TOK Essay Structure Help!

[jamescuy]

Hey Guys, I choice the title "To what extent is truth in art, ethics and maths different?"

I intend to bring out that truth in maths is objective, art is subjective and ethics is relative.

In my introduction I intend to define what truth is which is knowledge that is fits the general belief, is repeatable and universal. But, if I do that truth would seem not in existence for all the other areas of knowledge except maths? What should I do to my title?

In my other paragraphs I intend to take each area of knowledge and then analyse the nature of truth in all three areas of knowledge, but I have no idea how I include counterarguments and debunt it. For example for maths I would say that maths is objective because it is universal and answer will be same anywhere. Then counterarguments would be that some theories are not proven and 1+1 =2 is not proven so it is not certain. I hope you understand my problem.

For those that have done this essay, please help me and give me some help on my structure. PM me please!!!

[sweetnsimple786]

Here's the so-to-speak official thread on that title: http://www.ibsurviva...rts-and-ethics/

If that's your definition of truth, and you've logically gone through explaining that truth is nonexistent in art and in ethics, that's defensible. I don't know what you're asking for when you say 'What should I do to my title?'

For your math counterarguments... math is a bizarre subject. In an amazing way. =)

things like .999999999999999999999999.....=1 and fractals! There's also this problem that you can do. You simplify it using acceptable procedures, but you end up getting something like 1=2. I can't remember what it is anymore. The thing was that even though you're allowed to do every operation you did, just the order of it made it mess up, even though the order isn't at fault in general.

Anyways, there are plenty of counterarguments in that thread, I believe. The thing is your title asks how truth in each AoK is different. In your intro you've defined truth and maybe it's been tailored to truth in mathematics. This is your essay and should reflect your thoughts, but maybe truth is possible. It's just a different kind of truth, as your title is trying to imply.

[Sandwich]

In my introduction I intend to define what truth is which is knowledge that is fits the general belief, is repeatable and universal. But, if I do that truth would seem not in existence for all the other areas of knowledge except maths? What should I do to my title?

This is actually what your essay should be about (i.e. the main content of the essay). That's what they're trying to get you to pick up on and discuss. They're not really after an analysis of each area of knowledge, they want to see you've come across this problem (which everybody trying to do this title should) and that you base the rest of the essay around why you have this problem (i.e. how all the areas of knowledge provide... well, you tell me! Different sorts of truth? Or is that not possible? That's the point to this essay )

You can discuss maths or ethics or art, or whichever is your favourite subject and use that as one of the centrepieces of your argument if you'd rather (it sounds to me like you're pretty set on maths as an example subject), provided you do have a few examples from the others, but they're not asking you to define what truth is in each subject, they're asking you to discuss the differences and the way to write it is to answer the question without trying to structure it into one subject / second subject / third subject / conclusion as to how they're different. Ideally you'd make it a fluid discussion of differences based on examples (personal ones, preferably!) as you go along.

Then counterarguments would be that some theories are not proven and 1+1 =2 is not proven so it is not certain

For instance, there's no point in saying these and then not looking at the obvious. I mean, I know more about ethics than art, but instantly you can see that theories in ethics CANNOT be proven at all (in fact, truth in ethics needs no proof at all.. or does it? Take a look at the 10 commandments or whatever and suddenly you may have an important exception) and the same with art, that 1+1=2 isn't proven so it isn't certain, but then technical skill with a paintbrush + a canvas doesn't = beauty (and, as Keats said, is truth the same as beauty? What is artistic "truth"?). That sort of thing. You want to loop everything in with each other in such a way that it highlights differences, and ultimately that'll determine the structure of your essay for you. Bang a conclusion in the end and you're done.

Personally, I wouldn't do this title (or indeed any title with the word truth in it, because they're the most annoyingly pointless essays you'll ever write, definitely in the IB!) but if you can somehow work out how to fit all the content into 1,500 words, good luck In my experience with these questions, every point you try to make just ends up with another question which eats up your word limit and no question can be satisfactorially answered so you feel like you've made any point beyond: yeah, nobody can really say. Drive me mad these questions! They're not quite as simple as they originally appear when you (or at least, I thought this) may expect them to be: simple subject A, subject B, subject C, conclusion, done. But you should do whatever you feel best equipped to answer -- just remember TOK essay questions do give you a range of options allowing you to avoid any which are suddenly a pain in the behind, so if you do get cold feet, switch titles before you get too far into it! Should you think that, this is. You may be very happy with this one, of course!