tok present. on misuse/manipulation of science

[anuskina]

hi! ive found a pretty interesting topic to do my presentation on. but -theres always a but- my teacher told me to change a bit the orientation of it, and that messed up my whole idea

so, im basing my presnentation in a main example -tobacco companies, philip morris in particular- and how they manipulated scientific research in the 80s with the CIAR (The Tobacco Institute's Center for Indoor Air Research) and how they still misuse science.

I was thinking in touching a couple of important points such as how scientific integrity is damaged through manipulation of funds, use of uncertainty, ad hominum fallacies

basically showing how science can me manipulated/misuse with political or market-related reasons

here it comes the tough part, what are the implications? besides cliche -we cant really know, its influenced by bias what else can i say??

any idea / suggestion ?

Thank you

[Sandwich]

To go right back to the heart of TOK issues, perhaps the implication of these errors is that, if science can be so manipulated and changed by interpretation, because all science is interpretation, we can lose track of what the truth is. After all, science is a manmade model of reality, and as we make the model 'on top' of reality, as it were, how can we ever know what the truth is as every part of it is all our own interpretation? Bring it back to how science is all interpretation and there're no absolute truths in science.

That focuses it on the area of knowledge itself, and the whole 'how do we know' thing. You could back it up with examples like Bohr's Atomic model contrasted with the fact that electrons are simultaneously waves and particles. That you've found this problem implies that science itself, being based on interpretation, is fundamentally problematic.

Kinda boring, but it's the sort of thing they like, I think. I hope that's not what you meant by 'we can't really know'! If so, ignore me

[anuskina]

thank you very much sandwich

do you think if i say that
- bias is something that we cant get rid of due to our nature and that it should be considered when looking at scientific facts
- probably, in this area of knowledge more than in any other, the sources where the information inf ounded is vital
- the credibility of the gov should not be given for granted
it could be considered too cliche and not tokish enough?

[Sandwich]

The whole point of TOK is that they have an obsession with bringing it back to ways of knowing and areas of knowledge. So if you can link bias to ways of knowing (which in this instance is pretty much emotion) then yes, you should use that as an example as to how a way of knowing influences what we know. Just make sure you focus not on what you find interesting about the topic, but on what the Theory of Knowledge examiner wants out of it

As for "in this area of knowledge more than any other", you firstly give yourself the problem of justifying why science is a special case over, say, history for instance. Secondly, if you want to score highly, don't talk about sources, talk about HOW we came to know (aka the scientific method) and the flaws in that, as I mentioned previously. At the end of the day, TOK isn't interested in bias, it's interested in how bias comes about. So if you say that the problem lies in the source of where the science comes from, you're actually missing the real point that they (the TOK people) would want you to identify which is namely that EVERY aspect of science, regardless of source, is interpretation. So the source doesn't matter, it's the fact that everything is interpreted and you should talk about how we can try to build the 'best' model of reality (e.g. Karl Popper's theory of trying to disprove our models).

Whether we should blindly believe the government can be a small concluding part to your presentation, as it doesn't really contain any TOK issues, but does neatly round off the problem you're describing.

Bring everything back to its foundations, is my advice. Whatever area of knowledge or way of knowing you talk about, go back to HOW we generate that knowledge every single time it comes up. You'll find it much easier to score the points if you do it that way.

[anuskina]

im presenting it in 20 min

im absolutely terrified

well see how it goes

thank u sadnwich for ur advice