TOK Compilation Series 1

8/6/2019 TOK Compilation Series 1

1/19

Jamnabai Narsee School-IBDPTOK COURSE COMPILATION_ SERIES_1

1

We PLANT OUR TREE OF KNOWLEDGE; LET THIS BE OUR SPEAKINGTREE.

Compiled by theJNS TOK TEAM


2/19


2

CONTENTS

Page no

1 Example of a Real Life Situation 32 Rationalism vs Empiricism 43 Basis of Knowledge 54 The Concept of Knowledge 85 Truth & Theories of truth- an overview 11

6 Knowledge issue 14

7 Bibliography 17


3/19


3

A Real Life Situation

Consider the story below which is about a husband and wife as an example of two

different kinds of knowers.

Once upon a time there was a woman who thought she heard a burglar downstairs. She woke up her

husband

Woman: Honey, I think someone is in the house. Please go and look.

Man: Theres no one in the house. If someone were in the house the alarm would

have gone off. Go back to sleep.

Woman: Maybe someone cut the wires.

Man: Dont be silly. The dog would have barked.

Woman: Maybe they chloroformed the dog. Please go look for me.So down he went, and looked around, then came b ack up

Man: There, Ive looked. No one is in the house.

Woman: Well, did you look everywhere?

Man: Yes.

Woman: Did you look in the kitchen?

Man: Yes.

Woman: Well, maybe when you were in the kitchen, he was in the living room.

And so on

Two approaches to belief that the couple used . The husband was rational towards his approach while the wife believed in the empirical approach. Given

below are the terminologies to approach these beliefs

Rational Empirical

Logic Experience

Reasoning Observation

Sitting and thinking Going and looking

In philosophical terms, one is the empirical and the other is the rational; in simpler terms, one relies on

observation and experience while the other relies on logic and reasoning


4/19


4

RATIONALISM VS EMPIRICISM

Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Rationalism: belief that the most genuine and informative knowledge is based upon reason and not

raw experience

Empiricism: belief that the most genuine and informative knowledge is based upon experience

Rationalists believe that real knowledge about the world can be discovered with ones ability to reason

alone.

Consequently, one can discover things about the world through ones capacity to reason.

Empiricists believe that rational calculation can be based only upon sense experience.

Consequently, sense perception precedes the ability to reason and all real knowledge is based upon sense

perception of some form.

(E.g., mathematics as a rationalist inquiry vs. natural science as an empirical investigation )

Realism: the belief that there is a knowable external world, which exists independently of us, of whichwe can know through sense perception

Idealism: the belief that our knowledge exists only in our minds and we cannot verify the external

world

Deduction is from general to the particular, induction vice versa.

Value:

Deduction is more certain but less informative than induction.

It is very useful in a search for reliable knowledge.

the structure of the argument, not the content is important;

Induction goes beyond the immediate evidence of our senses, thus not always reliable;

Induction is more informative, less certain than deduction.


5/19


5

Induction goes beyond the immediate evidence of our senses, and is therefore unreliable.

This tendency worsens the phenomenon of the confirmation bias.

All French people are rude;

Women are unfit to fly planes;

Indian children are deprived;

European children are gluttons.

Basis Of Knowledge, Rationalism & Empiricisms

BELIEFS &EVIDENCE

The main difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledge requires proof but it is not fully clear how

much proof or evidence is required.

There are at least two types of evidence; there is direct evidence of the senses when we can see that such and

such is the case. This is commonly referred to as empirical evidence and is what is generally used to prove

whether something is true in everyday life. However we often go way beyond what we can directly see and make

claims to "know" things that we cannot see. For instance we might claim to know what someone is thinking when

we have no direct access to their minds or we know that something is still in its place when we cannot see itdirectly know that animals evolved through a process of the survival of the fittest (i.e.c;I theory).

The other type of evidence is what might be called indirect evidence, or evidence that we already accept

which fits in with what we claim to know. This is often called the coherence theory of truth; in a law

court it would be circumstantial evidence and it makes the claim to know the truth stronger and more

acceptable, without actually proving it. For example the claim to "know" that X did the murder could be

supported by knowledge of a motive and an opportunity but these do not themselves prove the case.

In everyday life we usually require KNOWLEDGE of particular facts to help us "get on"; invariably we

look to empirical evidence to support our claims to know things (e.g. we saw it, we heard someone say

so, it's written there etc.) However in the area of more general explanatory knowledge about the world

both kinds of evidence are very important and sometimes they are interlinked.


6/19


6

An example from earlier times; the claim to "know" that the world was both still and the centre of the

universe. This was supported by empirical evidence, notably that it does not feel as though it is moving

and it certainly looks as though everything goes around it (the sun, moon and stars all rise in the East, go

across the sky, set in the West and look as though they continue their routes on the far side of the Earth

once a day). The Earth also looks a lot bigger than the sun, moon and stars (Which were thought to be

only a few miles above the Earth's surface); this is direct observation but it helps support the claim to

know the Earth is in the centre because of the related idea that in general smaller objects go round larger

ones so it is an aspect of coherence. Similarly the empirical observation that objects appear to fall

straight down; this is indirect evidence as it is based on a related idea that if the world was moving then

things would fall down at an angle, but, as they don't, the world cannot be moving. Other related

observations would include the lack of consistently strong winds, which it was argued, would have

occurred if the world spun on its axis.

A more clear cut example of coherence in this case would be religious ideas which put the Earth in the

centre because it was supposedly created first, or because the Earth is where Jesus or Mohammed were;

generally because it is where Gods most important creation is, i.e. man.

So the "knowledge" that the world was in the centre of the universe and did not move was supported by

a strong body of evidence, both direct empirical evidence and indirect evidence (other accepted ideas)that cohered with the notion that the Earth is in the centre. In this way we could call it knowledge; it

fitted in with a "world view" and with observations. The latter requirement of empirical evidence is what

differentiates it from belief; this is not so much because empirical evidence can prove things true but

more because empirical evidence can prove things false.

Another example will show what this means. The "knowledge" that an imbalance of the Four Humors

(blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm) causes illness was accepted for over 2,000 years. It fitted

empirical evidence such as the presence of these humors in abundance at times of illness which

corresponded with the Seasons, blood diseases being most prevalent in Spring, yellow bile diseases in

summer and so on; and it fitted other theories such as the idea of the Four Elements (Earth, Air, Fire and

Water), the idea of tides Oust as the moon was known to effect the tides of the Sea so it was thought it

effected the tides of the liquids in the body), and the idea of balance and harmony being connected to

well-being (which idea originally came from Pythagoras). As in the above case of the Earth being the


7/19


7

centre, so here we have a strong claim to knowledge both as regards empirical evidence and also

coherence.

This theory was disproved by empirical observations under controlled conditions (what we call

experiments). The idea of the Four Humors was disproved by the work of, among others, Lavoisier who

showed that the Air, supposedly one element, actually consisted of two, one of these being oxygen. So

one of the pillars of the Four Humors theory - the four elements was taken away. Pasteur later showed

that germs cause disease but belief in the Four Humors had already died out.

Similarly discoveries of the size of the Solar System and the Sun, not to mention the distance of the stars

all helped to disprove the Earth -centered system.

In both the above cases then the old "Knowledge" was disproved by empirical observation, which either

undermined the idea or undermined related ideas which could no longer support the "knowledge". Why

not call these ideas "beliefs" then since they are no longer justified or true? Of course many people

would call these old ideas "beliefs" but it is worth considering that they are different to other kinds of

beliefs such as religious ones. For whereas the two ideas discussed of the Earth being in the centre and

the Four Humors theory were believed for many years they were expressed in such a way that it was

possible to disprove them provided the relevant observations were made (which of course happened in

the end). However religious beliefs do not depend on empirical observation; there is no observation that

could disprove the existence of God. So you could say that there are two types of belief; those that it is

possible to disprove with empirical evidence and those that it is not. Knowledge comes under the firstcategory; unlike belief, knowledge can be wrong. It is our attitude to certainty that is the main

difference. With beliefs we can be certain in the conviction that nothing can make us change our minds;

with knowledge we can be certain only to the extent that the evidence makes us sure but always with the

proviso that fresh evidence could make us change our minds.

Some philosophers such as Karl Popper have suggested that this is the key feature that differentiates

proper science from other beliefs; it consists of statements that can be checked against the evidence.

Usually in science this means that we have a theory that we can make predictions from and then we can

perform experiments to check whether these predictions work; if they do not work then we have to get

rid of the theory and come up with a better one. In science then, all knowledge ( in the theoretical sense)

is provisional. Belief, however, is more like a commitment.


8/19


8

THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE

What is knowledge? And how does it differ from belief? To answer these questions it is important to consider

how we use the word "know" - to analyze the criteria or requirements for the correct use of any statement

where a state of knowledge is asserted.

First Requirement: the statement of knowledge must be true - the objective component of

knowledge.

The point is that what isn't true cannot be knowledge. If a person claims to know something (say, that Paris is

the capital of Spain) and then finds out that it is not true that person will have to admit that he didn't know; he

only thought he knew. He will have to withdraw his claim to knowledge. You can't know what so isnt .

In this respect "knowing" something is different from "believing" something. In the above example the person

would have to admit that he did not in fact know about Paris when he discovers the truth, but if he had only

claimed that he believed that Paris was the capital of Spain then, when he discovered the truth he could still

maintain that he had believed that error. Using the word "belief" refers to ones state of mind, not to an

objective state of affairs in the world. You can perfectly well believe a statement is true although it is not, but

you cannot know a statement is true when it is not. Unlike the word "belief' the word "know" is a success-wor

- it does not merely describe your state of mind, it also puts the stamp of truth on it. Where P stands for any

proposition or statement, "She knew that p, but p was not true" is a contradiction in terms, but the statement,"She believed that P, but p was not true" is all right people often have false beliefs. The requirement of truth,

however, is not enough.

Second Requirement: you must believe that the statement is true - the subjective component of

knowledge.

When you say "I know that p" you are, if you are honest, also claiming that you believe it. It would not make

sense to say "I know that the Earth is round, but I don't believe it". Sometimes people find it difficult to accept

the truth and may say something contradictory like that; for instance an ardent member of the flat. Earth

Society might say that. But what would he mean? Either he would mean that he does know but is too shocked

to come to terms with this knowledge and can't accept it, or he may mean that he feels that he ought to know it

because it has been proved to him, but he doesn't accept the proof. And this gives rise to the third requirement

of Knowledge.


9/19


9

Third Requirement: there must be good evidence for believing the statement.

In other words there must be a good reason or proof that P is true to claim to know it. If you claimed to know

something for which you had no proof or reason, say, that a horse would win a race, then you are not entitled

to claim this as knowledge even if your prediction comes true; it was just a lucky guess. You could not claim

that you knew before the race (unless you had arranged for all the other horses to be doped - in which case you

'would be justified in claiming you knew as this would constitute good proof or reason). To claim to know

something one must have adequate or good evidence; the belief in P must be justified.

The problem immediately arises as to how much proof is adequate or "good"? Is it so much proof or evidence

that you are absolutely certain that there is no possibility of being wrong. Some people argue that this is

impossible; that, although silly to imagine, it is possible that we could be mistaken about the most obvious

things. Can you be certain that there are chairs in the room next door, or that a pregnant woman won't give

birth to a kiwi fruit, or that the next time you throw something up in the air it won't just disappear. A

philosopher, Bertrand Russell, argued that the Earth could have been created, full with memories and "old

things" just five minutes ago. Descartes argued that you could doubt everything except your own existence -

("I think therefore I am"); a modern version of this is known as "brain in a vat" -which is a bit like the premise

of the film "The Matrix" where everyone's experiences are just electronically stimulated in the neural

pathways of the brain and so everything is an illusion .... but it is not possible that you thinking it is an

illusion. People who argue in this way, saying that we cannot know things for sure are called skeptics.

Often all the proof we need to be certain we know does not stand up to scrutiny; after all people used to be

pretty certain that the Earth was still and in the centre of the universe; there was plenty of "proof' - the senses

afforded no direct experience of movement, things behaved as though the Earth were still, everything appeared

to move around it and religion appeared to support the idea. To question it appeared to go against common

sense; people claimed that they knew the Earth was in the centre - how much more proof could there be? How

stupid was it to doubt it? Yet clearly they didn't know. They didn't have enough proof.

Some things we can claim to know because not only are they true but they must be true; these are things that

are logically certain. A mathematical ,statement such as "Two add two equals four" is, it could be argued, true

by the very definitions of the words involved; it could not be false in any conceivable circumstances. So we

can be entitled to claim to know it. Knowledge that is true by virtue of pure reason is certain; and it is often

described as an analytic truth. Much mathematical knowledge is like this. People who believe that our

knowledge derives principally from reason are known as rationalists.


10/19


10

However when we use the word "knowledge" we usually mean it to refer to things that are not necessarily true

but just happen to be true, i.e. they could be false. These things we need evidence for and it is often from the

senses. Statements that we claim to know through the evidence of our senses we call empirical statements and

a person who claims that our knowledge derives from the senses is an empiricist.

Much of what we claim to know in fact comes from what other people have told us either in spoken or written

form. We accept their views or statements because we regard them as authorities and this goes for parents,

teachers, specialists in fields of knowledge and so on.

Most of the time the proof of the things we claim to know is a mixture of all three types; we claim to know

something if we observe evidence, if it is supported by "authorities" and if it fits in with other ideas we have.

In fact if one of these contradicts what we claim to know we would change our minds about whether in fact we

did know. The condition that our claim to knowledge should not be inconsistent with other things we know is

called the coherence theory of truth. For example, believing that the Earth is the centre of the universe coheres

with (and so is supported by) the belief that God's most important creation, man, is on Earth - for where else

would he put his main achievement, if not the centre?

So we could claim to know that, say, a book will drop to the floor when you let go of it because you have

observed similar things happen before (empirical observation), you assume (expect) that this kind of thing

will continue to happen (mixture of empiricism and rationalism, assuming there is some kind of order in the

world) and you have studied about gravity in Science lessons (authority). This all fits together (coherence)

we can claim to know this will happen.


11/19


11

The investigation of the nature and limits of knowledge is not possible without reference to the

truth.

What, then, is truth?

Three different theories of truth are given below, none of them satisfactory, yet each suggests some

fragment of the truth. With their help, we can negotiate through the extremes of dogmatism (the belief

that you possess absolute truth) and relativism (the belief that there is no truth to possess).

Truth

Truth is a tricky word. What is truth? On the everyday level we seem to have no problem dealing with

the concept. (It is ten oclock. No, thats not true. Yes, it is.) However, some confusion may lie in the

overuse of the word as an intensive, so consider the following:

A true friend

True to his wife

A true likeness

The true meaning of democracy

The door hangs true

True to life True diamonds

The whole truth

Nothing but the truth

Truth tables in maths

I love you truly

The truth hurts

Try to translate the truth terms above into something synonymous with loyal, straight, accurate, real

and so on. Yet no matter how the word truth is used in daily conversation, when we come to apply it to

knowledge claims there are some definite parameters. One thing we can say right away is that truth is a

judgement we make about a proposition. The cat is on the mat. It is raining. Every event has a cause .


12/19


12

Someone says P is true, someone else says that it is not. Thats not all there is to it but its a good

beginning.

As a minimum, you should be able to bring an understanding of three basic truth tests to the treatment of

an essay topic such as: Discuss the characteristics and the merits of the three different truth tests: the

correspondence, coherence and the pragmatic and how they might intertwine in some way.

Each truth test with its elaborate theories deserves pages and pages that we cannot go into here but for

our purposes you need to have some introductory understanding. So as you read these preliminary

explanations, you should see where each connects with the rational and the empirical basis of

knowledge. The coherence truth test links to rationalism, while the correspondence truth test links to

empiricism. You can decide for yourself about the pragmatic truth test.

Theories of Truth:

The Correspondence Theory of Truth

knowledge valid on the basis of its correspondence with the outside world or experience .Knowledge

can be considered true because it corresponds to reality.

Example The statement The sky is blue is true only if the sky is blue.

Coherence theory of truth

Knowledge valid on the basis of the coherence of some set of beliefs or propositions. Knowledge is

considered true because it is in agreement with other propositions and facts. Truth is referential.

Some problems and objections:

Where do the first propositions come from? How are they verified? (On correspondence with reality?)

What if there are multiple systems of truths and propositions which cohere but contradict each other.

Pragmatic theory of truth

Pragmatism is a belief that the practical results determine the value of ideas and practices.

The pragmatic theory of truth , then, is the belief that truth is determined by practical results.

In short, what works in practice is true; or something is true insofar as it works.


13/19


13

These things are true, in part, on the basis of background practices and culture.

Justified true belief

One of the first and most accepted definitions of knowledge is Platos way -of-knowing which is often

called knowledge-by-description, or propositional knowledge.

A proposition is a formal statement of convincing knowledge.

For Plato, the only real knowledge was knowledge you could be certain about.

Therefore, for you to be sure you know something, you have to subject a statement of what you know to

three tests:

The first test is: you must believe the statement;

The second test is: your belief has to be true ;

The third test is: your true belief must be justified .

So, you have a neat little formula to test the different kinds of knowledge you meet in the various

disciplines you study:

Justified True Belief

Or propositional Knowledge or knowledge that

Must be justified by empirical evidence or logic or memory or authority

Must be trueMust be believed.


14/19


14

What are Knowledge Issues?

Knowledge Issues

According to the Subject Guide, "Knowledge issues 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."

Further, we are told, "Knowledge issues can reveal how knowledge can be a benefit, a gift, a pleasure

and a basis for further thought and action; just as they can uncover the possible uncertainties, biases in

approach, or limitations relating to knowledge, ways of knowing, and the methods of verification and

justification appropriate in different areas of knowledge."

Questions beginning with 'Can...?', 'Do/Does...?', 'Have/Has...?', 'Will...?', Is? lead to closed

questions with a yes/no answer.

Questions beginning with How ...?', 'Why...?', 'What...?', 'Where...?', 'When...?'

are also restrictive.

Phrases like 'How far...?', 'In what way....?', 'To what extent...?' can provide more scope for your topic

to be explored, leading to more exploration of knowledge claims.


15/19


16/19


16

Where are the boundaries of your subject?

What is the relationship between one subject area and other subject areas?What does your subject have in common with other subject areas?

Why is your subject area clustered in a specific Area of Knowledge? (See diagram above)

How should the various Areas of Knowledge be structured in a diagram, and why?


17/19


17

7. Bibliography

Books:Brian King- The theory of Knowledge

Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma Michael Woolman- Ways of Knowing An introduction to the theory of knowledge Nicholas & Alchin- Theory of Knowledge

Weblinks:http://ibtokspot.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-knowledge-issues.html www.realmsofknowledge.com

www.thetheoryofknowledgeway.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ontology the study of the nature of beingEpistemology the study of the nature of knowledge; the theory of knowledge
http://ibtokspot.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-knowledge-issues.htmlhttp://ibtokspot.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-knowledge-issues.htmlhttp://ibtokspot.blogspot.com/2009/09/more-on-knowledge-issues.html


18/19

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGEHANDOUT-1

18


19/19

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ashita-naik
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

TOK Compilation Series 1

Documents