4 replies to this topic

[Belle L]

I'm redoing my TOK presentation, since I got a low mark for my previous one... My teacher thought I was too biased.
My teacher said to me that I should come up with a real-life situation first and then derive the knowledge issue from it, he says it's not a good idea to come up with a KI first, he thinks it's a bad way to start. Now I'm finding it pretty hard to find such "real-life situation" to derive a knowledge issue from!

So, recently I've read some articals about Obama seeking new taxes on the rich, and I'm thinking about using that as my real-life situation, and my KI would be something like "to what extent is it jutifiable/fair to tax the rich at higher tax rates?"
However I'm really not sure whether it would be a good topic to write about... I'm quite uncertain of that, partly because me friend told me he thinks there's nothing much to write about on that...?My teacher said to me, the presentation would only be worth-resetting if I do find a good real-life situation to talk about, orelse I am just wasting my time...

Can someone please help?????? Tell me what you think of the KI that I've came up with, what aspects I could possibly argue from or give me some advice of "good real-life situations" to derive a better knowledge issue?

Edited by Belle L, Jun 17, 2012 - 08:32.

[Sandwich]

It would help if you looked for the knowledge issues within your real life situation. If you read any of the help threads on this forum, you will notice that ethical justification is a subject to steer away from, being little related to ToK.

Is this a good TOK Presentation title? / How do I pick my Presentation title?!
ToK Presentation Guide

I suggest you read the above links. You certainly can come up with knowledge issues from the topic you've selected (taxation), just what you've put isn't a knowledge issue, it's an ethical dilemma. Change it into an issue of knowledge (how do we know...?) rather than an issue of ethics and it might have potential to be a good presentation.

As regards the knowledge issue and then the analysis of it, the best thing is to introduce your real life situation at the beginning, explain how it inspires the question/is a knowledge issue, then analyse the issue of knowledge, occasionally referring back to the situation and concluding by bringing the two back together again formally. Whether it's easier to find one or the other first is, I think, moot. But whatever you do, do not do a "to what extent is it justifiable?" type presentation because ethical dilemmas cannot possibly be justified via a discussion about ToK which is about how we receive information, not how we make our personal opinions on it, so your presentation is doomed.

[Belle L]

It would help if you looked for the knowledge issues within your real life situation. If you read any of the help threads on this forum, you will notice that ethical justification is a subject to steer away from, being little related to ToK.

Is this a good TOK Presentation title? / How do I pick my Presentation title?!
ToK Presentation Guide

I suggest you read the above links. You certainly can come up with knowledge issues from the topic you've selected (taxation), just what you've put isn't a knowledge issue, it's an ethical dilemma. Change it into an issue of knowledge (how do we know...?) rather than an issue of ethics and it might have potential to be a good presentation.

As regards the knowledge issue and then the analysis of it, the best thing is to introduce your real life situation at the beginning, explain how it inspires the question/is a knowledge issue, then analyse the issue of knowledge, occasionally referring back to the situation and concluding by bringing the two back together again formally. Whether it's easier to find one or the other first is, I think, moot. But whatever you do, do not do a "to what extent is it justifiable?" type presentation because ethical dilemmas cannot possibly be justified via a discussion about ToK which is about how we receive information, not how we make our personal opinions on it, so your presentation is doomed.

Hi, thankyou, I find that very helpful. However, I have always been wondering, Is the knowledge issue supposed to be controversial(like, as in a two-sided argument?) I have always assumed that it is supposed to be an argument, and i often end up supporting either side, so the presentation ends up being biased. Am I just misinterprating the whole point??? Because as you mentioned "TOK = Philosophy = ...ethics = are things right or wrong??
This is not good. TOK is supposedly a branch of Philosophy but that's as far as it goes. A knowledge issue is not "is _____* right or wrong?", I think that is what I did most of the time, trying to justify a "right answer".

If I somehow change my KI into a "how do we know" question, I might be simply exploring how do we know such decision on taxation is reasonable, through different WOKs and AOKs, and use some of the opposing perspectives of the rich as a counter point... Would that make sense? In that case, I think I might be able to meet those two requirements that you've mentioned in your previous post: "Can you attach it to a real-life example?
- Can you discuss it in the context of the 4 Ways of Knowing? (Or if not all 4, in the context of a few of them)."
However I'm still uncertain of whether that would make a valid discussion? (Could it be too specific?)

Edited by Belle L, Jun 17, 2012 - 10:18.

[Sandwich]

Hi, thankyou, I find that very helpful. However, I have always been wondering, Is the knowledge issue supposed to be controversial(like, as in a two-sided argument? I have always assumed that it is supposed to be an argument, and i often end up supporting either side, so the presentation ends up being biased. Am I just misinterprating the whole point???
If I somehow change my KI into a "how do we know" question, I might be exploring how do we know whether the decision on taxation is right, through different WOKs and AOKs, and use some of the opposing perspectives of the rich as a counter point... would that be a valid discussion?

Yes you are misinterpreting it, and no it wouldn't be a valid discussion.
You're still talking about 'right' and 'wrong' and ethics and not ToK - exactly what I just suggested you avoid like the plague!! In the format you suggest, you're not actually looking into how we know anything. It's not supposed to be an argument with sides, it's supposed to be an analysis. You're meant to go from a real life situation such as you have selected and then not discuss that situation specifically but instead derive from it a much more fundamental issue of knowledge.

To give you a hand, I'll suggest an approach for you which would be appropriate: How do we decide who to tax?


Or other permutations on that to come up with something that interests you. Then forget about AoKs because they are more or less just ways of examining WoKs interacting in particular patterns and therein lies their value; as things in themselves, you cannot use an AoK to discuss knowledge issues. You may only use them to draw together WoKs and discuss knowledge issues. In short, it's the ways of knowing which are important in ToK (and for AoKs, knowing how the ways of knowing work within those to give them their particular characteristics - applied WoKs, if you will).

Take your knowledge issue (how do we decide who to tax?) and approach it from all the different WoKs. Reason, emotion, language, sense/perception = all of these can be applied to this question. Analyse how we use each of those to come to conclusions about how we ought to tax and then relate it back to your main scenario and say: which ways of knowing did they use? And you can give the perspectives of different people in terms of where to put the weighting. Taxation is definitely an issue which is driven massively by emotions as well as logic.

I hope that makes sense and shows you what a right approach might be, if you chose to do it.

[Belle L]

Hi, thankyou, I find that very helpful. However, I have always been wondering, Is the knowledge issue supposed to be controversial(like, as in a two-sided argument? I have always assumed that it is supposed to be an argument, and i often end up supporting either side, so the presentation ends up being biased. Am I just misinterprating the whole point???
If I somehow change my KI into a "how do we know" question, I might be exploring how do we know whether the decision on taxation is right, through different WOKs and AOKs, and use some of the opposing perspectives of the rich as a counter point... would that be a valid discussion?

Yes you are misinterpreting it, and no it wouldn't be a valid discussion.
You're still talking about 'right' and 'wrong' and ethics and not ToK - exactly what I just suggested you avoid like the plague!! In the format you suggest, you're not actually looking into how we know anything. It's not supposed to be an argument with sides, it's supposed to be an analysis. You're meant to go from a real life situation such as you have selected and then not discuss that situation specifically but instead derive from it a much more fundamental issue of knowledge.

To give you a hand, I'll suggest an approach for you which would be appropriate: How do we decide who to tax?


Or other permutations on that to come up with something that interests you. Then forget about AoKs because they are more or less just ways of examining WoKs interacting in particular patterns and therein lies their value; as things in themselves, you cannot use an AoK to discuss knowledge issues. You may only use them to draw together WoKs and discuss knowledge issues. In short, it's the ways of knowing which are important in ToK (and for AoKs, knowing how the ways of knowing work within those to give them their particular characteristics - applied WoKs, if you will).

Take your knowledge issue (how do we decide who to tax?) and approach it from all the different WoKs. Reason, emotion, language, sense/perception = all of these can be applied to this question. Analyse how we use each of those to come to conclusions about how we ought to tax and then relate it back to your main scenario and say: which ways of knowing did they use? And you can give the perspectives of different people in terms of where to put the weighting. Taxation is definitely an issue which is driven massively by emotions as well as logic.

I hope that makes sense and shows you what a right approach might be, if you chose to do it.

THANKYOU SO MUCH!!!!!!!! so I have been misintepreting it the WHOLE TIME!!!!!! (which is probably why I got low marks for my last presentation since what i did was a "to what extent is it justifiable" question)
Thankyou, thankyou, and THANKYOU. I think I finally know what I'm actually doing. You made my day!