lammy21 Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Do you guys have any ideas for this topic: '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?Any ideas would be great ThAnKs!!!! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.James Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Not sure if this is the best answer but you could talk about how new fields of science make us look back on things we used to "know". Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilia Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 That depends, doesn't it? The best things to discover are those that are useful and helpful, regardless of that it's a new way of thinking or it's a new fact. For instance if one could find a new fact that could cure cancer, it would be extremely helpful, but if someone thought of a new way of using a previously known fact to cure it, it'd be just as good. So my first feeling is that it's not relevant how the knowledge was discovered, but if I would do this title thoroughly, I suppose I would come up with other, more subtle ideas about it.If you do this title, be careful to define what you mean, because I sense a risk here, namely that people have different ideas about what is meant by "new ways of thinking" and then don't define it. Write exactly what you mean with the title in the beginning of the essay. 3 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lammy21 Posted November 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2010 thanks!but is it ok if i say that new ways of thinking and finding new facts are equally important? or do i have to disagree or agreealso were is the best place to find examples to back up my points? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted December 5, 2010 Report Share Posted December 5, 2010 I am thinking of doing this title but not sure yet.Let's say I choose Natural Sciences and Ethics as the AOK.I want to talk about discovering new ways of thinking about the universe (scientifically: the big bang theory; and the story that is told in religion: how God created the universe) and discovering new facts about the doomsday (how science could determine this, how religion teaches us that nobody but God knows when the world would end, maybe I'd touch on the Mayan prediction a little bit).Does that make sense? Is that possible? Too broad or too narrow for a TOK essay? Any suggestion or criticism? Thanks. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBnoob Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 read "where good ideas come from" by Steven Johnson 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted December 25, 2010 Report Share Posted December 25, 2010 The most important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.Could anybody -- who could speak English better than me -- help me by explaining the above quote, please?Did Bragg mean both obtaining new facts and discovering new ways of thinking are not important in science,Or did he mean that obtaining new facts are not so important in science, but discovering new ways of thinking are important in science?Sorry, the "as to" confuses me Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Posted December 29, 2010 Report Share Posted December 29, 2010 The most important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.Could anybody -- who could speak English better than me -- help me by explaining the above quote, please?Did Bragg mean both obtaining new facts and discovering new ways of thinking are not important in science,Or did he mean that obtaining new facts are not so important in science, but discovering new ways of thinking are important in science?Sorry, the "as to" confuses me He means that it's less important to obtain new facts than it is to discover new ways of thinking about those same facts. So the second one of your definitions.The construct so much.... as is a comparative Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I need to write a TOK essay draft in bullet points but I still have some doubts.I want to take a detective as an example. I read a novel in English B class entitled The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. The main character in the story is named Christopher. His neighbour's dog died and he wanted to find out who killed that dog (Wellington) and in this book I think he mentioned that as a detective he needed to discover new facts to find out who killed Wellington. So I thought I want to use this example in my TOK essay. Is that possible? If yes, what is the AOK related to this case?I want to say that in Science it is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known, but in the AOK in the above ^ case it is more important to discover new data or facts. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I need to write a TOK essay draft in bullet points but I still have some doubts.I want to take a detective as an example. I read a novel in English B class entitled The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. The main character in the story is named Christopher. His neighbour's dog died and he wanted to find out who killed that dog (Wellington) and in this book I think he mentioned that as a detective he needed to discover new facts to find out who killed Wellington. So I thought I want to use this example in my TOK essay. Is that possible? If yes, what is the AOK related to this case?I want to say that in Science it is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known, but in the AOK in the above ^ case it is more important to discover new data or facts.I don't think that that's really a very good example. You could equally say that detectives need to think about the same knowledge in many different ways and that's maybe more important than new facts in terms of putting all the facts together. There's no real reason why it should represent somebody needing to find out more facts apart from the fact it just happens to be written as that phrase in the book.I don't think any example using the people who find the facts is a very good one, you want an example of a piece of knowledge discovered either via new facts or new ways of thinking, and you want to tie it into Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 Uhhh okay...My IBID Chemistry book talked about the historical development of the periodic table. Apparently some scientists had previously noticed some patterns in atoms and then Mendeléev extended and rearranged Newland's table to the one similar to the modern periodic table. I guess I can do further research on this later but can I talk about this in my TOK essay? I think from this we can conclude that it is more important to discover new ways of thinking about what is already known.I still don't know when it is more important to discover new facts, though. Anybody knows whether in History it is more important to discover new facts or new ways of thinking? I am not taking History though so I have no idea if I can choose History as an AOK Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minuet Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 History can be very fun! But you're going to have to read up on a lot of facts before you get anywhere near it. Also, HIstory is obviously very broad. Which do you want? Islamic, European, or American History? Narrow it down to what suits your liking.As for the question...Isn't discovering new ways of thinking on what we already know discovering new data? Nothing is 'new'; all the supposedly new data we discover is from existing data or theories. When someone says they 'discovered' a new planet, they only discovered it because there was: A- the theory that planets actually existed, and B- the proof of other planets existing. The only knowledge we have comes from existing knowledge, so essentially, we really know nothing at all. We're just deriving knowledge from theories or discoveries the knower made. We can only be knowers if we follow what the knower did...Continuing later; I have to leave for now haha Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 I do not like History at all. How is that?No I think it depends on how you define those terms.A fact is something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information.(Cambridge AL Dictionary)And yes I know I will need to come up with my own definition later. I would define a new fact as a fact that you recently discovered and it was not known before. So based on my definition, there ARE new facts!I would define new ways of thinking about what is already known as changes in reasoning due to better evidence behind known facts.Such a coincidence you mentioned planets just know, I wrote in my draft that the fact that Pluto ain't a planet was discovered through new ways of thinking about what was already known.I think in History there is no fact. There are truths, but no fact.I think in Human Sciences there is no truth nor fact, there are only theories and concepts.While in Natural Sciences there are facts, theories and concepts.So the discovery of new facts is only conducted in Natural Sciences I hate TOK Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minuet Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 It really is depending on your own perception of those facts/theories in the end, anyway. But what is it that you want again? History or Sciences? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dessskris Posted January 9, 2011 Report Share Posted January 9, 2011 It really is depending on your own perception of those facts/theories in the end, anyway. But what is it that you want again? History or Sciences?Huh I want to use 2 AOK, one is definitely the Natural Science and the other one I am not sure yet.What I want is to make it balanced the importance of the discovery of both new data/facts and new ways of thinking about what is already known.Since the importance of the discovery of new ways of thinking about what is already known has been proven in Natural Science, I want the other AOK to prove the importance of the discovery of new facts. But I suck at Human Sciences and History. I am taking Econs only and I don't see that aspect in Econs.Do you know any AOK I can use? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleM Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 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! =) Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleM Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 When answering this question, is it necessary to use AoK seeing as the question does not directly state to evaluate the statement using AoK? I'm finding this whole essay extremely confusing Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timtamboy63 Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 Anyone know what some decent Knowledge Issues relating to this would be? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fan Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 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. 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry.paradise Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm thinking of doing this topic too. Would Darwin and evolution be a good example? On one hand, he incorporated several existing theories together. On the other hand, he revolutionized biology at that time period. So, from this, new ways of thinking are what really propels science forward. Same for your Mendeleev example too. I mean, without a unique way of thinking, finding new data would be useless. CERN is a good example of that, I suppose. Sorting through all the data gathered takes quite a while, I think. So the current method is inefficient. 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.