ToK Essay Guide - May 2024 - Q6

2024
Website:
www.toktutor.net
Contact:
[email protected]
TOK ESSAY GUIDE MAY 2024

QUESTION 6 First published September 2023 ToKTutor.net © 2010-23
All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
This text is subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated
without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than in which it is published and without a simil ar condition
including the condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
P age |1
ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6
NOTE: If you would like to find examples that support the points we make in
this Guide, follow us on twitter: http://twitter.com/toktutor
Key to Curriculum 2022 Links:

Core Theme (CT): Knowledge & the Knower* Optional Themes (OT)
F1: Perspectives & Expertise OT 1: Knowledge and technology
F2: Contexts of Knowledge OT 2: Knowledge and language
F3: Questioning & Methods & Evidence OT 3: Knowledge and indigenous societies
F4: Truth & Justification OT 4: Knowledge and politics
F5: Application of knowledge OT 5: Knowledge and religion
F6: Change & Limits of knowledge
*See our website for explanations of these six foundations based on the Core Theme of TOK.
Note: This is a tough Title with a complex level of implications beneath the
surface. Ensure that you answer the Knowledge Question without digressing
from the focus on knowledge indicated by the key words. It is not sufficient to
describe recent strong evidence used to support knowledge within N Science
and your chosen AOK.
Clarifying the terms of the Q:
The key TOK concept here – ‘evidence’ – underlines a key focus for writing the essay: the
use (or misused) of evidence in the process of accepting or rejecting knowledge claims or
distinguishing between old and new knowledge. (F3)
‘Recent’, and its opposite ‘earlier’ or ‘outdated’, indicates the time factor in the process of
gathering evidence. The key idea here is that as time moves forwards, knowledge seekers
develop increasingly more sophisticated ways of gathering evidence. For example, advances
in technology allow knowers a far greater flexibility and reach to gather empirical data as
part of knowledge production.
Whether or not such new evidence is the ‘strongest’ suggests part of your response must
explain the role of evidence in supporting or justifying knowledge. Evidential grounds for
accepting or rejecting knowledge can be measured if the recent evidence is quantitative in
nature. If it’s more qualitative, then measuring its impact is harder. The importance of the
word ‘strongest’ requires you to exercise judgement and evaluate the difference between
‘earlier’ and recent’ evidence; between quantitative and qualitative evidence; between
empirical and non-empirical evidence and how any of these help or hinder the pursuit of
knowledge. The word ‘inevitably’ appears to complicate the title but mainly signals the idea
of knowledge hubris: the tendency of the current generation of knowers to believe that their
advanced status means they have more resources, and therefore the strongest evidence, to
ToKTutor.net © 2010-23
Owing to copyright issues, we cannot print the TOK Essay Title in full on this Guide. Please be assured that the guide corresponds to the
title you requested.
P age |2
overturn old knowledge. In short, the tendency to believe we are more knowledgeable than
previous generations. This assumption needs challenging.
The expression ‘are we too quick to assume’ also indicates the evaluative element of your
explanations. ‘Assume’ points to the idea that human knowers are at the centre of the
knowledge universe. As such, there are potential problems in pursuing knowledge, such as
bias and generalisation. (F1) Humans have a great propensity for the ‘confirmation bias –
the tendency to seek and choose evidence to support our already set views on a situation. We
also tend to ‘jump to conclusions’ in our haste to process evidence, missing out some logical
steps in our reasoning and end up, in the words of Conan-Doyle, ‘twisting the facts to suit
our theories.’
Hence, part of the enquiry may explore the nature of the relationship between ‘evidence’ and
‘truth’. (F3/4) Here, you must note the ‘transactional’ aspect of knowledge claims. In the
context of an economy, a seller offers something of value to a buyer, at a market price.
Ideally, the outcome is that the seller makes a profit and the buyer fulfils a want. In the
context of a knowledge economy, the knowledge producer gives something to the knowledge
consumer, with a particular truth value. In general terms, the knowledge producer gains
various things: status and reputation – perhaps power – and the sense of fulfilment of
adding to the store of human knowledge or applying their knowledge for a good purpose.
The knowledge consumer gains information, explanation, analysis or even imaginative
descriptions of how the world works.
Finally, the word ‘we’ directs us to distinguish between experts and non-experts within the
knowledge economy.(F1) The assumption is that an expert is better qualified than a non-
expert to handle evidence. This is because an expert is more able to provide a stronger
justification for knowledge. Is this always the case? Are there circumstances in which expert
knowledge claims are questionable in terms of their accuracy and reliability?
You may also wish to explain the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ (See in
‘Developing the Q’). There is also a possibility to explore how ‘old knowledge’ changes over
time or is completely replaced by ‘new knowledge’. In other words, you can discuss the
nature of progress of knowledge and if we are too quick to assume we’ve made advances
based on very recent evidential data. (F6) And finally, you could explore cases in which
expert knowers’ assumptions drive their conclusions in the production of knowledge.
Here are some general thoughts to guide your judgements about whether or not experts
assume that recent evidence is strongest:
1/ In NS, evidence is based on experimental observations. Such empirical facts or data can
be very strong depending on how much they confirm to the standards of the scientific
method.
P age |3
2/ In HS, evidence is based on surveys, polls or behavioural studies. The results are also
considered ‘empirical’ but, owing to the unpredictability of the subject matter – human
behaviour – such results are never 100% reliable.
3/ In History, evidence is based on primary sources, which range from personal diaries and
art work to the fossil record and newly discovered ancient artefacts or documents, as well as
secondary sources. The ‘strength’ of these can depend on whether or not ‘scientific’
standards and methods are applied in the handling of the evidence.
4/ Mathematical ‘evidence’ is not empirical or observable in the scientific sense, but it is no

less measurable, especially in the context of statistics and geometry. The strength of math
proofs depends on the rigorous standards of the deductive process and foundational axioms.
5/ Artistic ‘evidence’ is arguably the most contentious. It seems that the only thing we can
reasonably label as ‘evidence’ are the physical properties of an artwork itself. How strong is
this evidence in justifying knowledge?
Developing the Q:
The nature of evidence
One approach to the essay is to explore how quantitative and qualitative evidence shapes the
way new knowledge replaces old knowledge. (F3)
Quantitative evidence is based on ‘quantifiable’ data which means that it can be measured
or written down in the form of numbers. Quantitative evidence can either resolve or
encourage expert disputes over the truth of knowledge in an objective, consensual and
reasoned way. Qualitative evidence is based more on judgments about the ‘qualities’ of
things which can’t be measured or written down in the form of numbers, like eye-witness
perceptions or memories of dreams. This kind of evidence intensifies or diminishes a proof
for claims through a subjective, personal and emotive approach. A classic example to
illustrate this is the declaration of the war on Iraq in the early 2000s. War, it was claimed,
was justified, on the grounds that Iraq held a measurable quantity of weapons of mass
destruction. Governments argued that all the available and relevant quantitative evidence
pointed to this ‘indisputable’ proof. Based on this, war was declared. We now know that this
was a largely subjective claim; that there was no physical, measurable ‘indisputable
evidence’ that such weapons existed and that the conclusions reached by the war making
factions were, in fact, driven by prior assumptions and possibly prejudices. After all, these
events took place not long after 9/11 and the so-called declaration of the ‘war on terror’. In
this field of politics, (OT4) the military assessment of Iraq’s threat level was refined by the
availability of more quantitative evidence after war was declared. This example underlines
that sometimes when our need for qualitative evidence overrides quantitative evidence, the
pursuit of knowledge is hindered.
P age |4
Of course, a balance between quantitative and qualitative knowledge is needed to establish

different levels of truth. In Criminology, for example, qualitative knowledge (eg. eyewitness
testimony) is as relevant as quantitative data (forensic DNA evidence) in building a case
against a suspect that is beyond reasonable doubt. In Medicine, the quantitative knowledge
of a patient’s medical history is as relevant as the qualitative ‘gut feeling’ when making a
medically certain decision about a patient’s condition. In a religious context, the qualitative
knowledge of a knower’s experience of faith as well as her quantitative knowledge that her
cancer has gone into remission is relevant to acknowledge whether or not there has certainly
been ‘miracle’.
Remember: this discussion should be adapted to your understanding of the strength of more
recent factual evidence in accepting or rejecting knowledge within different AOK. Hence,
reflect on how these examples tie in with the methods used to pursue knowledge.
Evidence and proof
Before you engage with the title, ensure you know the difference between ‘evidence’ and
‘proof’.
In terms of logic, to ‘prove’ something involves a reasoning process – making an inference –

from starting premises to a conclusion which makes a knowledge claim. And knowers make
inferences about all sorts of things but in different ways. Inferential thinking or proof can be
categorised in at least these three ways of reasoning: inductive, deductive and abductive.
(F4) Look at the following knowledge claims:
a/ The internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
b/ World War 1 was caused, amongst other triggers, by the assassination of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand.
c/ Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.
d/ The murder suspect is guilty of the crime.
The math claim a/ is associated with deductive proofs. Deductive inferences reach
conclusion using logic alone: if Jones is a man and Jones is single, then Jones is a bachelor.
If the premises are true and we follow the rules of logic, then the conclusion is guaranteed.
We don’t need to go into the world to find any facts to prove the claim.
The historical claim b/ and scientific claim c/ are associated with inductive proofs. Inductive
inferences reach conclusions by extrapolating from a range of observations – either sources
(in History) or experiments (in N and H Science): for all of recorded time, the sun has risen
P age |5
in the east, therefore it always rises in the east. However, unlike deductive proofs, even if the
premises are true, the conclusion can sometimes be false. For instance, water only boils at
100 degrees in specific conditions. My inference is a generalisation or extrapolation based
on initial observations. So the conclusion may or may not be true. It isn’t true if we change
altitude.
The legal claim in d/ is associated with abductive proofs. Abductive inferences involve
reaching the best explanation for the available observations, especially when these
observations are ambiguous, incomplete or uncertain. As with inductive proofs, abductive
ones can make mistakes, as we know from cases involving the jailing of innocent people. In
deductive and inductive thinking we reason forwards from causes to effects. But when we
think abductively to seek the ‘best explanation’, we are reasoning ‘backwards’, so to speak.
We make inferences from observed effects to their most likely causes. Bayesian analysis
helps us to do this. It provides an ideal way to update our conclusions about something when
receive new data or facts or observations.
On a very general level, to ‘prove’ a claim means to ‘back up’ or ‘support’ or, more
challengingly, to ‘justify’ the claim. (F4) In other words, a proven knowledge claim has
passed a truth test. Different AOKs have different ‘standards’ or ‘criteria’ for proving claims.
You will know that this process of backing up, supporting or justifying a knowledge claim
often, but not always, involves some kind of ‘evidence’. Again, in different contexts, evidence
comes in different shapes and sizes. But be careful to avoid easily made error of thinking
that ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ are the same thing. They are not. (F3/4)
Evidence and truth
Even the strongest evidence might not help support the truth of knowledge claims. Consider,
for example, the idea that knowledge is tested against a ‘scale of believability’ from the wildly
improbable to the reasonably probable. Based on this spectrum of believability or truth, we
should be able to place any claim fairly precisely, depending on the level of empirical data or
evidence available to support it. For example, the ‘claim’ that certain crystals have healing
properties might be close to the ‘Improbable’ end of the spectrum, because there’s just not
enough independent corroborating evidence to support it. However, the ‘claim’ that
evolution is the best theory we have for the diversity and development of species would land,
most agree, on the ‘Probable’ end of the spectrum, because there’s so much evidence
available to support the theory. (F2/3)
Let’s put it this way: knowledge can be broadly objective or subjective in nature depending
on whether it’s largely evidence-based or non-evidence based. The nature of the factual
evidence that grounds or supports a knowledge claim can be either quantitative and
measurable or qualitative and not so calculable. Science, for example, is probabilistic and
can be revised with the availability of new, more recent evidence. It doesn’t follow that we
can’t be deceived about evidence. We can. Even Galileo was deceived about the nature of the
P age |6
Rings of Saturn. Nor does it follow that scientific knowledge falls into ambiguity. It means
that scientific knowledge is not 100% certain. Even scientific ‘facts’ are open to
interpretation; the meaning of them isn’t fixed or exact; there is always an uncertainty
present. In other words, if evidence isn’t alone strong enough to accept or reject knowledge
claims, this isn’t overly worrying for scientists. The scientific method helps them to navigate
the world of evidence until they bridge the gap.
Knowledge claims which have either limited or no supporting evidence end up at the
‘Improbable’ end of the believability spectrum but might be compelling in other ways, such
as being part of narrative representations of knowledge. Think about abstract, expressionist
art or complex theological concepts like the nature of nirvana. OT5) In such cases, we have
to focus more on the qualitative appreciation of facts rather than their grounding in
empirical evidence
Evidence and the progress of knowledge
Consider two views of how knowledge develops in the Natural Sciences:
1/Scientific knowledge grows in a linear, cumulative way. For example, the transition from
the medieval superstitious view of the universe to Newton’s mechanistic view of it. Newton
himself explained this in terms of his legendary words: “If I have seen further it is by
standing on the shoulders of Giants”.
Implicit in this way of thinking is the belief in scientific realism. This means that scientific
theories must describe the truth of nature as exactly as possible; that truths of nature are
just waiting to be discovered and described coherently by scientists; that new, better theory
doesn’t negate or contradict the old theory, but subsumes it and is a better description of
nature than the previous theory. The ultimate goal of science becomes the search for truth,
better predictive power of theory and the subsequent control over nature that this gives.
This view of change can be best explained through the analogy with evolutionary growth; it
is slow and gradual. Think of the model of the atom and its evolution.
2/ Scientific knowledge develops in a revolutionary way. The clichéd example usually given
is the transition from the geocentric to heliocentric view of the universe (but there are other
examples – find them!)
Implicit in this way of thinking is a skepticism about scientific realism. Here, science is
projected as a puzzle solving activity. Science doesn’t seek to describe truth, but to engage
with piecing together how the natural world works within a context of cultural, social and
economic and scientific constraints. This context forms the working ‘paradigm’ or set way of
doing science at the time. ‘Normal’ science, Kuhn argues, progresses in a cumulative way;
but ‘revolutionary’ science challenges this approach. At first, there’s resistance from the
‘normal’ scientific community to the prospect of change. However, new scientific knowledge,
P age |7
or revolution, occurs when a new theory solves puzzles better than the old theory, NOT
because it’s a more accurate representation of reality, but because new knowledge replaces
incompatible knowledge. This view of change is not evolutionary at all, but revolutionary; it
is fast and spontaneous but takes time to be accepted.
Your job in this essay is to see which of these views of change can be used to explain how
much of the present knowledge in your chosen AOKs is merely a form of ‘change’ or a real
‘progress’ in knowledge. Aim to explain how such change or progress is triggered by recent
or earlier evidence.
Consider also that objective and subjective paradigms change and expand the limits of
knowledge. We’ve seen how, from a scientific perspective, knowledge develops in both
evolutionary and revolutionary ways. From a religious perspective, shared knowledge
embodied in sacred texts that makes up a religious system of belief seems to stay the same
over thousands of years. This may not ‘progress’ or ‘advance’ in the same way as scientific
knowledge. However, the interpretations of those texts do change. Consider the issues of
gay marriage and ordination of women priests in the Protestant or Anglican Church in recent
times. Such religious paradigm shifts may not lead to new knowledge exactly but can lead
to new attitudes or perspectives towards marginalised groups. Some religious knowers
might claim such changes are a move towards a more spiritually moral world and that this
is real progress. However, in more subjective domains, like Religion, change can be slow
and difficult. (OT5)
Evidence and the power of narratives
Fiction and evidence seem to be incompatible when thinking about how knowledge claims
are accepted or rejected. Except when you consider that evidence can be fabricated and that
sometimes, a strong story can sway people into accepting knowledge! One line of enquiry to
explore is the tension between evidential and fictional knowledge leads to viable alternative
ways to accept or reject claims. For example, creative metaphors, analogies or thought
experiments, which themselves are imaginative fictions, are often used by expert knowers to
make a particularly complex idea more accessible. The hypothetical scenario of the ‘trolley
problem’ is constructed to understand the significant nature of moral judgments if not to
support them. The different artistic and historical representations of Christ in different
centuries underline the significant ‘spirit’ of their times if not to justify his existence.
However, sometimes the metaphors become so complex themselves that we are no better off
in our understanding and struggle to find a link between the fact presented and its truth.
(F4)
On the one hand, the power of recent artistic narratives to justify knowledge lies in their
ability to reflect contemporary societal themes, challenges, and perspectives. Recent
narratives in Art often capture the zeitgeist of our times, providing fresh and relevant
insights into the complexities of the world. An excellent example of this is Jenny Holzer, a
P age |8
contemporary female artist known for her thought-provoking text-based installations.

Holzer’s works, such as her LED scrolling signs with impactful messages, engage with
current issues, offering a critical lens through which viewers can analyse and understand
contemporary social and political phenomena. These narratives resonate strongly with
today's audience, making them a potent tool for conveying and justifying knowledge in the
context of the modern world.
On the other hand, the power of traditional artistic narratives to justify knowledge lies in
their timeless ability to convey universal themes, emotions, and human experiences.
Traditional art forms, such as classical painting, sculpture, or literature, often endure
through centuries, encapsulating enduring truths about the human condition. An exemplar
is Michelangelo, renowned for his sculptural masterpiece ‘David’. This iconic work, which
captures the essence of human potential and strength, continues to resonate with viewers,
transcending time and culture to provide a profound understanding of human resilience and
aesthetic values. Traditional narratives like Michelangelo’s offer a timeless framework for
justifying knowledge, as they tap into the enduring facets of human existence.
Finally, the artistic narratives can sometimes surpass empirical evidence in justifying
knowledge by tapping into the emotional and subjective dimensions of human experience
(be careful about overlapping too much with Title 1.) An example of this is Frida Kahlo,
known for her introspective and emotive self-portraits. Kahlo's paintings, like ‘The Two
Fridas’, convey her physical and emotional pain in a way that resonates deeply with viewers,
allowing them to connect with her personal struggles on a visceral level. While empirical
evidence might provide clinical information about her medical conditions, Kahlo’s art offers
a more profound understanding of her lived experience, making it a potent source of
knowledge about the human condition and suffering that transcends mere empirical data.
Artistic narratives like Kahlo's can illuminate aspects of knowledge that empirical evidence
alone often cannot capture, invoking empathy and insight into complex human truths.
Evidence and uncertainty
In the context of knowledge production and acquisition, the idea that the most recent
evidence is strongest has the connotation of ‘certainty’. And ‘certainty’ means knowing
something without a sense of doubt or ambiguity. Common sense tells us that there’s lots of
knowledge about which we’re completely certain; knowledge that cannot be doubted;
knowledge that is somehow irrefutable or undeniably proven or supported by indisputable
evidence. (F3).
However, let’s consider the relationship between evidence and certainty from alternative
angles.
a/ Ockham’s Razor has the potential to be an antidote to any frequent search for the
strongest or most indisputable evidence.
P age |9
Ockham’s ‘principle of parsimony’ acknowledges that very often factual proof is

unattainable. Ockham’s principle means that when experts are confronted with alternative
theories or explanations for something, knowers should choose the simplest one, because
the simplest explanation is the one which includes the least assumptions and has minimised
the mind’s capacity for bias. It’s the best one, because it presents the least distorted view of
the world and is certain enough for our needs. For example, you are faced with two
competing explanation for why 9/11 happened. One explanation – let’s call it Conspiracy
Theory #1 – is that it was instigated by Islamic terrorists. Another explanation – let’s label
it Conspiracy Theory # 2 – is that it was caused by the US government. Which is the simplest
explanation and why? Like the religious knowledge claim about creation, Conspiracy Theory
#2 about the government seems to be built on too many hidden assumptions. For example,
the assumptions that the US government were willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to create
on the Iraqis; that the resulting conflict would be lucrative for the economy and that
hundreds of government employees were capable of keeping the whole affair a secret for the
rest of their lives. (OT4)
b/ Another way of interpreting the main title is this: Carl Sagan once commented that
‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. Sagan’s view is a popularized version
of an observation by Marcello Truzzi: ‘An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof’.
This underlines an acknowledgement that sometimes the simplest explanations won’t do,
because the evidence on which they are based is often extremely hard to obtain and never
really provable by existing facts. If, for example, a knower claims to know that Martians
created a civilisation on their home planet, then they are obliged to support their claim with
‘extraordinary’ evidence or facts such as physical relic of Martian tools or written chronicles
to prove their claim. An actual Martian would be even better! But what all of these bits of
evidence have in common is that they are, in the present state of science, near improbable
to find. The demand for such evidence often falls short and, as a result, such extraordinary
claims descend into a level of complexity, relying less on a rational processing of evidence
and more on a faith-based confidence in something beyond the realms of reason. Your job
is to explain how this ties in with the idea of ‘recent evidence’ and knower’s quickly assuming
its strength in supporting extraordinary knowledge claims.
c/ Both statements originate in the ideas of two thinkers. The Scottish Philosopher David
Hume explained that ‘A wise man […] proportions his belief to the evidence’. The French
Mathematician Pierre Laplace suggested that ‘The weight of evidence for an extraordinary
claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.’ The ideas are connected by their insistence
on the rational handling of factual evidence. Certainty is achievable if we establish a
knowledge claim beyond reasonable doubt. The level or ‘ratio’ of evidence to knowledge
determines its certainty, hence our confidence in it. In other words, proving knowledge
claims requires adequate certainty, thus confidence, rather than too much or too little
certainty. And evidential explanations are more preferable to justify knowledge than non-
evidential ones. This is because firstly, they are grounded in empirical evidence and rely on
P a g e | 10
reason and direct observation more than emotion and faith. And secondly, they have filtered
out any conflicting assumptions.
Theme connections:
Note: the aim this discussion on the Optional Themes is to throw a different
light on the title. Your job is to focus on N Sciences and one of the other AOKs
– H Sciences, Maths, Arts and History.
 On one level, technology is viewed as an enabler of data-driven knowledge claims.

With the help of technology, we can collect, process, analyse, and visualize large
amounts of data to support our claims about the world. This perspective is
particularly relevant in fields such as science, engineering, and medicine, where data-
driven approaches are widely used to gain insights into complex phenomena.
Genome sequencing is a powerful tool for understanding the genetic basis of diseases
and identifying potential targets for drug development. With the help of high-
throughput sequencing technologies, researchers can rapidly sequence and analyse
entire genomes, generating vast amounts of data that can be used to make knowledge
claims about the genetic basis of diseases. For example, the Human Genome Project,
which was completed in 2003, used technology to sequence the entire human
genome, providing scientists with a wealth of data to study the genetic basis of
diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s. (OT1)
 Some indigenous groups use empirical observation and testing to support knowledge.
The evidence is not ‘recent’ as it’s part of a wisdom handed down over time through
an oral tradition. However, more recent scientific ‘techniques’ can confirm the
strength of the ancient ‘evidence’. For example, the Quechua people of Peru have
developed a system of knowledge about the medicinal properties of plants that has
been tested and validated through scientific research. Researchers have found that
many of the plants used by the Quechua contain compounds with pharmacological
properties, and that these plants are effective treatments for a range of illnesses.
Similarly, the Maya people of Mexico have developed a sophisticated system of
agricultural knowledge that is based on empirical observation and testing. Maya
farmers use a variety of techniques to test the fertility of their soils and the
effectiveness of their crop rotations, and they use this knowledge to develop
sustainable farming practices that have been passed down through generations. (OT
3)
 The politicians making the policies that govern society require them to be evidence-
based; that is, based on empirical data and research. When policymakers use
evidence-based policies, they can make knowledge claims that are backed up by the
most recent credible factual research, which can help to improve the lives of people.
For example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the United States was based on
extensive research into healthcare access and affordability, and it aimed to provide
millions of Americans with health insurance. The policy was heavily debated and
P a g e | 11
scrutinized, but ultimately, it was enacted into law. Today, there is ample evidence
that the ACA has led to increased access to healthcare, improved health outcomes,
and lower healthcare costs for many Americans. (OT4)
 From one perspective, religious facts exist independently of human experience and
can be objectively verified through empirical evidence. Proponents of this view argue
that there are certain events in religious history that are verifiable and can provide
evidence for religious claims. For example, Christian theologian William Lane Craig
argues that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a verifiable historical fact, and that it
provides evidence for the truth of Christianity. Furthermore, in the Islamic concept
of tawheed, or the oneness of God, Muslim theologians argue that this is an objective
fact that can be rationally proven through philosophical argumentation and the study
of the natural world. For example, the complexity and order of the universe is seen as
evidence of the existence of a single Creator. (OT5)
Knowledge Questions: In what ways is recent evidence the strongest? To what extent is
the strongest evidence the most convincing? Reliable? Certain? How far is the most recent
evidence the strongest only because it’s freshest in our memories? Who is too quick to
assume the most recent evidence is the strongest? To what extent do knowers leap to
conclusions based on the most recent evidence? How do we qualify what makes evidence the
‘strongest’? Strongest for what? How far does the strongest evidence yield reliable or certain
knowledge? What is the difference between ‘facts’, ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’? Do our
assumptions shape our conclusions? How does recent evidence help accept new knowledge?
Reject old knowledge? Why must we be prudent in the face of recent evidence? How far is
scepticism helpful in handling the most recent evidence? What other factors apart from
strong evidence are necessary for accepting or rejecting a knowledge claim? In what
circumstances are facts alone sufficient to prove knowledge claims? Are any proofs of
knowledge claims 100% true or certain? Are mathematical facts the same as scientific ones?
What are historical facts? What other variables are necessary in proving knowledge claims
aside from factual evidence? How do we know when we’ve been deceived about facts? When
are facts NOT deceptive? Why? In what ways can the world of difference between truth and
fact be narrowed? Who decides which facts are relevant for proof? Which facts are truthful?
Are there more ‘fake facts’ than ‘true facts’? How do we know?
P a g e | 12
Perspectives:
N Sciences: There have been numerous cases in which NS experts have been quick to jump
to conclusions based on recent evidence and had to change their minds. In 1996, researchers
claimed to have discovered evidence of life on Mars when they examined a Martian
meteorite found in Antarctica, known as ALH 84001. They found tiny structures and
chemical compounds that they argued could only be explained by the presence of ancient
Martian microorganisms. However, subsequent research and analysis cast doubt on this
conclusion, and the debate about whether life ever existed on Mars continues. In 2011,
scientists working on the OPERA experiment at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy
reported that they had observed neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. This
discovery, if confirmed, would have challenged Einstein’s theory of special relativity. The
announcement garnered significant attention, but it was later revealed that there were errors
in the measurement setup, and the results were due to a faulty cable connection. The initial
conclusion about faster-than-light neutrinos turned out to be incorrect. However,
sometimes new knowledge can be produced using recently generated empirical evidence.
Scientists at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) announced the discovery
of the Higgs boson in 2012. This discovery was based on strong evidence gathered from
experiments conducted using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The Higgs boson was a
missing piece in the Standard Model of particle physics, and its existence was confirmed
through the observation of its decay products in the LHC. This discovery led to a deeper
understanding of the fundamental particles and their interactions. In 2015, the Laser
Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) made a ground breaking discovery
by detecting gravitational waves for the first time. This discovery was based on strong
evidence provided by the simultaneous observation of gravitational waves from the merger
of two black holes. It confirmed a key prediction of Einstein’s theory of general relativity and
opened up a new era in Astronomy, allowing scientists to observe and study the universe in
a completely different way, using gravitational waves as a tool for exploration.
History: Historians sometimes justify knowledge based on the ‘strongest’ recent evidence
which turns out to be based on assumptions. In 1912, Charles Dawson, an amateur
archaeologist, and Arthur Smith Woodward, a palaeontologist, announced the discovery of
the ‘Piltdown Man’ in England. They claimed that this find was an early human ancestor,
with a combination of human-like and ape-like features. The discovery was based on the
finding of a skull and jawbone. However, in the subsequent decades, more research and
advanced dating techniques revealed that the Piltdown Man was a hoax—a clever forgery
consisting of a human skull and an orang-utan jaw. The initial excitement about a new
human ancestor was unfounded. The Vinland Map, purportedly a 15th-century world map
depicting parts of North America, was discovered in the 1950s. Experts initially believed that
it provided evidence of early Norse exploration in North America, including the possibility
of a Viking settlement in Vinland. However, the authenticity of the map has been widely
debated, and scientific analysis has not definitively confirmed its age or origin. Some experts
still dispute its authenticity, making it an example of a conclusion based on initially strong
P a g e | 13
but later questionable evidence. However, new knowledge can come about as a result of
strong historical evidence. In 2012, archaeologists discovered the remains of King Richard
III under a parking lot in Leicester, England. The discovery was made based on strong
historical and archaeological evidence, including the location of the burial, the alignment of
the skeleton’s spinal curvature with historical accounts of Richard’s deformity, and DNA
analysis. This find provided new insights into the life and death of King Richard III and
challenged some historical narratives about him. Göbekli Tepe, an archaeological site in
Turkey, was discovered in the 1990s and has provided new knowledge about the history of
human civilization. The site consists of massive stone pillars arranged in circles, with
intricate carvings and reliefs. Dating back over 11,000 years, Göbekli Tepe challenges the
conventional timeline of the development of agriculture and settled societies. It suggests that
complex religious and architectural structures were created by hunter-gatherer societies
much earlier than previously thought, leading to a re-evaluation of human history and the
transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural civilizations.
Maths: Examples exist of math experts who quickly assume they’ve discovered new
knowledge based on strong recent ‘evidence’. The Four-Color Theorem, which states that
any map can be coloured with four colours such that no two adjacent regions have the same
colour, was a long-standing conjecture in graph theory. In 1976, Kenneth Appel and
Wolfgang Haken announced that they had proved the theorem using a computer-assisted
proof. Their method relied heavily on computer-generated evidence, but the proof was
initially met with skepticism because it was difficult for experts to verify by hand. Eventually,
after further scrutiny and refinements, the proof was accepted, but it highlighted the
challenges of relying solely on computer-assisted proofs for major mathematical results.
Shinichi Mochizuki, a Japanese mathematician, claimed to have proven the ABC conjecture
in 2012. This conjecture was a significant unsolved problem in number theory. Mochizuki’s
proof was highly complex and involved new mathematical concepts that were not widely
understood by other experts in the field. Despite the initial excitement surrounding the
proof, many mathematicians were unable to verify its correctness or fully grasp its
intricacies, leading to ongoing debate and skepticism within the mathematical community.
However, strong recent evidence has enable mathematicians to produce new knowledge.
Andrew Wiles’ proof of ‘Fermat’s Last Theorem’ is a prime example of producing new
knowledge based on strong evidence. Fermat’s Last Theorem, which remained unsolved for
centuries, was a statement about the impossibility of finding three positive integers a, b, and
c such that a^n + b^n = c^n for n > 2. Wiles’ proof, built upon several previously established
mathematical concepts and techniques, was rigorously examined by experts and ultimately
accepted as valid, leading to the resolution of a centuries-old mathematical mystery. Grigori
Perelman, a reclusive Russian mathematician, proved the Poincaré Conjecture in 2003. The
conjecture, proposed by Henri Poincaré in the early 20th century, was one of the most
famous unsolved problems in topology. Perelman’s proof was based on the concept of Ricci
flow and geometric analysis. While initially met with skepticism, his work underwent intense
scrutiny and verification by the mathematical community, leading to its acceptance and
recognition with prestigious awards, including the Fields Medal.
P a g e | 14
Arts: Art experts also suffer from speeding to conclusions based on apparently ‘strong’
recent evidence. In 1937, a Dutch art collector named Han van Meegeren claimed to have
discovered previously unknown paintings by Johannes Vermeer, a famous Dutch painter
from the 17th century. The works were initially accepted by experts as authentic Vermeer
paintings based on stylistic analysis and scientific tests. However, suspicions arose, and
further investigations revealed that van Meegeren had actually created the paintings himself
as forgeries. The initial belief in the discovery of new Vermeer works turned out to be a case
of art fraud. In 2014, a painting believed to be a long-lost work by the Italian Baroque artist
Caravaggio was discovered in an attic in Toulouse, France. Experts initially hailed it as a
major discovery based on stylistic and technical analysis. However, further examination and
research raised doubts about its authenticity. The painting’s attribution to Caravaggio
remains disputed, and it serves as an example of how initial excitement over a potential art
discovery can lead to later skepticism. Nevertheless, ne artistic knowledge can be acquired
through the existence of strong recent evidence. Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Salvator Mundi’ is a
painting that had been lost to history for centuries until it was rediscovered in 2005. After
extensive research, technical analysis, and restoration, it was authenticated as a genuine
work by Leonardo but this is still debated. The painting was sold at auction in 2017 for a
record-breaking price, and its rediscovery and authentication added to our knowledge of
Leonardo’s oeuvre. The restoration of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling, which began in
the early 1990s, provided new insights into the artist’s techniques and revealed vibrant
colours and details that had been obscured by centuries of dirt and grime. The restoration
project, based on strong evidence of the original design and the careful removal of
accumulated layers of dirt, smoke, and varnish, allowed experts and the public to appreciate
Michelangelo’s masterpiece in a new and enhanced way, deepening our understanding of
Renaissance art.
H Sciences: HS experts aren’t averse to jumping to conclusions based on available recent

evidence. In the 1990s, a popular belief emerged based on several studies that listening to
Mozart’s music could temporarily increase a person’s IQ and cognitive abilities, a
phenomenon known as the ‘Mozart Effect.’ These studies were initially seen as strong
evidence for the positive impact of classical music on cognitive development. However,
further research revealed that the effect was more limited and not as broadly applicable as
initially claimed, and it was mostly observed in specific spatial-temporal tasks. The initial
excitement about a profound discovery in psychology turned out to be overstated. ‘The Facial
Feedback Hypothesis’ proposed that making certain facial expressions could influence a
person’s emotional state. Initial studies in the 1980s seemed to support this idea, suggesting
that smiling could make people feel happier, and frowning could make them feel sadder.
However, subsequent research has shown mixed results and highlighted the complexity of
the relationship between facial expressions and emotions, leading to a more nuanced
understanding of the phenomenon. However, HS experts have discovered a range of new
knowledge based on recently gathered evidence. ‘The Stanford Prison Experiment’,
conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, was a widely cited study in psychology that explored
P a g e | 15
the effects of perceived power and authority on individuals’ behaviour. Decades later, in
2018, a team of researchers re-evaluated the study based on archived materials and
uncovered significant ethical and methodological issues. This re-evaluation led to a critical
reassessment of the study’s findings and raised questions about the validity and ethics of the
original research, contributing to a deeper understanding of research practices in social
psychology. The ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) Study’, initiated in the 1990s, has
produced new knowledge about the long-term impact of childhood adversity on physical and
mental health in adulthood. This large-scale research effort, based on strong evidence and
extensive data analysis, has highlighted the importance of addressing childhood trauma and
adversity in preventing various health and social issues later in life. The findings from this
study have had a profound influence on public health policies and interventions.
Ethics: There are numerous examples of ethical issues related to experts claiming to discover
new knowledge seemingly based on strong recent evidence. In recent years, there has been
growing recognition of a replication crisis in Psychology and other Human Sciences, where
many previously accepted research findings have failed to be replicated by independent
researchers. This phenomenon has raised ethical concerns about the potential impact of
unreliable or exaggerated results on public policy, clinical practice, and public perception. It
has prompted experts to re-evaluate the rigor of research methods and ethical standards in
these fields. ‘Implicit Bias Training’ programs gained popularity as a way to address
unconscious biases that may contribute to discrimination and inequality. These programs
were initially seen as a promising tool for promoting diversity and inclusion. However, some
experts have raised concerns about their effectiveness and potential unintended
consequences. Ethical debates have emerged about whether these programs are based on
strong empirical evidence and whether they may inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or lead
to a sense of moral superiority among participants. However, our ethical knowledge has
been enhanced with the advent of strong evidence emerging relating to the development of
new technology. Recent advancements in gene-editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-
Cas9, have raised profound ethical questions about the manipulation of the human genome.
Scientists, bioethicists, and policymakers have been working to establish ethical guidelines
and regulations for the responsible use of gene-editing tools, considering issues like genetic
enhancement, potential unintended consequences, and equitable access to these
technologies. The digital age has brought about significant ethical challenges related to data
privacy and surveillance. Recent revelations about large-scale data breaches, government
surveillance programs, and the collection of personal information by tech companies have
spurred discussions about the ethical boundaries of data use and the importance of
individual privacy rights. Experts in ethics and technology have produced new knowledge
and frameworks to address these complex ethical dilemmas in the digital era.
NOTE: We didn’t always do it, in order to stimulate your curiosity, BUT you
must ALWAYS cite your sources in your TOK work!
P a g e | 16
Tips for writing your essay

Dear TOK Student,
Remember: As a returning student, you’ll get a discount
on our future services such as reviewing your
essays/presentations, Internal Assessments or EEs. So
please email us for more information.
Think about these criteria when you plan your TOK Essay:
Start with a general example relevant to the Q.

State which AOKs you’re exploring.
Aim to have a clear structure.
Use clear examples from each AOK to support arguments and
counter arguments.
Use personal examples.
Have you agreed or disagreed with the title prompt & explained why?
Make sure you cite your sources.
Remain focused on the question.
After you’ve planned and drafted your TOK Essay, you can come back to this
checklist and tick off the items you feel you’ve covered really well.
Lots of courage!
TOKTUTOR

ToK Essay Guide - May 2024 - Q6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ToK Essay Guide - May 2024 - Q6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024

TOK ESSAY GUIDE MAY 2024

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Key to Curriculum 2022 Links:

Clarifying the terms of the Q:

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

4/ Mathematical ‘evidence’ is not empirical or observable in the scientific sense, but it is no

The nature of evidence

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Of course, a balance between quantitative and qualitative knowledge is needed to establish

Evidence and proof

In terms of logic, to ‘prove’ something involves a reasoning process – making an inference –

a/ The internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.

c/ Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.

d/ The murder suspect is guilty of the crime.

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Evidence and truth

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Evidence and the progress of knowledge

Consider two views of how knowledge develops in the Natural Sciences:

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Evidence and the power of narratives

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

contemporary female artist known for her thought-provoking text-based installations.

Evidence and uncertainty

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Ockham’s ‘principle of parsimony’ acknowledges that very often factual proof is

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

 On one level, technology is viewed as an enabler of data-driven knowledge claims.

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

H Sciences: HS experts aren’t averse to jumping to conclusions based on available recent

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

ToK Prescribed Titles (May 2024): Question 6

Tips for writing your essay

Start with a general example relevant to the Q.

You might also like