Nov10/May11 #7: How can we recognise when we have made progress in the search for knowledge? Consider two contrasting areas of knowledge.

[slvch]

Hi!

So I was checking out the different posts there are for the N10-M11 ToK titles and I haven't found any one regarding this particular title:

7. How can we recognise when we have made progress in the search for knowledge? Consider two contrasting areas of knowledge.

I wanna write something on this but I'm stuck; I just don't know what to do or how to start. My ToK teacher doesn't teach us anything (we didn't even know we needed to have a journal and we never even had a "discussion" on any topic) so I have no idea on how to approach anything. I read the advice etc but I panic when I see the blank document.

HELP ME!

[KLSmash]

Define your parameters before writing your essay. By that, I mean define knowledge and progress. Then, make a list of the areas of knowledge, and figure out which ones you can incorporate the best/are contrasting/have good specific examples.

[sweetnsimple786]

Hmm. Well I guess it's not a bad idea to determine what you think the question is asking.

What is progress? Is it different in different areas of knowledge? How? Can you quantify progress? Can you qualify it? Is progress relative or absolute? Is it even important to make progress? How do we use ways of knowing to recognize progress?

You don't have to answer all of these, but consider them. Yeah, it's important to know some TOK terminology and know some thoughts about different things, but the thing that I like is that you can think about these questions and how they relate to your life. The answer doesn't need to be mind-shattering. It should be clear, well-thought, and rooted in personal examples.

So how do you recognize when you've progressed in maths? In singing or dancing or acting? In writing fiction or essays or lab reports or speaking?

I wouldn't have picked this topic, but now that you ask about it, I see the potential of the title. You can take it to a number of different places. I asked questions. Ask more of your own. =)

[IB is watching you]

Hello,

I'm also starting to write my essay about this question

First, I will try to define what de we mean by progress in the search for knowledge. I will also try to argue that progress in search to knowledge means getting closer to truth. My two areas of knowledge are Histroy and Natural Sciences. My idea is that we can't know when have we made progress in search of knowledge of history, because we can't prove if history is true (history is just another fiction) but we can prove it natural sciences (theories and laws e.g Newton's). I will try to justify by ways of knowing and examples...You think this is ok?is there a "knowledge issue"?

[Tilia]

Hello,

I'm also starting to write my essay about this question

First, I will try to define what de we mean by progress in the search for knowledge. I will also try to argue that progress in search to knowledge means getting closer to truth. My two areas of knowledge are Histroy and Natural Sciences. My idea is that we can't know when have we made progress in search of knowledge of history, because we can't prove if history is true (history is just another fiction) but we can prove it natural sciences (theories and laws e.g Newton's). I will try to justify by ways of knowing and examples...You think this is ok?is there a "knowledge issue"?

Fistly, we can never prove anything in natural sciences. This is important. Proof is only applicable to maths and logic. I'm not quite sure about this truth part, however. You might have to argue that there is truth and define and this is troublesome. Otherwise it sounds OK.

[IB is watching you]

Hello,

I'm also starting to write my essay about this question

First, I will try to define what de we mean by progress in the search for knowledge. I will also try to argue that progress in search to knowledge means getting closer to truth. My two areas of knowledge are Histroy and Natural Sciences. My idea is that we can't know when have we made progress in search of knowledge of history, because we can't prove if history is true (history is just another fiction) but we can prove it natural sciences (theories and laws e.g Newton's). I will try to justify by ways of knowing and examples...You think this is ok?is there a "knowledge issue"?

Fistly, we can never prove anything in natural sciences. This is important. Proof is only applicable to maths and logic. I'm not quite sure about this truth part, however. You might have to argue that there is truth and define and this is troublesome. Otherwise it sounds OK.

Thanks a lot!!! I guess I won't mess up with the "truth" thing... I will think about the question a bit more,and read a bit more about ToK (we never really had a ToK class..)

[slvch]

Thanks a lot guys, I finally handed in! *crossed fingers*

[Gerrit]

Proof is not applicable to math. It's only applicable to math if you accept the rules of math, which can't be proven without circle reasoning.

[Tilia]

Proof is not applicable to math. It's only applicable to math if you accept the rules of math, which can't be proven without circle reasoning.

Not sure what you mean. 2 + 2 = 4 by definition. MAthematical rules can be proven, logically. What is it that is circular?

[Gerrit]

Because in order to prove the mathematical rules, you have to use the preset rules of mathematics that we accept. I can prove to you that 1+1 = 2.

[Tilia]

Because in order to prove the mathematical rules, you have to use the preset rules of mathematics that we accept. I can prove to you that 1+1 = 2.

Yes in that sense. But maths is constructed, on the basis of those simple rules, one can find new ones.

[asian]

Because in order to prove the mathematical rules, you have to use the preset rules of mathematics that we accept. I can prove to you that 1+1 = 2.

Yes in that sense. But maths is constructed, on the basis of those simple rules, one can find new ones.

How would you tackle the question if your doing the AOK's of: History and Natural Sciences??

For hist., is it best to compare ourselves now when we are civilised as compared to the middle ages, showing that we made progress???

thanks

Edited September 21, 2010 by Sandwich
Please don't use chatspeak.

[BH ANOMALY]

You don't have to define knowledge or progress in this case. It's self explanatory as you go through essay as long as your examples are relevant. The key idea to this title is HOW can we recognize it and keep in mind, it's a compare and contrast question.

[asian123]

What are some good KI's use in this essay

The ones i have are:

How can we recognise progress in History/natural sciences?

Is progress important for makind? <-- for the AOK - natural sciences

thanks

[Cabir]

Hello,

I'm also starting to write my essay about this question

First, I will try to define what de we mean by progress in the search for knowledge. I will also try to argue that progress in search to knowledge means getting closer to truth. My two areas of knowledge are Histroy and Natural Sciences. My idea is that we can't know when have we made progress in search of knowledge of history, because we can't prove if history is true (history is just another fiction) but we can prove it natural sciences (theories and laws e.g Newton's). I will try to justify by ways of knowing and examples...You think this is ok?is there a "knowledge issue"?

I would rather use two "more" contrasting areas of knowledge

for instance Arts and Natural Sciences

or Ethics and Mathematics

instead of History and Natural Sciences.

in the end they are both Sciences (human sciences and natural sciences).

[watzup19]

Hi! I am also doing the same question for my TOK essay...

I am really unsure what to do but considering some ideas such as define progress and the reliability of progress. I was also wondering if I should included by what ways did we as a society make progress ( mistakes, new inventions, new theories...)

I am comparing the Math and the Science...

maybe also include how we recognized it by the use of acceptance, textbooks?, evidence and so on.

I am aware that I would need valid examples to use as evidence to support my argument.

Any other suggestions?!?!?

[Cognac]

If math is constructed why is it so precisely describing the world?

[Bajjen]

Hello,

I'm also starting to write my essay about this question

First, I will try to define what de we mean by progress in the search for knowledge. I will also try to argue that progress in search to knowledge means getting closer to truth. My two areas of knowledge are Histroy and Natural Sciences. My idea is that we can't know when have we made progress in search of knowledge of history, because we can't prove if history is true (history is just another fiction) but we can prove it natural sciences (theories and laws e.g Newton's). I will try to justify by ways of knowing and examples...You think this is ok?is there a "knowledge issue"?

I would rather use two "more" contrasting areas of knowledge

for instance Arts and Natural Sciences

or Ethics and Mathematics

instead of History and Natural Sciences.

in the end they are both Sciences (human sciences and natural sciences).

But I have written my essay using History and Natural sciences as contrasting AoK's and my teacher said that it was good... but now that you say that they are both sciences, is my teacher wrong then? shall i change the AoK's?