Prescribed Titles 2016 Discussion

[Karolina.jj]

Personally I really like the 3rd and 4th questions, there are so many examples you can use and they are just really interesting. 

[kristinemjs]

Personally I really like the 3rd and 4th questions, there are so many examples you can use and they are just really interesting. 

 

Yes I know, right! I chose Q 3, and right now I have so many different things I want to write about and examples, I honestly don't know what to choose..

[eternallyapril]

When are your first drafts due?

[afern98]

When are your first drafts due?

 

Mine's due November 10th. We had an unpacking/outline of the prompt a couple weeks ago.

 

Personally I really like the 3rd and 4th questions, there are so many examples you can use and they are just really interesting. 

 

Yes I know, right! I chose Q 3, and right now I have so many different things I want to write about and examples, I honestly don't know what to choose..

 

 

I'm in the same boat! I'm doing Q 3 and I've got so many examples I think I'm going to write them all out and then cut any of the weaker/less developed ones.

[Yugalarex]

When are your first drafts due?

 

5th of January!!

[kristinemjs]

I just finished my essay, and I am so happy with it! I ended up with natural sciences and religion, for title #3

[usernamed]

 

about the second topic, my teacher said that it means in his perspective that mainstream knowledge is most likely to develop as its the strongest known, while other forms of knowledge that aren't as popular might fade. 

however, i kinda understood it in a different way. i thought of it more of like as a person develops so does knowledge in order to cope with new needs and according to the principles of natural selection. like for example in the future the earth might become really polluted and people would need new needs in order to cope with that situation so specific knowledge in the area of knowledge natural sciences needs to develop specifically in physics and environmental studies in order to convey peoples new needs in solving pollution. thus the knowledge for natural sciences develops according to the principles of natural selection as its strongly needed, and other forms of knowledge in other areas of knowledge might be less needed so they might fade and be replaced.

 

i took natural selection here as in the meaning of this example:

if there are animals with long legs and animals  with short legs that need to run away from predators in order to survive, the ones with long legs are the ones that will survive as they are the stronger, thus soon there wont be many or any animals with short legs as they couldn't survive. thus when those animals reproduce only long legged animals will be born. 

 

so i need opinions, is what im saying really far away from the second topic or should i just stick to it not what my teacher said????

 

No, I think you've misinterpreted the question. Question 2 specifically asks you to present how knowledge within one discipline develops. So if you plan to compare biology/environmental science with other areas of knowledge, then you are not really answering the question.

What your teacher said about the topic is quite alright. Of course, that doesn't mean that your teacher's interpretation is the only one. And you are free to come up with your own. Just make sure that you are answering what the question actually asks.

 

In my opinion, I only agree with the statement in question 2 to some extent. As far as I understand the theory of evolution, natural selection starts from some genetic mutations within the population, which more or less happen by chance. On the other hand, human knowledge doesn't have that property. For example, in science, there is usually a variety of different scientific theories that are used to describe the same phenomenon, because scientists are always actively searching for alternative theories. And only empirical experimentation can decide which theory is the correct one. So I guess what I'm saying here is that while animal evolution is driven by natural selection (which heavily relies on the element of chance), the evolution of human knowledge is driven by humans who consciously seek for a better knowledge.

I don't know if my above point makes any sense, but ..... well, lucky that I don't have to do TOK ever again!

 

 

The question states how useful this metaphor is. Does that mean how this metaphor can benefit the growth of knowledge in a certain discipline, like the natural sciences for example? or does it mean how applicable this metaphor is to a certain discipline? like whether knowledge has developed through natural selection in the arts or the natural sciences for example?

To me, the later makes more sense than the former. But I'm not sure why they used the word useful instead of applicable or something?

I'd be interested to know what u guys think

[Vioh]

The question states how useful this metaphor is. Does that mean how this metaphor can benefit the growth of knowledge in a certain discipline, like the natural sciences for example? or does it mean how applicable this metaphor is to a certain discipline? like whether knowledge has developed through natural selection in the arts or the natural sciences for example?

To me, the later makes more sense than the former. But I'm not sure why they used the word useful instead of applicable or something?

I'd be interested to know what u guys think

 

To me, what the question asks is about whether this metaphor is useful in describing how knowledge is evolved within a discipline. In other words, is the metaphor accurate in describing the evolution of knowledge through time? So I don't think it has anything to do with applicability or usability. Of course, you can define things the way you want, but I think it makes less sense with the way you interpret the question.