Survivor Rob Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 I think as you said that using a dictionary definition as you said not only doesn't show your own original thought but it also somehow goes against what ToK also is as it is suppose to make you think critical about knowledge and then the question can come up - how do we know that this dictionary is true? Dictionaries are there to aid you but not to give you set answers of what is what after all. Quoting a dictionary to use it as your own definition or argument can make you penalised but if you use it as aid aka if you don't understand a word or concept and then use several dictionaries to aid you and give you a clear picture of what you then think it is and so that you on your own can give your own definition, it should be fine s Yeah dictionary definitions or an experts definition are big no no's for IB. In our first TOK practise essay, loads of students used dictionary definitions to begin their essay and they based their essays around this. They all didn't do that well Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter Posted September 6, 2007 Report Share Posted September 6, 2007 The thing with both quotes and dictionary definitions is that they ARE failable - you can look at them as common viewpoints and refute them. Socratic method-wise.The way which you agree or dispute them is what is original.If you're worried though, define it yourself, and refute this. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest O.o`GoFi`o.O Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Well... i'm also now doing question 10, and i'm stuck after my intro...I wrote that i agree to the quote "Context is all" I also write some examples that says why context is all briefly. So my idea in my intro is to write about the quote first. after that... i'm just stuck, i got confused with my own ideas and don't know what to write next, can anybody help me with the structure of the essay... One more thing, my teacher said that there should be our argument to the question then write an counter argument to it. Is this actually necessary, or it is just ok if i write my personal views to it... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afterglow Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 Well... i'm also now doing question 10, and i'm stuck after my intro...I wrote that i agree to the quote "Context is all" I also write some examples that says why context is all briefly. So my idea in my intro is to write about the quote first. after that... i'm just stuck, i got confused with my own ideas and don't know what to write next, can anybody help me with the structure of the essay... One more thing, my teacher said that there should be our argument to the question then write an counter argument to it. Is this actually necessary, or it is just ok if i write my personal views to it... You have to structure your essay very clear. For instance, first you define your problems of knowledge (eg - what is 'context' and what is 'truth' and also what is meant with 'all'. It is after all a generalisation). Then you base your essay and arguments on your problem of knowledge and your own definitions. Wach argument/claim you write, you provide an example (should NOT be made up) as well as a counter-claim (they are necessary) with an example. Since it deals with generalisation and truth it is good I think to discuss the fallacy and justified true belief although I'm not sure. Anyone? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted September 15, 2007 Report Share Posted September 15, 2007 if you don't want to emphasise on conter claims then just mention some breifly and don't elaborate on them too much. Like for instance you discussed and idea are about to give an example to support it just mention in one sentence before your example put a dash and just mention the coun ter claim. Somthing like this: in history the point of studying this AOK is to learn abour certain historical evens. So the "Context is all" claim stands in this AOK because the events themselves are the context of an investigation- although the bias of the historian may act as a problem of knowledge when making interpretations and claims about said histgorical events. For example... like that you have to show that you are analyzing as well as arguing... if yolu don't mention counter claims you'll look like you're just listing things... as for your structure, well the thing I used to do was just strat writting anything on my mind, then start fixing it after... it hard enough to be consistant with ideas when writing an essay let alone worry about the stucture of it Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest O.o`GoFi`o.O Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Thanks for the infos and the tips to think bout the structure later, it made my ideas flow easier... But i'm still confused in the counter claims... What i understand for a counter claim is like for example, i give an example and reasonings for truth does exist, but then the counter claim than should give example and reasonings for the truth doesn't exist.... is it like that in this title 10?? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afterglow Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 Thanks for the infos and the tips to think bout the structure later, it made my ideas flow easier... But i'm still confused in the counter claims... What i understand for a counter claim is like for example, i give an example and reasonings for truth does exist, but then the counter claim than should give example and reasonings for the truth doesn't exist.... is it like that in this title 10?? The counterclaim doesn't necessary have to mean exactly that truth doesn't exsist. It can be a flaw in the argument or something that won't work for it. A good way to write or come up with the the counter claim is to for instance write your claim and example and then go 'however' and find something appropriate for that. It's a bit hard to explain Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymmlan Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 You can define truth in a few ways:"Facts are true" Use a dictionary Find a quote Hopefully you can do two of the three. I'm also doing my essay on this topic, although I haven't really started yet... I'm still in the research phase.. When defining truth, I immediately thought of Plato and his tests for truth. There are three of them: truth must be public, truth must be eternal and... something more (can't remember). Perhaps they are useful? Ovarall, I was thinking of covering mathematics, ethics and the natural sciences.. My teacher told me that the most important thing is to use good examples. He said that the examples sort of create the structure of the essay and that they are the ones that are supposed to illustrate your thinking in a clear way. ..... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted September 16, 2007 Report Share Posted September 16, 2007 as afterglow said Gofi, your counterclaims is a way of discussing problems of knowledge... which is part of the criteria, you don't have to make your counter claims convincing by providing evidence for them. Just mention them as a sort of acknowledgement that you know they are there but think that what you belive is right is more convincing... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 You can use your counter-claims as a way of refining the 'truth' of the situation. I say 'situation', because TOK generally leads to the "nothing is completely conclusive and everything is situational and open to the possibility of disproof' stand. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest O.o`GoFi`o.O Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 OOoooOO... okay.. so my counter claims isn't something that should fight back to my argument... so it is just to show that i'm actually thinking the flaws of my argumentss... right.... and the topic can't actually be ended with a conclusion... For the truth itself... you guys said that the definition should be my own believe, so i said that truth is actually not universal, where there is contextual truth but not universal truth??? or can anyone give an example of an universal truth??? I tried to find one but i just couldn't find a think which is universal and also independent.... hahaha.... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 lemon is acidic. there's a universal truth (I kind of claimed that no truth is universal and my teacher threw that at me ) this claim- about the lemon- will always be true until it is falsified, however it is universal Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest O.o`GoFi`o.O Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 Well it is universal hahha... but it is still contextuall... and the book says that truth must be universal and contextual... so it is still not the truth.... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted September 17, 2007 Report Share Posted September 17, 2007 erm, if it's contextual.. isn't it a turth? lol Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 There are different standpoints regarding the truth.There's the standpoint that believes in "universal truth, surpassing gender, race, and time" and hence believes that there is no such thing as truth, as a universal truth is yet to be found.Another standpoint believes in contextual truth.And... "lemons are acidic" is based on a number of contexts! Language, primarily, but also on the situation in which the lemon is deemed acidic - if in a stronger acid, the acid of the lemon would act as a base. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Lc~ Posted September 18, 2007 Report Share Posted September 18, 2007 I was referring to the fact that Gofi said "but it is still contextuall" and then said "the book says that truth must be universal and contextual" and then said "so it is still not the truth" well if the book says contextual is a property of it being a truth, and it is contextual then isn't it the truth? And... "lemons are acidic" is based on a number of contexts! Language' date=' primarily, but also on the situation in which the lemon is deemed acidic - if in a stronger acid, the acid of the lemon would act as a base.[/quote']true, but if the lemon is places inside a stronger acid it might act as a base, but it will still be acidic and not a base (i.e it will have a pH below 7.0) so it is still acidic Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
winter Posted September 19, 2007 Report Share Posted September 19, 2007 ...but what if we consider lemons to be different things? Mine and your definitions may differ, as may our definitions of acidity. I think we've just seen that - I say that it's only acidic if it's acting as an acid, and you're saying that it's acidic based on it's pH. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daintydog Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 A lot of the other topics had their own thread, so... here's #10's! Enjoy -within reasonable limits Ok, my main idea is that because everything changes according to what context it is presently in there can be no such thing as truth, because -in my opinion- truth must be eternally and universally constant. if it is not then it is a misconception or opinion -which also changes according to context. Human behavior in general; language, culture and etc are very sensitive to context. Although even science is effected by it. There is some theory about math which I don't remember at the moment, something about it not being true but to in self... I wish i had paid more attention to him in class. and... well I'm gonna have to think a bit more about it. I guess I also have to choose a standpoint on how I would define context also... feel sort of lost when it comes to this subject actually Any one else Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afterglow Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 (edited) There's already a thread for topic 10 right here -----> CLICK Oh and btw off-topic but --> YAY for another Swede Threads merged!! Edited October 17, 2007 by HMSChocolate Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest O.o`GoFi`o.O Posted October 19, 2007 Report Share Posted October 19, 2007 Hahah... what i ment last time is not truth must be contextual... but its independent and universal..... my mistake.... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.