TOK essay help

[Latim]

my title is: ”All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism.” On what grounds and to what extent would you agree with this assertion?

Im just trying to brain storm some ideas at the moment. Right now I'm thinking of discussing natural sciences and possibly religion. However they seem to be two Areas of knowledge which are used pretty often. Anybody got any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

[sweetnsimple786]

Doesn't mathematics seem like an easy AoK? If not to bolster your argument, then as a counterclaim.

If you figure out what you're saying is "rational" then math seems to be easily argued from where I stand.

And what about history? Is there something that's so fundamental that you shouldn't call into question? There are quote unquote conspiracies behind many, many things, but what if you started questioning? Have you read Orwell's 1984? You might be able to make some parallels there if you have.

[YdidIneedThis]

Im doing the same topic. My teacher told me to give examples of knowledge claims, and im drawing a blank can u help?

[YdidIneedThis]

Im doing the same topic. My teacher told me to give examples of knowledge claims, and im drawing a blank can u help?

[SharkSpider]

A knowledge claim is when you claim to know something. There are many many examples of this, but some in particular should pop up when you start looking at this essay. You're questioning whether you should rationally criticize a claim, so the best thing to do, in my own opinion, is to start classifying claims. Say I claim that you shouldn't smoke, and you decide to rationally criticize the claim. You decide that it's in your best interests to keep your health in good shape and that smoking is bad for your health, so you decide that I'm right in claiming that. That's an easy example, but what if we take something harder. Suppose a friend of yours says "I know god exists" well that's actually two knowledge claims, one that god exists, and one that your friend knows it. If you rationally criticize both claims, you come to the fact that god might or might not exist, because there's no evidence either way, but that your friend isn't able to prove it one way or another, either, so he was wrong in claiming that he knew there is a god, but possibly not wrong in claiming that there is one. In fact, I could go and be really controversial by saying that if your friend kept on going with that line, he'd be lying about what knowledge he did and didn't have. The problem is that making an argument like the one I just made won't sit well with a lot of people, in quite a few cases, for various reasons, some that I'd undoubtedly disagree with, and others that would actually hold some weight. What if they're using a different definition of "knowledge" than the one you learn in TOK, for instance? In that case, do I really even have grounds to claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about? The question you've got to look at, is when is it right to criticize rationally, and is it ever wrong to do so? There are obviously less potentially offensive topics than religion, but I used that one to illustrate the point, because in my opinion, it shouldn't be easy to find knowledge claims that are exempt from rational criticism, and I do know that if I were to write this essay I'd probably do so with the intent of showing that all claims should be examined rationally. This might also be a good approach in the sense that TOK itself is, in a sense, about rational criticism, so arguing against its use is a slippery path to take, if you go too far with it, because you do need to note that in itself, your essay is a rational criticism of the question given to you.

[YdidIneedThis]

This was actually helpful thank you, most of the response i get are fairly unhelpful/ stupid.

so thanks again.

A knowledge claim is when you claim to know something. There are many many examples of this, but some in particular should pop up when you start looking at this essay. You're questioning whether you should rationally criticize a claim, so the best thing to do, in my own opinion, is to start classifying claims. Say I claim that you shouldn't smoke, and you decide to rationally criticize the claim. You decide that it's in your best interests to keep your health in good shape and that smoking is bad for your health, so you decide that I'm right in claiming that. That's an easy example, but what if we take something harder. Suppose a friend of yours says "I know god exists" well that's actually two knowledge claims, one that god exists, and one that your friend knows it. If you rationally criticize both claims, you come to the fact that god might or might not exist, because there's no evidence either way, but that your friend isn't able to prove it one way or another, either, so he was wrong in claiming that he knew there is a god, but possibly not wrong in claiming that there is one. In fact, I could go and be really controversial by saying that if your friend kept on going with that line, he'd be lying about what knowledge he did and didn't have. The problem is that making an argument like the one I just made won't sit well with a lot of people, in quite a few cases, for various reasons, some that I'd undoubtedly disagree with, and others that would actually hold some weight. What if they're using a different definition of "knowledge" than the one you learn in TOK, for instance? In that case, do I really even have grounds to claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about? The question you've got to look at, is when is it right to criticize rationally, and is it ever wrong to do so? There are obviously less potentially offensive topics than religion, but I used that one to illustrate the point, because in my opinion, it shouldn't be easy to find knowledge claims that are exempt from rational criticism, and I do know that if I were to write this essay I'd probably do so with the intent of showing that all claims should be examined rationally. This might also be a good approach in the sense that TOK itself is, in a sense, about rational criticism, so arguing against its use is a slippery path to take, if you go too far with it, because you do need to note that in itself, your essay is a rational criticism of the question given to you.