TOK+Essay


 * Here are the topics for the class of 2012:**
 * 1) Knowledge is generated through the interaction of critical and creative thinking. Evaluate this statement in two areas of knowledge.
 * 2) Compare and contrast knowledge which can be expressed in words/symbols with knowledge that cannot be expressed in this way. Consider CAS and one or more areas of knowledge.
 * 3) Using history and at least one other area of knowledge, examine the claim that it is possible to attain knowledge despite problems of bias and selection.
 * 4) When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?
 * 5) What is it about theories in the human sciences and natural sciences that makes them convincing?
 * 6) ‘It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts’. To what extent would you agree with this claim?
 * 7) ‘The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know’. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.
 * 8) Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of using faith as a basis for knowledge in religion and in one area of knowledge from the ToK diagram.
 * 9) As an IB student, how has your learning of literature and science contributed to your understanding of individuals and societies?
 * 10) ‘Through different methods of justification, we can reach conclusions in ethics that are as well-supported as those provided in mathematics.’ To what extent would you agree?

My recent Question:

‘It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts’. To what extent would you agree with this claim?

Restate: Is it more beneficial/ important to create new ways of thinking that are based on data we already have, or gather more data and facts.?

Things to think about:

 * Examples of new ways of thinking, and new facts.
 * FInd the difference between the new ways of thinking, and new data.
 * Find the correlation between the new ways of thinking and new data.
 * Realizing that one cannot have the first one without the second.
 * Keeping in mind that new data has no affect if it is not elaborated on or reflected on.

I would say that both parts of this claim are significant. Not only the first part. Yes it is very important to create different ways of thinking, and elaborate of the data we already have. But before we are able to think “out side of the box” and create new ways of thinking about data, we actually NEED data. Which means we need the second part of this claim to accomplish the first part.

I do believe however, that in certain situations new ways of thinking are far more significant and NEEDED than new data. For example, the tsunami and earthquake in Japan was extremely destructive and took the lives of many. Japan is a country/island that is accustomed to earthquakes, their building and houses should be prepared for them. Yet the magnitude of the quake and the tsunami combined destroyed so much. The government and natural disaster help force will be able to collect new data of earthquakes, tsunamis, death toll, yet it would be more beneficial for them to brainstorm new ideas on how to prevent this much destruction in the future. Or even how to help people in this time of trouble.

Second Question: When should we discard explanations that are intuitively appealing?

Things to think about:


 * What does the word intuitively mean?
 * When are explanations intuitively appealing?
 * When are explanation not intuitively appealing?

Explanations that are intuitively appealing are those that sound and look like they make sense, they are flowery, fluffy explanations. Yet ones that aren't are supported by evidence, and facts. They are not subjective, yet objective. They are never supported by personal feeling and emotion.