Theory of Knowledge

May 2016 TOK Essay

Hey Everyone!

All students in the May 2016 session who are aiming to receive the full IB Diploma must complete a Theory of Knowledge Essay on one of the following prescribed essay titles: 

1. “In gaining knowledge, each area of knowledge uses a network of ways of knowing.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of Knowledge.
2. “Knowledge within a discipline develops according to the principles of natural selection.” How useful is this metaphor?
3. “The knower’s perspective is essential in the pursuit of knowledge.” To what extent do you agree?
4. “Without application in the world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.
5. To what extent do the concepts that we use shape the conclusions that we reach?
6. “In knowledge, there is always a trade-off between accuracy and simplicity.” Evaluate this statement in relation to two areas of knowledge.

I decided to do number 2 on the list! I'll be honest with you - up until about a week ago, I had NO idea how I was going to develop my essay. However, I recently completed my rough draft and thought  would share a section of my essay with you!

I liked question 2 since it gave me the liberty to discuss any Area of Knowledge of my choosing. I had researched through several examples that either proved the usefulness of the metaphor mentioned or showed why it was not useful. After narrowing down my examples, I developed the following structure for my essay:

1. Introduction and Thesis 

 - Make sure to address any key terms in your question at this point. In my situation, I explained what natural selection was in my own terms to get myself and the reader on the same page.

2. Development Example #1

 - Here I used an example using History. My example was to show that the metaphor was quite inaccurate and not useful at all!

3. Development Example #2

 - Here I used an example using natural sciences and human sciences. I talked about the debunked theory of telegony, and how in some cultures it is still followed in modern day! This example was to show that the metaphor had some levels of usefulness, but there were still holes in its overall accuracy.

4. Development Example #3

 - Here I used an example from mathematics. I discussed how the Pythagorean philosopher Hippasus falsified the general Pythagorean school of thought of that time, but now his discovery is the basis of our mathematics! This example showed that the metaphor had a high level of accuracy.

As much as I would like to insert  my rough draft on this blog, I know it's not a good idea in case someone decides to copy and paste my work. But, I will give you a little snippet of my essay! Earlier I mentioned that I had a historical example to show that the metaphor does not hold much value. Here's what I wrote to support this argument:

"Gustav Stresemann, former Chancellor of the Weimar Republic in 1923, kept a detailed record of his work as Foreign Minister in Germany. Following his death in 1929, Stresemann’s family saw it as appropriate to commemorate his work in the form of three massive volumes. Bernhardt, secretary to the late Foreign Minister, sifted through 300 boxes worth of Stresemann’s documentation and produced Stresemanns Vermächtnis. A short while after Bernhardt’s volumes were published, Hitler rose to power in the Weimar Republic. Almost immediately, Gustav Stresemann’s name became taboo and most copies of Stresemanns Vermächtnis were no longer in circulation. Nevertheless, Stresemann’s reputation in Western Europe remained strong. Come 1935 and an English publisher produced a condensed and translated version of Bernhardt’s Stresemanns Vermächtnis. At least one-third of the original information was omitted; yet, Stresemann’s work in Western politics remained reputable. Bernhardt’s volumes and their English interpretation were only few sources that depicted Stresemann’s work as Foreign Minister. As a result, the public eye highly regarded Stresemann for a matter of years. Luckily, Stresemann’s original documentation did not perish over time and instead fell into the hands of British and American governments in 1945. The Allied powers photographed Stresemann’s documents and filed it in London’s Public Records Office and in the National Archives in Washington DC. Naturally, scholars who were interested in European foreign policy of that time examined Stresemanns Vermächtnis and found discrepancies in Bernhardt’s work. In his volumes, Bernhardt overrepresented the successes of Stresemann’s career concerning Western Foreign Policy. This included deep insights into the successes of the Treaty of Locarno, admitting Germany into the League of Nations, the Dawes Plan, and much more. However, the scholars found that Bernhardt’s volumes severely lacked information of Stresemann’s Eastern policies. Had Bernhardt accurately represented Stresemann’s work as a whole, readers of Stresemanns Vermächtnis would understand that much of Stresemann’s Eastern policies with the Soviet Union yielded few rewarding results and added nothing to his reputation. Thus, further analyses of Gustav Stresemann’s documentation a decade or-so after the publication of Bernhardt’s volumes changed our knowledge of Stresemann’s work as a whole. However, the pre-existing knowledge on Stresemann’s foreign policies was not superseded – it was simply added to. This example shows that although historical evidence may be proven to be less accurate than previously thought, it must remain in circulation otherwise our knowledge of historical events may change forever. Therefore, the metaphor can be considered ineffective as pre-existing knowledge was not replaced by more accurate knowledge."

The above text in quotations were entirely my own words. However, I retrieved my facts from E.H. Carr's book, What is History? I hope this post helped any of you that were stumbling on ways to structure your essay, or what approach to take when explaining your examples!

Thanks for reading,

Sophie F.