Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Unknown

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Exams
    May 2018
  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That doesn't sound like a very good situation to be in at all 😕 "Being as philosophical as u can" depends on if you are in fact making philosophical points or just writing in some contrived way to sound smart. The first one will work, the second one probably won't. I'm not sure what else can be said. If you have an idea about which prescribed title you want to do, what arguments you want to make, etc., then that's something I can respond to with greater detail.
  2. It's always a risk to do that, especially if the prescribed title specifically asks for two separate AOKs. The main risk is coming off to the examiner that you're not capable of making a good argument across multiple AOKs, and the TOK is the "big event" where you show your versatility in inter-disciplinary thought. In other words, it might come off as taking the easy road and the examiner will respond accordingly. That said, I would respond to your question with another question: is "law" a human science? Do lawyers use the scientific method, set up experiments, collect data, modify their theories accordingly, and repeat? I've always had trouble putting law into human sciences being as a lawyer is not a "scientist" - perhaps we can say the same about psychologists, but their knowledge is grounded in the product of scientific research. Law is based on prescribed legal code/tradition, precedence, and what politicians decide should be a law (which I'm sure we can all agree is far from scientific most of the time!). I always felt law was closer to history - lawyers study the evidence, review the facts, assess the creditability of information, try to reconstruct a narrative of what happened, and present their version to a judge or jury, who will ultimately decide what the "truth" is and how to dispense justice. This process sounds a lot more like what a historian does, doesn't it? I would ask your TOK teacher what they think about law being closer to history than natural science and perhaps you can change your arguments to make it work. Good luck!
  3. If it's just a question about structure, the official guide offers a diagram: Start with an overview of the RLS, then explain how you came to your general KQ from it. Explore and elaborate on the TOK related issues, drawing and evolving them into new KQs which, in turn, you relate back to other new RLSs. Please note: you only spend a very short time at the start talking about your RLS before de-contextualizing the conversation to discuss the KQ in general.
  4. I hate to break it to you, but you might not have anything if you don’t have RLSs 😞 If all your KQs, AOKs, WOKs, etc. are without context and aren't related to any real life situations, then I'm not surprised you're struggling to find structure. You need to "reboot" a bit and start from scratch. Start with a RLS and extract the KQ, then explore it generally, further extract narrower KQs and finally related those back to New RLSs. In the process, incorporate the ideas you have if it makes sense, but don't force them in. Share your RLS here and extracted KQ here if you want feedback 😄
  5. Do you have any examples of a situation that emotion changes people’s beliefs about something? What about language - how does it help people (society) come to a belief? Both these WOKs are important in the process of personal knowledge becoming shared knowledge, so it might help to think about it that way.
  6. I am not sure how I can help but I’ll try. It’s not clear to me how the RLSs relate to the AoK as I don’t immediately see the link of a bombing, a fire, and a murder to Art or Human Science. I more readily see ethical issues in them than the others. You say you have a claim for one, but which one? I can’t really evaluate it as you don’t write it, unless I missed it or didn’t see the link. 😞
  7. I would somewhat disagree with @Sandwich in that "Who decides what's ethical?" is a knowledge question, although I grant the point that it's not as open as it could be and, as a result, might be hampering you from a deeper exploration. Rephrasing it to something like "How do we know what's ethical?", for example, immediately widens the range of possible explorations. "Who" suggests the answer is a person or group of people while in fact that might not be what you're looking to talk about. How did you settle on the topic of robots? It almost sounds as you were assigned this particular topic with this particular RLS. Instead, find a more specific RLS, like an article about a robot or new technology, etc. and extract the KQs from there. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any clear connection between the KQ and your RLS and there definitely needs to be. Pick a RLS and then explore the different aspects of it (using AOKs and WOKs) to find the KQ. I suggest coming up with a broad and a narrow one and then post them here. Hope to see it soon 🙂
  8. I like the knowledge question :-) I would definitely agree with your teacher, REAL RLSs are better than fictional ones. You could use the example of Darwin or Copernicus, who both knew developed society changing knowledge but waiting a long time before publishing. Please do some research on it, but Darwin knew about evolution for about 20 years before publishing, Copernicus nearly never published if it wasn't for the encouragement of a young astronomy who came to study under him. It might be hard to pivot to other examples as I too found many interesting ones in fiction :-) But, I can say that in ethics saying or not saying what you know is really key. For example, in business sharing what you know could violate "insider trading" laws while for a lawyer saying what you know might violate confidentiality. There's quite a bit to explore it turns out!
  9. Lots of good ideas, but you run the risk of making a presentation on depression, rather than a TOK aspect of it. Remember that for presentation (or essay!), your RLS is a starting point, after which you pivot into other ones using the KQ as the connector between them. Looking over what you read, the comment you made about how other people think that those depressed can just "snap out of it" or that it's "all in your head" is a similar response that people with autism might get. Why is that? There seems to be a visual aspect at play here: if people can't see it, they don't believe it. After all, they don't make such comments to people in wheelchairs, right? A KQ related to sense perception could allow you to pivot into other RLS where visual perception or lack of it fools people into some false belief. It all depends on how you pose the question. Regarding your own experience with depression, it's sufficient to state that depressed people deal with comments like this, but there's no need to reveal your own experience with depression unless you feel comfortable. Again, the danger is that it might become a presentation on depression rather than problems of knowledge that emerge from our society's attempt to understand it. I hope that was helpful 😀
  10. Figure out your knowledge question and then go from there. Depression is a general topic, so you need to narrow it down a bit. What is a common misunderstanding people have about it? It probably stems from from some kind of problem of knowing which in turn will lead you to a knowledge question. Come up with some ideas and share them here.
  11. Wow, Sandwich and kw0573, great analysis and feedback. I really have nothing to add as you nailed it!
  12. A non-IB student in TOK... sounds like you made the wrong people angry 😆 TOK is a great topic because anything interesting probably has a TOK angle to it. What I mean is that often the topics that a teacher go off on a tangent about during lessons because it's interesting, but then stops themselves and says, "We really don't have time to talk about that, it's not in the syllabus" is probably TOK. The best KQs come from RLS that are at the crossroads of two opposing AOKs, esp. if one of them is Art or Ethics as those always bring out the most emotion. If you are wondering where to find various RLS, TED Talks are a great place to start. You can filter videos by topics, so pick something like Art and Sense Perception and voila! you'll get some ideas.:-) I am a big fan of relevant, personal examples as it demonstrates thoughtfulness on the student's part. Good luck!
  13. I think the group limit size as specified by the IB is between 1-3 people, but your school/teacher may have internal reasons for setting such limits. Your claim and counter-claims should be drawn from / be inspired by your RLS, but need to be de-contextualized, so generalized. Then you pivot them into new RLS, ideally from a different topic and AOKs. The aim is to show that two seemingly unrelated things are in fact linked by the same knowledge question.
  • Create New...