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.