knowledge claims

[chokyuhyun]

Hey guys,

From what I understand, the whole TOK presentation is about figuring out how you use WOK or AOK to "know" something, but then what does knowledge claim and counterclaims have to do with the knowledge issue and the whole presentation, and what claims am I supposed to make? Please help explain?

Thanks

[ak18]

No you don't figure out what AOKs and WOKs to use. You analyze those after you've answered your KI.

When you come up with a KI, it means that you're critically analyzing your topic. You've come up with a question that you think needs to be answered. A claim, is basically one side of the story- or your question. You have to think about the answers or claims to your question.

If my question were 'to what extent does the govt control education?' I would first answer to what extent it does. Or why it does. The counter claim would be why it shouldn't, or the areas in education that the govt doesnt control (or something like that). Then i would consciously analyze how I came by those claims and counterclaims- this is where the AOKs and WOKs come into play.

[chokyuhyun]

No you don't figure out what AOKs and WOKs to use. You analyze those after you've answered your KI.

When you come up with a KI, it means that you're critically analyzing your topic. You've come up with a question that you think needs to be answered. A claim, is basically one side of the story- or your question. You have to think about the answers or claims to your question.

If my question were 'to what extent does the govt control education?' I would first answer to what extent it does. Or why it does. The counter claim would be why it shouldn't, or the areas in education that the govt doesnt control (or something like that). Then i would consciously analyze how I came by those claims and counterclaims- this is where the AOKs and WOKs come into play.

OMGOMOGMOGMG thank you so much. I understand now thanksssssssss

[chokyuhyun]

No you don't figure out what AOKs and WOKs to use. You analyze those after you've answered your KI.

When you come up with a KI, it means that you're critically analyzing your topic. You've come up with a question that you think needs to be answered. A claim, is basically one side of the story- or your question. You have to think about the answers or claims to your question.

If my question were 'to what extent does the govt control education?' I would first answer to what extent it does. Or why it does. The counter claim would be why it shouldn't, or the areas in education that the govt doesnt control (or something like that). Then i would consciously analyze how I came by those claims and counterclaims- this is where the AOKs and WOKs come into play.

OMGOMOGMOGMG thank you so much. I understand now thanksssssssss

No you don't figure out what AOKs and WOKs to use. You analyze those after you've answered your KI.

When you come up with a KI, it means that you're critically analyzing your topic. You've come up with a question that you think needs to be answered. A claim, is basically one side of the story- or your question. You have to think about the answers or claims to your question.

If my question were 'to what extent does the govt control education?' I would first answer to what extent it does. Or why it does. The counter claim would be why it shouldn't, or the areas in education that the govt doesnt control (or something like that). Then i would consciously analyze how I came by those claims and counterclaims- this is where the AOKs and WOKs come into play.

oh, but by the way, i my real life issue is whether surveillance technology should be increased, but my KI is much broader "How do we know that common good is more important than individual rights", then my claim cannot be "surveillance technology should be increased", but instead" common good is more important", and also I cannot support this claim by saying because history tells us that many cases of terrorist acts have been prevented by the technology, since this is too narrow right? But then how should i support the KI without specific evidence? (I hope u know what i mean)