So im doing question number 4 and i have decided to choose history and natural science as my two areas of knowledge. Anyone have any ideas they could throw my way. Im planning on using heliocentric theories and such. I have trouble thinking of any ideas which are applicable to history, Once again i would appreciate any help i can get.
Thanks so much
I'm also doing number 4 My TOK teacher told us explicitly that if we talked about heliocentric theories in our essays, they would fail us. It's not that it's not a valid example, it's that Galileo so cliche.
I've actually just turned my draft in to be peermarked by my classmates, so I don't know how
crappy good my essay is, or even if my examples are valid, but I focused mostly on medicine and how as we discover new schools of analysis in history, we change the history books itself. In addition, history changes when we discover new things and when different people write history books, they discard some things as accepted and other things as not, even though it's supposed to be largely unbiased.
In my opinion, the key to number for is remembering that knowledge is constantly being improved upon and the idea that it's discarded is not necessarily true. You can argue that in any AOK, we learn first the flawed theories and then we learn other flawed theories (e.g., in grade school, we learn that Columbus was a hero (colonialism was good) --> in high school, we learn that Columbus was a rapist (colonialism is bad)) and in the end we are left with a slightly more fleshed out understanding (colonialism is the product of Eurocentric thinking and the idea that "White is Might").
This also applies to certainty, as the more things change, how certain can we be of what is accepted as true? Truth, as you can argue, is also subjective and based largely on justification. If each justification over turns another, but we continue to hold old knowledge as "true", then how can we say that that which is accepted today is actually accepted today when what we have accepted was not really discarded in yesterday's tomorrow? So how does this idea that we use yesterday's knowledge affect the application of tomorrow's knowledge? Can knowledge even be divided into eras of thinking?
(sorry for rambling; i just rediscovered a passion for a prescribed title i thought i hated.)
You can use significant discoveries that people have made throughout history that have changed the way they wrote about history. Old journals, heirlooms, lost heirs found etc. Decrypting the Hieroglyphs significantly changed the way people learned Egyptian history, and much knowledge was lost when the Library of Alexandria was burnt and Carthage was razed to the ground. How much of the past is speculation, and how much is actually true? Dinosaurs--what color were they? How do we know that they were greens and browns and not hot pink and lime?