Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

TOK Presentation Help - is my topic ok???

Recommended Posts

So my TOK Presentation is this week and I've been working on it over the weekend but when I asked my teacher if what I've got so far was ok, he told me to change the focus slightly so that it would be more ToK. I don't want to be disrespecting his authority and experience but I suppose I don't really know how to make something more ToK.

My RLS: US 2016 Presidential Elections - focus on difference in voters' perspectives on who would be the 'right' decision

My current KQ: Can you ever know if a knowledge claim is wrong before making conclusions? 

Here's my structure so far:

Introduce the RLS + KQ

Define when a knowledge claim is wrong

Illustrate conclusion-making as [purpose -> knowledge -> conclusion]

Introduce the historical debate of the wave/particle nature of light before accepting the dual nature. How there were two theories and how ultimately both were accepted after evaluating using inductive reasoning, imagination and shared memory.

Claim: Should incorporate knowledge from various sources to be objective.

Introduce how "history is written by the victors" and discuss how different perspectives may lead to different versions of history, even when the same WOKs of inductive reasoning, imagination and memory are used to interpret the same evidence. the evaluation of primary sources in constructing history e.g. . how do they then choose what to include and what not to include?

Counterclaim: Should maintain different knowledge claims from different perspectives to be objective.

Mini-conclusion: the extent of objectiveness achieved is different in NatSci and History because of how each WOK is utilised

Reintroduce the original RLS. Ask which should be more important, overall uniformity and harmony in perspective, or representation of various perspectives? Explain if there can be a 'right' and a 'wrong'.  should the ethical value in each decision be considered when making a decision?

Extension: connect the consequences of each conclusion within the AOK of ethics by evaluating the correctness/ethical value of decisions made within the different theories of ethics -Kants deontology [clinton voters cuz they feel morally obligated to protecting the communities that trump scapegoats] and utilitarianism [trump voters cuz they want their jobs] - which will cause differences in which other WOKs - namely, emotion, reason and faith - is prioritised to determine what’s right/wrong.

Mention other RLS where this knowledge question is relevant. E.g. evaluating which university to apply to. [note to self: ...I need another academic rls , probably.]

 

 I dunno. How do I make it more ToK? It seemed like the problem was because when I was telling my teacher about it I said 'decision-making' instead of conclusion-making and he said that it's likely that I've already got a strong opinion on the matter cuz of how controversial this election cycle was. Also I'm doing it myself so I've only got 10min to work in. Is this too much?

Edited by thinkypie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KQ is too broad. As a result your RLS might not sufficiently explore all the intricacies of the KQ. For example a lot of richness in the topic stems from what is "wrong", and a quick definition will avoid many discussions. As such, your presentation appears to contain a few logical leaps or sweeping generalizations (eg "history is written by the victors"). So it's better to rephrase the KQ to better characterize a specific direction your want it in.

I get this vibe that by using the 2016 US election as your RLS, in a discussion of "wrong" in "conclusion-making", the decisions that some voters made were wrong. I find this really hard to discuss without imposing personal bias and judgement, and it undermines the validity and strength of your arguments. 

In fact, much of your claims/counterclaims are nice standalone arguments, but the flow breaks down as you try to discuss such a broad KQ. From purpose, knowledge, and conclusion you started to talk about objectivity of truth; then from objectivity you went on to discuss ethics. I feel that there are much better RLS for (a more specific version of) your RQ. The route you took needs better justification. 

If this is your actual ToK presentation to be used in the IB grade, I strongly suggest that you improve the connections between arguments and if necessary substitute for better RLS or examples. The last thing you want is for your teacher to not follow your good points.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.