ToK Essay 09-10 Title 5

[idIB]

Hi everyone,

I am working on my ToK essay and the title I chose was:

5. “What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” (Michael Shermer, www.edge.com). Critically evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge?

I'm not quite sure how to approach this, and the more I think about it, the more confused and off topic I get?

Anyone have any suggestions?

[Sandwich]

To get you started, I'd look at the scientific method and Popper's idea of things needing to be disproved. How do we come to scientific conclusions?

In TOK they kinda want you to see how we get knowledge about things. So after you've shown how we find knowledge in science (ie how we come to conclusions from the scientific method, with some personal examples, as ever), looking at how we find knowledge in something like history, or maths, for instance. Are those conclusions provisional? & if not/so, looking back at how you reached those conclusions, why not?

Of course if you can find something else with provisional conclusions (perhaps history?) you can use it to argue against.

You get marks for counterarguments, so be sure to argue that some scientific conclusions might not be provisional (with examples if you can find them) aaaand that Mr Shermer is wrong, because science either doesn't have fully provisional conclusions, or because it's not unique in that respect.

I hope that helps a bit

[idIB]

To get you started, I'd look at the scientific method and Popper's idea of things needing to be disproved. How do we come to scientific conclusions?

In TOK they kinda want you to see how we get knowledge about things. So after you've shown how we find knowledge in science (ie how we come to conclusions from the scientific method, with some personal examples, as ever), looking at how we find knowledge in something like history, or maths, for instance. Are those conclusions provisional? & if not/so, looking back at how you reached those conclusions, why not?

Of course if you can find something else with provisional conclusions (perhaps history?) you can use it to argue against.

You get marks for counterarguments, so be sure to argue that some scientific conclusions might not be provisional (with examples if you can find them) aaaand that Mr Shermer is wrong, because science either doesn't have fully provisional conclusions, or because it's not unique in that respect.

I hope that helps a bit

Thanks!

I was considering talking about how science is provisional based on the evidence we have found for certain theorems, and how ethics is provisional based on the situation, however there are certain aspects of history, art and language (these are the only AoKs that aren't science that I can think of) are provisional based on perspective/perception, the era you live in (paradigms and cultures) and, well, language barriers.

It's quite difficult to figure out how to structure it all!!

[Sandwich]

IMO the best thing to do is not compare the titles of the areas of knowledge as such, but compare HOW we know them. So if you structure your essay around how we know stuff, then toss in some areas of knowledge as the examples of this different approach to getting knowledge, I suspect you'll find it a bit easier

I'd also avoid using ethics as an example, as it's hugely individualistic. This is obviously only from my perspective, but when you have something which isn't the bright shiny epitome of what you're describing, avoid it xP For instance, religious people might say that ethics isn't provisional. You have a series of laws written down. Similarly, Kant would say they're not provisional. For those sorts of approaches, the conclusions reached aren't necessarily provisional conclusions.

Obviously it depends on how you define provisional (good idea to define all key words before you start, btw), but if I were you I'd use something where the primary source of knowledge is language (like history ), so everything is in a state of flux because you're just recombining different accounts and it's all subjective.

I'd also perhaps look at discussing a priori and a posteriori as a way of finding some kind of division.

Don't confuse provisional with subjective, though.

[idIB]

I'd also avoid using ethics as an example, as it's hugely individualistic. This is obviously only from my perspective, but when you have something which isn't the bright shiny epitome of what you're describing, avoid it xP For instance, religious people might say that ethics isn't provisional. You have a series of laws written down. Similarly, Kant would say they're not provisional. For those sorts of approaches, the conclusions reached aren't necessarily provisional conclusions.

Thanks for your help! If I mention Kant, I could use ethics as a counterargument to Shermer's quote... but I'm not sure if this is taking too many sides of the issue...

I'm going to argue that science is not separated from all other human activities because of its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions, but rather in its usage of the provisional nature of all conclusions as a means to an end, as sciences use temporary evidence and findings and later prove/disprove them, all in the goal of finding the true knowledge. Whereas, in history, changes in conclusions drawn from the information are not made with the purpose of finding out the truth, but fpr expressing your own opinion(this is purely my own opinion- i've never been good at history/historiography)

[Sandwich]

Thanks for your help! If I mention Kant, I could use ethics as a counterargument to Shermer's quote... but I'm not sure if this is taking too many sides of the issue...

I'm going to argue that science is not separated from all other human activities because of its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions, but rather in its usage of the provisional nature of all conclusions as a means to an end, as sciences use temporary evidence and findings and later prove/disprove them, all in the goal of finding the true knowledge. Whereas, in history, changes in conclusions drawn from the information are not made with the purpose of finding out the truth, but fpr expressing your own opinion(this is purely my own opinion- i've never been good at history/historiography)

Make sure you don't start making up your own question. Shermer's quote has nothing to do with ethics, only science. The question is asking you whether what Shermer said is a fair point of distinction between science and the other areas of knowledge, so everything you say is all about arguing whether his point of distinction is fair for science. If you mention another area of knowledge, it must only be to highlight some sort of overlap between some aspect of that area of knowledge as it relates to whether science can be distinguished by its provisional conclusions! You don't argue one side, you argue both

Just make sure that "science is not separated from all other human activities because of its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions, but rather in its usage of the provisional nature of all conclusions as a means to an end" is only your conclusion and not the meat of the body of your essay. The body of your essay should be analysis leading to that conclusion, if that's what you reckon, but I wouldn't mention that until the end as it's really just a tangent to the question

Not sure how your scientific conclusions could be a means to an end unless you're suggesting that the 'end' is some kind of workable model of reality we can comprehend and manipulate-- in which case, surely history would be the examination of sources to find some workable model of history we can comprehend and manipulate? The only 'end' I can see in your description would be what you're talking about in the first place, i.e. the conclusion is the means to the end of finding the conclusion! I'm not 100% sure where you're finding your distinction with that one, and unless it's rocksolid, do not go there! All I can see is a that you're trying to break the scientific method down into components and say that there's more than one conclusion. So I assume you meant roughly my definition. Technically historians are trying to find historical truth, it's just a lot more subjective than scientific truths which tend to yield the same result every time because of the manner in which those truths are found. Although you could mention this subjectivity, I can't see where you'd use it as a definitive point of comparison (unless your 'means to an end' thing is different from what I got out of it!).

I think a lot of people have a tendency to take a single line of attack with TOK and turn it into an essay based on a single idea they had, forgetting that it's more or less also an analysis of areas of knowledge, ways of knowing and how to bring them all together. You have to be pretty critical and keep asking yourself if what you're saying really makes sense. Just don't get carried away! xP Especially don't start answering extra questions, you don't have many words in the essay as it is!

You may disagree with what I've said, who knows? Either way, good luck

[idIB]

Thanks, I think I've been going off on my own little tangent! The titles are just so VAGUE!!

I get what you're saying (i don't realy get what i was saying...), and the real difference that I see between science and history is the method from which conclusions are found, and what way of knowing those conclusions are based upon

I'll figure it out somehow!

[Scott]

OK. For my ToK essay I chose topic 5.

5. “What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” (Michael Shermer, www.edge.com). Critically evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge?

I have a few questions about it.

1. What or where is www.edge.com? It doesn't seem to exist.

2. Can anyone find a context or where this quote is from, because it can't. It doesn't seem to exist either.

3. Why is there a question mark at the end?

[Sandwich]

OK. For my ToK essay I chose topic 5.

5. “What separates science from all other human activities is its belief in the provisional nature of all conclusions” (Michael Shermer, www.edge.com). Critically evaluate this way of distinguishing the sciences from other areas of knowledge?

I have a few questions about it.

1. What or where is www.edge.com? It doesn't seem to exist.

2. Can anyone find a context or where this quote is from, because it can't. It doesn't seem to exist either.

3. Why is there a question mark at the end?

1. It doesn't matter, you're instructed to ignore the origins of your quotes, and writing about it is just eating into your word limit.

2. As above!

3. There shouldn't be, as it's an instruction. Even if there is, though, it makes no difference to how you answer the essay!

[idIB]

1. What or where is www.edge.com? It doesn't seem to exist.

it is actually from www.edge.org

here is the link, just scroll down to about the ninth or tenth entry and you should find the excerpt that the quote is from

http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html

I found it during my initially panicking moments, but in reality, you don't need to know where the quote is from in order to answer the question. just discuss the title using ToK knowledge and you should be fine!

Bonne Chance!

[ruiko]

I guess you've already finished with this essay, but I thought I might add this anyway!

Regarding that "what separates science..." question, I reckon the key word is 'belief'... I mean, the IB loves that kind of vague word!

Perhaps Shermer's statement is talking about how science doesn't set out thinking that what experiments support is solid fact.

Certainly think about the way of knowing science uses and whatnot. I think you're on the right track there.

I agree that history seems similarly provisional natured, and I would definitely discuss the significance of that, but maybe the history example isn't an example that's a full counter for the statement in question. I don't think the IB would provide such a simple-answered question either.

I probably haven't thought it through as much as you would have, and this is just what I noticed from the question you posted, so by all means feel free to disregard this post.

To those still writing this ToK essay, I do think its vital to dissect the question before starting to write the essay, and if you see any ambiguous words, I would give them some thought even if you think they're not that important.

[Tilia]

I intend to do this title, but I wonder if I have to include all AoK in order to disprove/prove (couldn't find any better words) this claim? Cause that'll take a lot of space...

[victimofIB]

most of you have looked at this topic from the point of claims(the fact that science IS provisional in nature) however look at some of the counter claims as well(examples of how science is not provisional in nature), many things in science are still just theories and are based purely on assumptions of our perception and reasoning of data. take for example the fact that earlier people thought the sun and other planets revolved around the earth only later was it proven wrong; or the fact that the earth was considered flat. i take chem HL and i think part of this applies to the hybridisation theory as well.

Just my opinion thought it might help

Edited July 9, 2009 by victimofIB

[Tilia]

But in my view, even the social sciences are provisional, just think about psychology or new discoveries in history. I don't see any arguments that science is the ONLY provisional stuff.

[Sandwich]

But in my view, even the social sciences are provisional, just think about psychology or new discoveries in history. I don't see any arguments that science is the ONLY provisional stuff.

I'm a bit confused - do you need to? Don't quite get where you're coming from with this!

Anyway in response to what you wrote earlier, you do get some marks for showing you are aware of the differences between different areas of knowledge as sort-of one of your TOK 'skills', so if you can bring in one or two contrasting areas of knowledge (with the specific goal of contrasting them AND also coincidentally pointing out what separates them from science in terms of how we acquire or structure our knowledge about them) you're more or less set. I don't think there's any need, given the title, to do more areas of knowledge than the bare minimum.

[Tilia]

But in my view, even the social sciences are provisional, just think about psychology or new discoveries in history. I don't see any arguments that science is the ONLY provisional stuff.

I'm a bit confused - do you need to? Don't quite get where you're coming from with this!

I just feel that the claim is so obviously false. Maybe I should choose another title.

Thanks anyway

[~Lc~]

To get you started, I'd look at the scientific method and Popper's idea of things needing to be disproved. How do we come to scientific conclusions?

In TOK they kinda want you to see how we get knowledge about things. So after you've shown how we find knowledge in science (ie how we come to conclusions from the scientific method, with some personal examples, as ever), looking at how we find knowledge in something like history, or maths, for instance. Are those conclusions provisional? & if not/so, looking back at how you reached those conclusions, why not?

Of course if you can find something else with provisional conclusions (perhaps history?) you can use it to argue against.

You get marks for counterarguments, so be sure to argue that some scientific conclusions might not be provisional (with examples if you can find them) aaaand that Mr Shermer is wrong, because science either doesn't have fully provisional conclusions, or because it's not unique in that respect.

I hope that helps a bit

Thanks!

I was considering talking about how science is provisional based on the evidence we have found for certain theorems, and how ethics is provisional based on the situation, however there are certain aspects of history, art and language (these are the only AoKs that aren't science that I can think of) are provisional based on perspective/perception, the era you live in (paradigms and cultures) and, well, language barriers.

It's quite difficult to figure out how to structure it all!!

I'd go with comparing it to the social sciences. A key difference between natural and social science is that social science is an area which is studied in constant debate. Facts are rare, and can usually be used in different angles to provide different arguments. In the natural sciences facts are facts until they're falsified. Of course you could mention the variation of experimental outcomes due to human errors etc. but it's a good argument to use I think