The question “How do we know?” drives inquiry. When we ask it with the stress on the last word – know — it opens up overview questions on the very nature of knowledge and the forms it takes. When we ask it with the stress on the first word – how? – it takes an analytical edge applied to methods of giving answers. In this blog, we follow this question — sometimes seriously, sometimes lightheartedly — through issues and stories of our day. Eileen Dombrowski
Dombrowski, Rotenberg, Bick. Theory of Knowledge IB Course Companion. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Activating TOK on FACEBOOK
- analysis arts cause classification cognitive bias concepts/language confirmation bias critical thinking definitions emotion ethics evidence fallacies history human sciences imagination implications indigenous knowledge intuition knowing how knowledge claims knowledge questions language literature mathematics media memory methodology natural sciences personal knowledge perspectives psychology reason sense perception shared knowledge sources statistics symbolic representation truth ways of knowing
Dombrowski, Rotenberg, Bick. TOK Spanish translation. Teoría del Conocimiento, Libro del Alumno. Oxford University Press, 2015.
-
Recent Posts
- Biases, fallacies, argument: Would you argue with a T-rex?
- (Dis)trusting statistics: a one-page guide
- Facts matter after all: rejecting the “backfire effect”
- History: writing the past, drafting the future
- “Fake news”: updating TOK critique
- “How am I supposed to appreciate it?” Art, science, and some silly assumptions
- Download TOK resource: 2017 TOK blog posts, collected
- “2017, a good year”: Wasn’t it?
- “Those experts!”: cartoon, class discussion activity
- Signed language, symbolism, and reflections on inclusion
- Do Nobel prizes distort public understanding of scientific knowledge?
- SPOT and the cloak of invisibility: cognitive biases
- That event in the past: what do we make it signify in the present?
- Sharing knowledge – effectively!
- Standing at the Centre of the World: TOK class discussion (with handout)
- PS to “This is the nature of science.”
- “This is the nature of science.”
- Indigenous Knowledge: not a separable area of knowledge
- Controversy in the Canada Day Party: analyzing perspectives for understanding
- Love, betrayal, and physics: “Everything goes better with narrative”
- Consuming the news: Is knowing harder than dieting?
- Love, luck, literature, and logic: Who will win the lady?
- “Moral robots” and that messy human factor
- Red lines and “complex moral duality”: TOK and ethics of witnessing
- The Statistics of an Emotion: 2017 World Happiness Report
- TOK and “fake news”: 3 tips, 2 downloads, and 3 resources
- A Bhangra smile: great way to open a TOK class
- Thank you, Hans Rosling: numbers, facts, and the world
- AGAINST empathy? Really?
- Media literacy for TOK?
- “Therapy wars” and the human sciences
- “Comfort” and discomfort: history and the shadows of the past
- Download TOK resource: 2016 TOK blog posts
- Film sound and the beautiful lie
- Is mathematics a gateway to empathy?
- Oh, that air of authority!
- Thinking beyond the knowledge bubbles
- Is Palestine on the map?
- Fear: biological, emotional, or conceptual?
- “I’m entitled to my opinion.”
the essential question of knowledge
The question “How do we know?” drives inquiry. When we ask it with the stress on the last word – know — it opens up overview questions on the very nature of knowledge and the forms it takes. When we ask it with the stress on the first word – how? – it takes an analytical edge applied to methods of giving answers. In this blog, we follow this question — sometimes seriously, sometimes lightheartedly — through issues and stories of our day.
Hi, Eileen and others. I had some reflections, perhaps more appropriate to the OCC website chat groups, but thought that discussion here might create some light (and not just noise and heat). I have been quite troubled about references in TOK materials and from IB representatives to “religious knowledge systems” and to new definitions of knowledge itself which seem to be dismissive of justified-true-belief as at least a provisional definition. I maintain, as I’m sure many other instructors do, that religious ideas are matters of faith and/or belief (depending on how you want to define those terms) and use the simple and obvious example that mainstream religions have contrary ideas about divinity–the idea being of course that if they can’t both be true, then we can’t call either set of ideas/beliefs knowledge. Unless you hold to a gnostic or mystic set of beliefs, even if you are religious you have to admit that you can’t be certain of your perceptions. While tolerance and understanding of religious and cultural matters is no doubt beneficial we are doing our students a disservice if we allow them to treat their beliefs as knowledge and not faith. While it may be considered impious to open the door to faith and doubt in some faith groups, theologians surely would understand and maintain the necessary distinction between knowledge and belief. Any thoughts on this matter? Can anyone out there provide some perspective and background as to where these new tendencies are coming from, and what is motivating them?
Brian
LikeLike