TOK Essay Title 1 Nov 2021:Why is it so difficult to identify a clear line between accepted and disputed knowledge within a discipline? Answer with reference to two disciplines, each taken from a different area of knowledge.
Unpack the title keywords-accepted and disputed knowledge. It creates confusion with the mind-blogging question on the difference between agreements and disagreements. Brainstorm on the following key pointers:
- When do you accept knowledge within a discipline?
- What is the evidence which helps you accept a knowledge claim?
- Once you accept a claim can you question your acceptance? If so, when? Every day’s research makes knowledge dynamic and constantly rolling.
- What are your ways of knowing to accept a knowledge claim?
- What is accepted for you might be refuted by your peer?
- What, if your rationale in decision-making is based on a disputed knowledge?
- Are all disputed knowledge claims unauthentic to believe?
- Again, level of difficulty is a subjective term. Some might find a strong distinction between accepted and disrupted knowledge, while for others the line of demarcation might be difficult.
These overwhelming questions would make you strike a balance in your claims and counter claims by bringing in contestability based on your ways of knowing (WOKs). It can be the case where you are banking on the acceptance of knowledge based on reasoning and intuition, while the other person’s perspective of looking at accepting or rejecting a knowledge claim is controlled by the personal and shared knowledge. Like the way memory and imagination are mapped by your personal experiences, the emotions with your sense perception are subject to your ever changing thoughts and feelings. It’s true that shared knowledge is an assembly of personal contributions. However, this nature makes shared knowledge subject to constant amendment. Looking through the lens of stability of knowledge, shared knowledge may experience shifts with unlearning and relearning.
Even in Natural Science, you might have seen that experiential hands-on happens based on a prior knowledge. However, every time it is exposed to evolution because different team members infer based on their reasoning. Moreover, there is a question mark on the authenticity of accepting the prior knowledge as the premise of justification and evaluation.
In Human Science, you would also find cognitive interference underpins your response to a stimulus. Again, cognition is based on individualistic WOKs.
Such debates open up a window to explore the title through explanation, justification, and critical analysis.