Nov10/May11 #5 "To what extent are the various areas of knowledge defined by their methodologies rather than their content?"

[WhereAmazingHappens]

Hello, I'm starting to work on my ToK essay and I decided to choose #5 since I'm not really interested in the other topics. I'm having trouble understanding this title and coming up with knowledge issues to discuss in this essay.

[sweetnsimple786]

This is a hard question.

On a basic level, it's asking you to pick 2-3 areas of knowledge and discuss how they differ based on how you'd try to gain knowledge in them [methodology] and what (kinds of) knowledge is included within the areas [content] AND whether the methodology or content defines the area of knowledge more, which means that you need to figure how various areas of knowledge are defined.

The way that I've always done TOK essays is to plan out my argument, trying to be open minded and looking for counterarguments. I don't purposely talk about knowledge issues. They just show up once you analytically discuss your topic. You don't have to be deliberate, I don't think. Once you've fleshed out your essay, and you don't think there's enough TOK in it, then you'd need to look into those knowledge claims/issues.

So my advice to you is to look at different kinds of knowledge. Objective and subjective springs to mind, although there are other ways to categorize them. And look at areas of knowledge that showcase different kinds of knowledge and look at ways of gaining knowledge in these different areas of knowledge. You're going to grapple with how you define an area of knowledge, generally and specifically. The title has given you terms to work with--methodology and content. There might be a third way to define an AOK that you might want to talk about, but you are on a word limit here. It's something to think about. So what makes science different from literature, in terms of methodology and content? I'm not saying use those AOK, but they'd be useful to illustrate different points.

I'd just start with a piece of paper and list as many points that come to mind about this title and go from there. Do you understand the title a little better? Give me your thoughts. =)

[Zadamanim]

Do i have to come to the conclusion that the methodology is the more important factor? or can i say "this area of knowledge is defined more by its content" at all, or to what extent can i say that..?

Essay is due in two days, and my teacher is incompetent, so i would avoid asking him this important question.

[rose93]

This is a hard question.

On a basic level, it's asking you to pick 2-3 areas of knowledge and discuss how they differ based on how you'd try to gain knowledge in them [methodology] and what (kinds of) knowledge is included within the areas [content] AND whether the methodology or content defines the area of knowledge more, which means that you need to figure how various areas of knowledge are defined.

The way that I've always done TOK essays is to plan out my argument, trying to be open minded and looking for counterarguments. I don't purposely talk about knowledge issues. They just show up once you analytically discuss your topic. You don't have to be deliberate, I don't think. Once you've fleshed out your essay, and you don't think there's enough TOK in it, then you'd need to look into those knowledge claims/issues.

So my advice to you is to look at different kinds of knowledge. Objective and subjective springs to mind, although there are other ways to categorize them. And look at areas of knowledge that showcase different kinds of knowledge and look at ways of gaining knowledge in these different areas of knowledge. You're going to grapple with how you define an area of knowledge, generally and specifically. The title has given you terms to work with--methodology and content. There might be a third way to define an AOK that you might want to talk about, but you are on a word limit here. It's something to think about. So what makes science different from literature, in terms of methodology and content? I'm not saying use those AOK, but they'd be useful to illustrate different points.

I'd just start with a piece of paper and list as many points that come to mind about this title and go from there. Do you understand the title a little better? Give me your thoughts. =)

Hi,

I'm a little bit concerned because my teacher (who's never taught TOK before) told me that I must deal with all the AOKs because the question says "THE various areas of knowledge". I thought that would be weird, as the word count is so small, so I was planning on just doing 2 or 3. Should I go with what my teacher says or just do 2/3 AOKs?

[Keel]

Hi,

I'm a little bit concerned because my teacher (who's never taught TOK before) told me that I must deal with all the AOKs because the question says "THE various areas of knowledge". I thought that would be weird, as the word count is so small, so I was planning on just doing 2 or 3. Should I go with what my teacher says or just do 2/3 AOKs?

Hello,

Yes, I would interpret 'various' as being 3-4 areas of knowledge. Doing all six would be too much. I'd pick the ones with methodologies that stand out and are easy to analyse. For example, the scientific method in the natural sciences, historical investigations in history, reasoning in ethics, and possibly expression in art. These are all pretty doable.

[puddingmilk]

*bump* I'm doing this essay now...ahhh

Thanks for the guideline sweetnsimple786 - can anyone just tell me what it means exactly by 'content'?

I kind of get the methodologies part, like with natural science you can talk about the framework of it (hypothesis, law, observation...), so natural sciences seem very much defined by its methodology (i.e. How do you know your content is right?! Your methadology might seem logical but it's not?)

I know that methodology in science can have its problems e.g. the problems of induction, etc right? So how do I know what is 'content' of a science. This is so confusingg!

Also, if anyone can correct me... the hypothesis, law, observation part is the Natural Science METHOD so what would its methodology be?! Would it be that (the traditional Science Method), plus the considerations of the 'Confirmation Bias' , 'background assumptions' etc?

Any words of advice/wisdom would be very appreciated! thank you!

[Keel]

*bump* I'm doing this essay now...ahhh

Thanks for the guideline sweetnsimple786 - can anyone just tell me what it means exactly by 'content'?

I kind of get the methodologies part, like with natural science you can talk about the framework of it (hypothesis, law, observation...), so natural sciences seem very much defined by its methodology (i.e. How do you know your content is right?! Your methadology might seem logical but it's not?)

I know that methodology in science can have its problems e.g. the problems of induction, etc right? So how do I know what is 'content' of a science. This is so confusingg!

Also, if anyone can correct me... the hypothesis, law, observation part is the Natural Science METHOD so what would its methodology be?! Would it be that (the traditional Science Method), plus the considerations of the 'Confirmation Bias' , 'background assumptions' etc?

Any words of advice/wisdom would be very appreciated! thank you!

The 'methodology' of an AoK would be how they obtain knowledge e.g. in the natural sciences there is the scientific method, in history there is the historical investigation process. The content of an AoK would the 'facts' within that respective AoK e.g. in the natural sciences, metal will expand when heated, in history, The People's Republic of China was established on the 1st of October 1949.

The question is asking you to compare AoKs and to answer the 'to what extent'. Thus an appropriate approach to this question would be to find two AoKs which have similar methodologies and compare their content. This would help support the claim: areas of knowledge are defined by their content rather than their methodologies. It will be impossible to find AoKs which have the same content. Thus the approach to set you up for a counter claim would be to find AoKs with different methodologies at to assume that the different content is due to the different methodologies. This would then support the claim: areas of knowledge are defined by their methodologies rather than their content.

The 'To what extent' should either be answered as a 'thesis statement' or an 'introduction to the line of argument' paragraph in the beginning or, something which I prefer, at the end when you have analysed the different areas and have reached a conclusion on the issue.

[puddingmilk]

*bump* I'm doing this essay now...ahhh

Thanks for the guideline sweetnsimple786 - can anyone just tell me what it means exactly by 'content'?

I kind of get the methodologies part, like with natural science you can talk about the framework of it (hypothesis, law, observation...), so natural sciences seem very much defined by its methodology (i.e. How do you know your content is right?! Your methadology might seem logical but it's not?)

I know that methodology in science can have its problems e.g. the problems of induction, etc right? So how do I know what is 'content' of a science. This is so confusingg!

Also, if anyone can correct me... the hypothesis, law, observation part is the Natural Science METHOD so what would its methodology be?! Would it be that (the traditional Science Method), plus the considerations of the 'Confirmation Bias' , 'background assumptions' etc?

Any words of advice/wisdom would be very appreciated! thank you!

The 'methodology' of an AoK would be how they obtain knowledge e.g. in the natural sciences there is the scientific method, in history there is the historical investigation process. The content of an AoK would the 'facts' within that respective AoK e.g. in the natural sciences, metal will expand when heated, in history, The People's Republic of China was established on the 1st of October 1949.

The question is asking you to compare AoKs and to answer the 'to what extent'. Thus an appropriate approach to this question would be to find two AoKs which have similar methodologies and compare their content. This would help support the claim: areas of knowledge are defined by their content rather than their methodologies. It will be impossible to find AoKs which have the same content. Thus the approach to set you up for a counter claim would be to find AoKs with different methodologies at to assume that the different content is due to the different methodologies. This would then support the claim: areas of knowledge are defined by their methodologies rather than their content.

The 'To what extent' should either be answered as a 'thesis statement' or an 'introduction to the line of argument' paragraph in the beginning or, something which I prefer, at the end when you have analysed the different areas and have reached a conclusion on the issue.

Thanks so much!! Just to confirm , by "find two AoKs which have similar methodologies and compare their content. This would help support the claim: areas of knowledge are defined by their content rather than their methodologies. It will be impossible to find AoKs which have the same content." means that the content will most likely be different right? So I'd look at something like for human sciences (have psychology in mind) and natural sciences (chem bio physics) because their methodologies are quite similar, but are under different areas of AoK so their content defines them.

And then I can take history and natural science, as their methodology's very different, and say that they're under different areas of AoK only because of the methodologies used right?

I'm guessing Art would be very hard to do in this case. And last question - so where can the faults of methodologies play a part in this essay?

(So in the end, this TOK wants me to go on both sides of the argument so the 'To what extent' is basically this. )

[Keel]

Thanks so much!! Just to confirm , by "find two AoKs which have similar methodologies and compare their content. This would help support the claim: areas of knowledge are defined by their content rather than their methodologies. It will be impossible to find AoKs which have the same content." means that the content will most likely be different right? So I'd look at something like for human sciences (have psychology in mind) and natural sciences (chem bio physics) because their methodologies are quite similar, but are under different areas of AoK so their content defines them.

And then I can take history and natural science, as their methodology's very different, and say that they're under different areas of AoK only because of the methodologies used right?

I'm guessing Art would be very hard to do in this case. And last question - so where can the faults of methodologies play a part in this essay?

(So in the end, this TOK wants me to go on both sides of the argument so the 'To what extent' is basically this. )

Yes that would be a good comparison i.e. natural and human sciences. As for your question about faults of methodologies, the question does not explicitly ask you to approach such an issue, thus do not make it a main theme of your essay. However, you could explore, in the above comparison, the reasons why the scientific method may not be a 'perfect' method for the social sciences i.e. it tries to emulate the scientific method from the natural sciences but runs into difficulty such as human 'irrational' behavior and the need to generalise from small samples ect.

I would be careful with history if I were you because it isn't that different from the scientific method. The following comes from a history textbook:

An important question for ToK students to examin is to what extent history is discovered or invented. Below is a list of some of the steps a historian might go through in attempting to find 'historical truth':

-Plan research

-Create organising questions

-Research/investigate evidence

-Build a body of evidence

-Evaluate sources for their value and limitation

-Consider different perspectives

-Apply methodology from different areas of knowledge

-Consider which lines of argument seems most important

-Select evidence and lines of argument

It seems almost the same as the scientific methods apart from a few minor changes. I think to show a high level of understanding of the term 'Area of Knowelege', not only must you explore the methodology and content but you must also consider the overall aim the AoK. History studies the past, natural and social sciences study the composition of the present.

I think art would be a difficult but interesting one to use as it probably poses the greatest difference. What is an artist's goal? What is the method for achieving their goal? What knowledge is produced as a result of this? Have you considered ethics or mathematics? I think its just a matter of taking some to find the right combination of AoKs, ones which you like, understand and can use to answer the 'to what extent' ('to what extent' basically means how far do you agree with ...? There will always be two sides and the result is usually somewhere in the middle.)

[puddingmilk]

*bump*

NEver mind I just gave in my essay...

anyway I put maths and art as methodology, natural and human sciences as content more.

Edited May 30, 2011 by puddingmilk

[Chixxie]

Got an A for this essay! woooooot! I didn't think many people chose this essay though. My teacher, who insisted on me scooping the question at only 2-3 AOKs, predicted me a B though. However I extended it into multiple AOKs and presented various perspectives... if the question itself is board, don't hesitate to expand your thesis - that's my advice!

Edited July 23, 2011 by Chixxie