Jump to content

#6 'It is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known than to discover new data or facts'.


lammy21

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure that discoveries nowadays have correlations with past discoveries. Scientists in the past have always improved or worked on the findings of scientists before them. Newton himself said that "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants". I'm thinking of including that quote in my essay.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hmmm... I finished the draft of my introduction and it got me thinking... this topic is very unprecise. I explained so many things in the introduction, like not only terms like new ways of thinking and new facts. I also explained what in my opinion importance means. Can I do that, define things? Im scared I understood the whole concept wrong or Im not covering some important part of it :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i'm struggling to get some concrete examples. so far I have Mendel and the theory of Genetics and the Social Media Revolution in the Arab world. Would they be decent real life examples? Or would I need something a bit more distinct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. I think you have to think about individuals rather than the existing body of knowledge. For example, a child can always 'learn' about the emotion felt when being betrayed for the first time or feel extreme pain when they break their leg on the playground; the existence of these consequences are all new to the child and still can be seen as new facts. But what you have asked is perfect for a counter claim. Is it possible to know things without knowing the foundation of knowledge on which they are built on? I would say to a certain extent. Try to think of an example which required a previous body of knowledge to discover. Then think about what if the previous knowledge is skipped and jumped to discovering that. Would we still know 'it' as the same thing as we know it now? I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hey! =) I'm new here, and I'm starting my ToK Paper today as it is due on Tuesday and I haven't had any time to get around to it until now. I'm essentially sitting here staring at a blank Microsoft Word document trying to figure out what to do. We weren't given a whole lot of instruction on how to approach this essay, so my friends and I are all extremely lost on how to execute this essay.

I've chosen question #6 which states '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?

Now my teacher told us that the purpose of this essay is to analyze aspects of the question, and deduce why the question cannot be answered, but is that all we have to do? From what I have read on this forum, the purpose of this essay seems a bit different that what my teacher said.

How are we supposed to approach the question? What are we supposed to be answering? How do we answer the question?

I really hope someone here will be able to answer my questions so that my friends, and myself can do well on this essay.

Thank you! =)

IM doing the same exact essay maybe we can help eachother, send me an email or AIM message. My email is [email protected] & my AIM is whoknows0120 send me a message and we can talk more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well its better to discover new ways of thinking rather than finding new facts. Firstly because we know new facts need re-defining and is not perfect when we discover it. Just like the creation of the world wide web. By finding new ways of thinking look at where we are. we need to improve what we already have rather than find new things that have many side effects and faults.

However on the contrary new facts create new ways of thinking. So there is a link between the two. Take for example in science. Every new discover adds meaning to several other theories. In fact they either help strengthen it or prove it wrong. Science is subjected to paradigm change. So finding new facts affects will cause change to the way we think in science..

The two many Area's of knowledge that I think you can use are Mathematics and Science.

I am currently writing on this same essay question and consider that your point of view is the most convincing and easy to prove, as you did with the examples you gave.

Thank you for your help. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the fundamental question is being overlooked here...

How do you measure which is more important? And in what context(s) would it apply in?

After all, you are comparing which is ultimately more practical and useful as a model of knowledge of paradigm.

After struggling with this bloody title for hours on end, I've arrived at several conclusions:

1) It is tied closely to the scientific method

One can view the hypothesis as the "new way of thinking about what is already known"

One draw inferences from collected empirical data.

Make conclusions whether hypothesis is substantiated from data

Conclusions lead to relevant corollaries

2) I think you can measure the importance of "new ways of thinking" and "new data and facts" by measuring the ramifications, corollaries, and implications as the result of the respective discoveries. Each discovery lead to more questions, answers, questions, answers... et cera...

3)The stated methods can be broken down into 2 ways of 'knowing':

Conjecture, and follow up with proof

Proof, and follow up with an explanation.

Hopefully this helps...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was thinking about more in Chemistry

How the discovery of the elements only started off with a handful, and how there are over 100 elements known now. As finding out more of what is already known, you will subsequently find out new facts.

For this topic it is better to use AOK instead of WOK, but i need a knowledge issue. Any suggestions or ideas? I cant really start my essay if i dont have a knowlegde issue :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

what if i couldn't reach a conclusion? i could neither agree or disagree with it. is that okay? :blink:

You definitely need to make a judgment; if it is that you agree with both in some situations that is fine. However, concluding by saying 'I don't know!' makes you seem like you haven't thought about deeply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinkin about relating natural sciences with religion. Is that possible ? For example the ceation of the universe, the sciences created in some sort a new way of thinking which eventually made more scientists to find new things, such as fossils and the whole evolution theory. What worries me is that religio cannot be classified as a AOK, or can it be ?

Any feedback is welcome, thanks !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinkin about relating natural sciences with religion. Is that possible ? For example the ceation of the universe, the sciences created in some sort a new way of thinking which eventually made more scientists to find new things, such as fossils and the whole evolution theory. What worries me is that religio cannot be classified as a AOK, or can it be ?

Any feedback is welcome, thanks !

Hello Miinii,

Officially, the IB has divided knowledge into six areas: Art, History, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Ethics and Mathematics. So I would not consider Religion as an AoK because (a) the ToK syllabus does not descibe it as an AoK and (b) it has no explicit methodology and its contents is too similar to Ethics (and possibly History) to be considered an AoK (based on content) on its own.

A possible way around this is to seperate Science into 'modern' and 'ancient'. In the past, science was strongly linked to religion (as most of it was funded by the church). I would be tempted to use your particular example to say that 'new data or facts' caused the 'new way of thinking' (truth). You must consider the revese as well. i.e. 'new ways of interpreting data' causing new facts to form (truth).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im doing this topic and i was going to use history and natural science as my areas of knowledge. But i cant think of any examples in history where it was more important to discover new ways of thinking. Can anyone help me with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am thinking a lot about this question and I wanted to know whether I am thinking right or not. Can it be that with new ways of thinking, other discoveries can be found? Like can we derive new data or facts from new ways of thinking? If anybody could help me on this that would be really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Apolo

You can. It requires imagination but that's how it happens in chemistry. Based on new data and facts from experiments and statistics, a scientist is often able to formulate a theory which leads to a new way of thinking about that particular topic (depending on the theory and its relevance, obviously). But that's how it is. I would advise you to see the development of the model of the Atom throughout the years. It gives you the notion that the model has been changing throughout all these years and so has the way of thinking due to the properties that are given to the atom in different models. This particular case, shapes the whole Chemistry :)

was it helpful? o.O

Edited by Apolo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...