give life more enjoyment and emotion which are human. With only science, it becomes dull and no one wants that and most people love the arts. Also, it is science, or at least the quest for growth and discovery, that lead to climate change due to the innovation in fossil fuel technology. However, this is where I change, although arts has for the most part been more valuable than science before the industrial revolution era, science is now the most valuable. It was science that realised the effects of what it had done, so now it uses other AOKs, to change it, mainly ethics with science. The arts may give stories and make a change in terms of awareness more than the statistics in science, but it is the tools in science that allow to make a profound change. On the other hand, people in the arts hae faith that science is valuable for instance when flying aeroplanes. Also, one could argue that science has existed, even without the scientific method in the form of curiosity and the development of new technology. So in that sense, it is science that gave fuel to the arts, that allowed new art forms to form and progress. So, although they both are valuable, it is science that is the most valuable from the ground up.

 

Posted on

Two Paragraph Reflection on the Key Concepts of TOK

We’ve been through a quite a slow start in TOK because of the many events that have happened on Monday (when we have a TOK lesson). It has also been a slow start until actually today (7th October) about grasping the TOK course and the knowledge behind it which may have been because of the missed lessons and an unfamiliar approach to teaching. Although the presentations were slightly helpful at times that our teacher gave us (and they were very artistic and attractive, with good design), I felt as though the activities didn’t really help me understand the TOK concepts. However, by looking back and looking through textbooks including that of Nick Alchin, I was able to almost fully understand all the concepts. So the things we talked about and the things I learned individually were these concepts:

  1. The Areas of Knowledge
  2. The Ways of Knowing
  3. Knowledge Claims
  4. Knowledge Questions
  5. Shared and Personal Knowledge

We learned these 5 concepts along with some analytical skills by using these concepts.

Firstly, we looked at the areas of knowledge (AOK) as well as the ways of knowing (WOK). AOKs are the different areas of knowledge or in other words, the different things that we know that we group as science or maths or history. The ways of knowing are all about how we know the things we know, what aspects of knowledge have been derived from these ways knowing such as reason or perception. Below are some beautiful mind maps our teacher created on the AOK and WOK.  

Furthermore, we talked about knowledge claims and questions which are essential and the heart of TOK. A Knowledge question such as How much evidence do scientists need before they accept a theory is true? In other words, knowledge questions or second-order questions, are questions on knowledge itself. Similarly, knowledge claims are claims that make assertions to truth

Finally, we talked about shared and personal knowledge which is basically what we know from our own experiences (personal) and what other people (sometimes including the personal) collectively know. So for example, I like the colour green is personal knowledge while for example the study of motion in physics is a discipline that has been built up for centuries by many different individuals and groups, is shared knowledge.

Posted on

First TOK Reflection

    1. How we “know” and with what “certainty” differs across areas of knowledge. Explain giving examples. (300 words, 2 examples of AOKs). 

    Across all eight areas of knowledge, the knowledge in each of them has been built upon and improved on over many centuries or even millennia by many individuals across the history of humanity. These areas of knowledge or continuing in changing and adapting to new knowledge that is either created or discovered. Through this discovery and creation of knowledge, it opens up for knowledge questions such as, if all scientific experiments have ‘uncertainty’ how can we know ‘truth’ in science? However, the scientific method is still considered the most reliable way to verify knowledge claims. Or even if art should be beautiful? Throughout the different areas of knowledge, individuals and societies have collectively built upon knowledge and so what we know is through their experiences and even ours. For instance, we know of the existence of atoms because many individuals have theorised and given proof to this existence and there is even physical proof through experiments and direct observation of these atoms. However, this may contradict to the areas of indigenous or religious knowledge systems, who may not believe or are aware in some cases (as they have other more important knowledge including that of survival) in the existence of atoms nor other natural science phenomena such as evolution. This, in turn, makes it difficult to know if what we know is actually true. 

    For some, the truth in anything is through logical, reason and observation such as in the natural sciences or mathematics, while for others what is truth is through our own beliefs and values that we may be given by other individuals or our experiences or perceived seeing, such as religious knowledge systems. This creates uncertainty because even logic and reason may have uncertainty and problems associated with it meaning that what we know may all be false. In one sense what we know is all the things we think holds true and false or even neither in some cases. Each individual will have a different perspective on each of the areas of knowledge. In addition, each area of knowledge may have different uncertainty. Mathematics may have the least uncertainty because of its nature in finding proof through deductive reasoning, while on the other hand, religious knowledge systems have their knowledge based on faith, which is not only different to different individuals but has also high uncertainty because of its nature of believing without seeing and logic. For many, this may seem of high uncertainty. Finally, on final thing I want to touch on is that in TOK, there are eight ways of knowing which are language, perception, emotion, memory, intuition, imagination, faith and reason. All in all, these eight ways of knowing are the ways of how we know the things we do and certainty varies between each area but some are more certain than others.