Tok Essay Titles May 2021

“Accepting knowledge claims always involves an element of trust.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.

All of the six TOK essay titles speak volumes on the real life issues encompassing knowledge questions, claims, counter claims, and their validation. Every question has its own customized road map of exploration. 

The very pertinent question seeking for an answer to this topic of choice centres round the most salient element of trust which forms the basis of critiquing an assertion. Moreover, the impact of a plethora of influencers for the acceptance and rejection of claim can no way be ignored.

Claimers as the authority of knowledge

From the perspective of a knower it is the claimer who is considered to be an authority of knowledge with a sufficient command over ideas in the specific domain. However, it’s pertinent to question that whether all claimers are knowledgeable and trustworthy. What shapes a knower’s perspective? Based on what factors are the claims substantiated? How is trust responsible for accepting the claims? What forms the basis for trust? Should we accept claims without trust as we may not have all the knowledge?

The interchangeable role plays

The thirst for knowledge and the urge to construct it make the knower and the claimer walk in their interchangeable shoes. Both are instrumental in the knowledge framing process through the different WOKs.

The reason for accepting claims

We accept claims when they are validated by reliable facts and figures. Again, the pain point is to examine the degree of reliability. Reasons play a key role in analysing the claims. Without relying on senses logic requires an in-depth explication, introspection, and reflection in evaluating the validity of a claim in reality. So, for you as a student to support the claim you should substantiate that it is trust which is the key to acceptance. Do we mean to say that if there is no trust, there cannot be acceptance? Or, even if the knower does not trust,  still it is viable to accept a claim- remains a questionable argument.

WOKs and trust

Trust is influenced by emotion, reason, memory, imagination, faith, belief, reason, language, and sense perception. Language, a structured pattern of signs and symbols, is an intended communicable WOK through which we interact as social members. It’s pretty obvious that sense perception may be manipulated through optical illusion and we get entrapped in the mode of ‘seeing is believing’. Emotion being individualistic and not reproducible, involves volatility in trust. The nexus between trust and emotion can be exemplified through rapport. Trust involves create validation which can defy imagination.

Coming to religion, people as knowers attach the faith factor badge to the deities. The connotation of faith is so controversial that it becomes inconclusive. Theist believes that there is a divine supernatural power to rule the Universe, whereas to an atheist the proposition of the existence of God is a low order hypothesis with the probability almost nearing to zero. Now these beliefs are polarized. To an atheist the belief of the theist is a mere superstition. Faith has evidentialist challenge. To whichever extent the claimer substantiates the claim, it depends upon the attitude and perspective of the knower to accept or reject it. It’s also essential to conclude whether you can develop trust without faith.

Personal and shared knowledge in trust

The analysis becomes contestable the moment it encompasses the notions of personal and shared knowledge. Our personal knowledge says that we should be respectful to the acclaimed authorities on a specific subject thanks to their acumen, though striking a balance between rationale and trust. Also, shared knowledge enunciates that as a society we attach the respect quotient and trust factor on claims of authorities in their domains, however not in the name of blind trust. However, the concepts of personal and shared knowledge can be encountered by the theory of relativism which says that people’s idea of what is true or valuable are not absolute but relative and dependent on their cultures.

So, here as a student, you can attack the critique with counter claim that acceptance of knowledge claims is not solely based on trust but other logical and ethical factors. What are those ethical or logical factors? The logical factors count on rationality in decision-making.

Rationale in trust

Filtering through the filter funnel we tend to eradicate bias. However, is it always possible to filter the bias? You can be biased with a ready information or a framing effect. The ready information can push you to an echo chamber. Sometimes, you may have a bounded rationality in ‘always’ accepting or rejecting a claim.

The strong time frame

Accepting a claim depends on its validity in the real life. However, it’s not always justified to think that whatever is justified and true need to be trusted.

The food for thought

Herein lies some thought provoking questions like-

Is it viable to attach credibility quotient on the acceptance of knowledge claims based on the trust parameter as it is subject to bias?

Do biases becloud the reliability of knowledge claims?

If there is no trust or mistrust on a knowledge claim, will the knower always reject it?

Are there evidences verifiable and strong enough to back up a claim so much so that even in the face of distrust there is acceptance?

What is the confidence interval of trust in acceptance or rejection of a knowledge claim?

All these mind-boggling questions can be analysed with reference to certain areas of knowledge (AOKs).

Knowledge claim in Natural Science

The knowledge claims in natural science are verifiable. They are backed up by factual evidences which can be tested. Conclusions are drawn based on the reliability of hypothesis with reference to reality. Don’t forget the use of axioms as building block of theories. Nevertheless, you should be careful while establishing the ‘trust factor’ because facts are at times self-evident presumptions or may also be dynamic based on constant research and are subject to rigour and reproducibility.

Knowledge claim in Human Science

Human Science is principally based on rationality. Rationality is at times based on opinions. Opinions can’t back up a claim. However, our beliefs are based on our opinions. The question here is whether it is always necessary for beliefs to be true? Also, consider the different biases on rationality like framework effect or anchoring which might be propellant in establishing your trust.

Such many more questions baffle the thought and often makes us sit on the fence due to the dynamism in the real-life examples.

Check out for more details on Title 1