tok essay examples history

TOK Home > Free TOK notes > Areas of knowledge > History

Welcome to the history section of the site. This page will help you to take ownership of history via a quick overview, and four padlets that offer you quotes, knowledge questions, real-world issues, and key thinkers relating to this area of knowledge.

You can use this content both to understand this component of TOK, and support discussions and arguments that you offer in your essay and exhibition.

History: a quick overview

History is the study of the past, providing us with a lens through which to understand the present and, arguably, shape the future. It encompasses a tapestry of human experiences, actions, and societies across ages. To navigate this field, we encounter several key concepts.

Evidence is the cornerstone of historical inquiry, demanding rigorous examination of sources, documents, and artifacts to unravel the truth about bygone eras. Interpretation is also an essential concept, recognizing that diverse perspectives often lead to varying explanations and understandings of historical events. The notion of objectivity prompts questions about the historian’s impartiality, as personal biases can influence the construction of historical narratives.

Two influential thinkers in the realm of history from diverse backgrounds are Howard Zinn and Mary Beard. Howard Zinn, an American historian, challenged conventional historical accounts by offering alternative viewpoints in his book “A People’s History of the United States,” shedding light on marginalized voices and social struggles. Mary Beard, a British classicist and historian, reinvigorated the study of ancient history by

examining the lives of ordinary people in ancient Rome, offering fresh perspectives on classical civilizations.

Real-life issues in history often centre around power dynamics and historical responsibility. The ongoing discourse on decolonizing history highlights the need to rectify historical injustices and reevaluate narratives rooted in colonial perspectives. Simultaneously, discussions about historical responsibility confront questions of accountability for past wrongs, emphasizing the role of history in shaping collective values and truths.

Engaging with history while studying TOK invites students to critically analyze the past, challenge dominant narratives, and appreciate the cultural complexities that shape our world today. It higlights the importance of evidence-based inquiry, diverse perspectives, and the ethical considerations involved in constructing historical knowledge. History, as a dynamic and ever-evolving discipline, provides invaluable insights into our shared human experience and the forces that have shaped our global society.

1 QUOTES Who said “History is Philosophy teaching by example”?

Explore these quotes on history by a wide range of different thinkers. Which quotes are the most and least insightful? How they challenge our assumptions about history? What do they reveal about links between history and other aspects of the TOK course?

2 KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS Can we ‘choose’ to remember history in a certain way?

Identifying and exploring knowledge questions (KQs) is at the heart of TOK, prompting us to reflect on our knowledge, evaluate whether it’s be based on a flawed or incomplete assumptions, and provide us with a focus point to improve our understanding of the world.

3 REAL-WORLD ISSUES Is history really written by the victors?

These examples will help you to understand how TOK ideas manifest in the real-world, take ownership of history, link TOK to the latest global issues, and become an authentic critical thinker . They will also help you to justify and explore the discussions you offer in your essay and exhibition.

4 KEY THINKERS Why did EH Carr say you should study the historian, not the facts?

The thinkers in this padlet will help you to consolidate your understanding of history, and challenge your assumptions about the world. You can also draw on their ideas to support your essay and exhibition discussions, and add depth and authority to the claims you make about knowledge.

HISTORY: DEEPER DIVES

Follow these links to access a range of notes, essays, and observations on history. Use the deeper dives docs to research this area of knowledge, and hone your TOK essay arguments and discussions.

1 Can we say anything for sure in history?

2 How and why does history get rewritten?
3 Key thinkers on historical perspectives
4 Questioning historical perspectives
5 Understanding historical perspectives
6 What are the ‘logical fallacies’ of history?
7 Why does history have a special place in TOK?

Subscribe to the free TOK newsletter!

Subscribe to our free newsletter, and collect fantastic examples to help you understand the key TOK ideas, support your essay and exhibition, and make you an authentic critical thinker .

You’ll encounter some of the most important thinkers from the past and the present, go beyond the headlines of contemporary events and issues around the globe, and see how TOK concepts manifest in the real-world. Subscribe HERE !

November 2024 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles with Examples and Detailed Explanation

Updated: May 10

The Theory of Knowledge Essay Prescribed Titles for the November 2024 session is now available! Check them out below:

Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

In the production of knowledge, is ingenuity always needed but never enough? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

In the pursuit of knowledge, what is gained by the artist adopting the lens of the scientist and the scientist adopting the lens of the artist? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

I will be doing an in-depth explanation and provide detailed examples for each of the prescribed titles in a few days' time, so bookmark this page and stay tuned as explanations are released!

In the mean time, check out our plethora of TOK resources that can help you start planning and writing for your TOK Essay.

Title 1 - Does our responsibility to acquire knowledge vary according to the area of knowledge? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

This is an interesting title that explores acquisition of knowledge. From the perspective of a student, you should have much experience in your acqusition of knowledge. It can be helpful to ask what is our role as a student? to what extent should we learn a particular area of knowledge and not another? what motivates us to acquire knowledge? It is important to recognize that our responsibility to acquire knowledge does vary according to the area of knowledge. In mathematics for example, we may be interested in learning rigorous ways to solve quantitative problems, while in the arts, we are less interested about such rigour, and more interested about the creative process to create meaning in various art mediums. Take the contrived example of a doctor versus an artist. The responsibility for a doctor to acquire accurate knowledge about human physiology is crucial, because it is a literal matter of life or death, while the same cannot be expected of an artist. The responsility of an artist is to create meaning through forms, and mediums. In that sense, the responsibility of one person can be vastly different to another, but also, each person will have a different set of responsibilities in different areas of knowledge.

How do we think about this in a more "TOK-like" way? It helps to consider the nature of each Area of Knowledge. As a student of history, it would be irresponsible to only study one point of view of the past, rather than considering many different perspectives to draw a well-balanced conclusion about the historical events. Why? Because history is subjective and influenced by bias, our responsibility to acquire knowledge in this area is particularly important in order to understand the complexities of the past. In contrast, in mathematics, where knowledge is more objective and universal, the responsibility lies more in grasping concepts and applying logical reasoning rather than critically analysing multiple perspectives. Thus, it can be argued that the purpose of each AOK drives the responsibility of those who acquire its knowledge.

When writing this prompt, make sure that you remain focused on the acqusition process for knowledge. How does the AOK ensure you fulfill your responsibilities, what is the importance of these responsibilities, what are they and how are they determined? It is important to clearly distinguish and identify the responsibilities in each AOK, to ensure a clear focus on the title. While it may be tempting to stray into the production of knowledge in these AOKs, for the sake of clarity and focus, you should not do so. Consider picking AOKs which are quite contrasting in the way you acquire knowledge, a combination of History with Science or Mathematics presents a good argument about responsibilities between a more quantitative versus qualitative field, while consisdering Arts with History could bring out the influence of having a rigorous and defined methology (in history) in applying strict responsbilities towards the acqusition of knowledge. This prompt is also ideal to consider your position as a knower, and apply personal examples. Not only is it strategically important (given that it is harder to nullify your own experience than a researched one), but also because this prompt is closely aligned with what you are experiencing in your current academic journey - learning.

Title 2 - In the production of knowledge, is ingenuity always needed but never enough? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Ingenuity can be defined as a creative process, a way to produce knowledge that requires creativity, innovation or novel methods. Thinking about the ways that producers of knowledge need to be ingenious in the way they produce knowledge would be helpful to understanding and choosing examples for this prompt. I suggest defining your own definition for ingenuity so that you have a solid foundation from which to build up your argument about the necessity of ingenuity in your chosen AOKs.

So how is ingenuity needed in each AOK? For the AOK of mathematics, an obvious example could be how proofs for mathematics are found, and how solutions to infamous mathematical problems are suddenly solved. There are many theorems which were solved this way, and I'm sure budding mathematicians will find talking about examples for this particular prompt very insightful and interesting. If you are less mathematically inclined, don't be scared off by the complexity of mathematics as an AOK. You can check out 3blue1brown which is a Youtube channel that discusses a lot about interesting mathematical problems. Here, I will provide one example of ingenuity in solutions to Mathematical problems.

We have many problems that are still unsolved in mathematics. Most famously, the Riemann hypothesis. You don't need to understand what it really is about, but just knowing that there are still unsolved problems out there is good for broadening your understanding of the AOK. Furthermore, often times, the problems are usually intuitive to understand, but with non-trivial solutions. You can have a look at the many wonderfully intuitive explanations of why mathematical problems and their solutions work from the aforementioned 3blue1brown Youtube channel. They have many wonderfully satisfying graphical explanations. Just as a motivating example, we may want to know why the harmonic sequence (1/n) leads to values which go smaller and smaller, but the series (the sum of their values) are not convergent. I encourage you to look at both a formal proof of this, and also a "intuitive" proof.

This is the distinction in mathematics that is quite unique. There is a 'common sense' way to explain why something works versus a 'rigourous' way to proof that something does work. For example, by intuition, we know that adding an odd number to an even number gives you an odd number. However, how do we proof this rigorously? You may learn ways such as direct proof, or proof by induction, contradiction, etc. These are all various methods and systems to prove statements and produce knowledge. However, it is when a mathematical problem cannot be proved in such ways that we may require ingenuity. Hence, it would be good for anyone considering this topic to have a solid interest/foundation in mathematics, and think about the ways YOU typically find answers to problems, versus the ways that solutions are found for more complicated mathematical results.

In other areas of knowledge, we can see how ingenuity is often related to significant results. For example, it is pretty well known that the discovery of penicillin was a total accident - there was some creative process involved to eventually turn it into the revolutionary drug we have today. So how does each AOK's methodology allow for the use of ingenuity as methods and tools to produce knowledge?

How is ingenuity needed to produce knowledge in mathematics, science, history and arts?

Is it enough to just rely on ingenuity for each AOK?

Title 3 - How might it benefit an area of knowledge to sever ties with its past? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

The relationship between an area of knowledge and its historical roots is a complex and nuanced topic. While there can be benefits to severing ties with the past, the extent to which this is desirable or feasible varies across different areas of knowledge.

One potential advantage of an area of knowledge severing ties with its past is the opportunity for methodological and systematic change. This can be particularly beneficial when the foundational assumptions, approaches, or paradigms of a field have become outdated, limiting, or hindering progress.

In the field of medicine, for example, the transition from traditional practices rooted in ancient humoral theory to the modern, evidence-based approach of modern biomedicine has been transformative. By severing ties with the past and embracing a more rigorous, scientific methodology, the medical field has been able to make significant advancements in understanding the human body, developing effective treatments, and improving patient outcomes.

Similarly, the emergence of psychology as an independent discipline, distinct from its philosophical origins, has allowed for the development of specialized research methods, experimental designs, and empirical investigations that have expanded our understanding of the human mind and behavior. This methodological shift has been crucial in establishing psychology as a robust and respected area of knowledge.

However, it is important to note that the complete severing of ties with the past is not always desirable or even possible. In some cases, the historical foundations of an area of knowledge can provide valuable context, insights, and a foundation for continued growth and development.

In the field of mathematics, for example, the discipline's deep roots in philosophy and the study of logic have shaped its fundamental principles and methods. While modern mathematics has evolved significantly, the connections to its philosophical origins remain an integral part of the field's identity and continue to inform its ongoing development.

Furthermore, Kuhn's model of scientific progress suggests that paradigm shifts, which may involve the rejection of past assumptions, often build upon the existing knowledge base. The process of scientific revolution is not one of complete abandonment, but rather a transformation and integration of new perspectives with the accumulated wisdom of the past.

In areas such as economics, astronomy, and computer science, the relationship between the present and the past is more complex. While these fields have undergone significant transformations, the legacy of their historical origins, such as astrology in the case of astronomy or the connections between computer science and mathematics, continue to shape their current practices and trajectories.

As is often the case with TOK titles, the decision to sever ties with the past in an area of knowledge is not a straightforward one. It depends on the specific circumstances, the nature of the field, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of such a separatin. The most productive approach often involves a careful balance, where the insights and methodologies of the past are selectively integrated and built upon, allowing for the continuous evolution and advancement of knowledge. This is an implication that you should investigate with your TOK essay.

Title 4 - To what extent do you agree that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

The distinction between hypothesis and speculation is a longstanding debate in the pursuit of knowledge, with implications that extend across various areas of inquiry. While both concepts involve making informed conjectures about the nature of the world, the degree to which they can be rigorously tested and validated sets them apart.

In the natural sciences, the formulation of hypotheses is a fundamental step in the scientific method. A hypothesis is an educated guess, grounded in existing knowledge and empirical observations, which can be subjected to systematic testing and experimentation. This process allows researchers to gather evidence, refine their theories, and potentially arrive at robust conclusions. The strength of a hypothesis lies in its ability to make testable predictions and withstand rigorous scrutiny. Hume's model of science, which emphasizes the importance of empirical verification and the rejection of unfalsifiable claims, underscores the need for hypotheses to be grounded in observable phenomena.

In contrast, speculation is often characterized as a more open-ended and less constrained form of conjecture. Speculations may be based on intuition, imagination, or limited information, and may not necessarily lend themselves to direct empirical testing. While speculation can serve as a valuable starting point for further exploration and the generation of new ideas, it lacks the methodological rigor and evidentiary support that distinguishes a well-formulated hypothesis.

The human sciences, such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology, present a unique challenge in this regard. The complexity of human behavior and social phenomena can make it difficult to establish clear causal relationships and develop testable hypotheses. Researchers in these fields often grapple with the inherent limitations of their methodologies, which may rely more heavily on observational data, qualitative analysis, and interpretive frameworks. In such cases, the line between hypothesis and speculation can become blurred, as researchers navigate the challenges of studying the human condition.

However, it would be an oversimplification to claim that there is no significant difference between hypothesis and speculation. While both may involve a degree of conjecture, the rigorous application of scientific principles, the use of empirical evidence, and the commitment to falsifiability are what distinguish a well-crafted hypothesis from mere speculation. The pursuit of knowledge, whether in the natural sciences or the human sciences, requires a delicate balance between intuition, creativity, and the systematic testing of ideas.

The distinction between hypothesis and speculation is not a binary one, but rather a spectrum that reflects the varying degrees of evidentiary support and methodological rigor. By the end of your essay, you should be able to recognise the nuances of this distinction, and consider its implications on various areas of knowledge.

Title 5 - In the production of knowledge, are we too quick to dismiss anomalies? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

In the pursuit of knowledge, the tendency to dismiss anomalies can often hinder our understanding of the world around us. While the desire for coherence and consistency in our theories and models is understandable, a closer examination of these outliers can lead to groundbreaking discoveries and paradigm shifts.

In the natural sciences, the handling of anomalies is often guided by the principles of the scientific method. Researchers are trained to carefully scrutinize data, identify outliers, and investigate their underlying causes. These anomalies can serve as the impetus for further research, leading to the refinement or even the complete overhaul of existing theories. For example, the discovery of the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit by Urbain Le Verrier ultimately paved the way for Einstein's theory of general relativity, which provided a more comprehensive understanding of gravity.

In the realm of history and the arts, anomalies can take on a different form. Historical narratives are often shaped by the dominant perspectives and biases of the time, and the dismissal of alternative accounts or marginalized voices can lead to an incomplete understanding of the past. Similarly, in the arts, the rejection of unconventional or avant-garde works can stifle the exploration of new artistic frontiers. The emergence of the Impressionist movement, which challenged the traditional norms of painting, is a prime example of how anomalies can transform the landscape of artistic knowledge.

However, it is crucial to recognize that not all anomalies are worthy of equal consideration. This is where the methdologies of each AOK comes in. What frameworks and processes does each AOK possess so as to carefully evaluate and scruitinise what distinguishes a genuine outlier that could warrant further investigation versus one which is mere statistical noise or a false pattern? You may consider rigorous methodologies, such as importance of peer review to corroborate claims to be one such way to help ensure that the dismissal of anomalies is not driven by confirmation bias or a reluctance to challenge established beliefs.

In this title, it would be good to examine the nuances of how the methodologies in each AOK facilitate the falsification of certain anomalies, while preserving ones that are valuable for the discovery and production of knowledge. Particularly, it is important to have a good definition of anomalies and clearly establish the distinction between what anomalies are too be rejected and what are not to be rejected. Finally, keep focused on the question. It is not about whether we should or shouldn't reject anomalies, but are we too quick to do so. Hence, your discussion should focus on the speed/decisiveness at which these decisions happen, and much of this will relate to the methods in which the AOK uses to decide whether something is knowledge or a falsified claim.

Title 6 - In the pursuit of knowledge, what is gained by the artist adopting the lens of the scientist and the scientist adopting the lens of the artist? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

This title focuses on the interesting synergies between science and art. While we typically associate science with having a rigid framework, and rigorous methods, there may be opportunities for creativity that would otherwise appear in art. Similarly, the arts may be defined by a lassiez-faire attitude towards the production of knowledge, but sometimes a more structured and "scientific" way to produce art may be effective as well. To familiarise yourself with how art and science could overlap and work together, consider the below two resources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmsutter/2019/02/24/the-surprising-power-of-merging-science-with-art/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03394-8

The title allows you to explore what influences the production of knoweldge in each AOK.

Although a common stereotype of art is that an artist is just suddenly touched by an idea and goes into a flurry of artistic production, somehow stumbling into a world-class masterpiece, this is often not the case. Instead, artists often experiment much like the sciences, testing different variables like different techniques, different materials, different mediums, coming up with hypothesis, generating conclusions from each experiment which informs the creative process. Of course, there won't be much quantitative data like you would have in science, but these conclusions still allows us to build up knowledge and falsify ones as well. It can be helpful to consider how properties of the natural science could be complimentary to properties of the arts as well. Perhaps a more systematic approach to the creation of art is not necessarily incompatible nor infringe upon the art's mission to allow artists their freedom to create knowledge, but aid in this production process. At the same time, science could contribute to the arts not only in a methodological sense, but also in terms of providing novel techniques to create art. Often, cutting edge technologies are applied to the production of modern art, so that messages could be delivered in more impactful ways, creating knowledge that reaches an entirely new audience novelly. Suitable examples could include works which were produced systematically through trial and error (like a scientific experiment), or artworks produced with the aid of scientific foundations, equipment or knowledge.

Similarly, a common stereotype of science is that it is a field filled with many rules and regulations, and there is no room for you to be innovative. However, many groundbreaking scientific discoveries are first found by some sort of creative process. A popular model (and one discussed in TOK) for the production of knowledge in science is inductivism. That is, we notice something happening in the natural world, then attempt to induce a hypothesis and subsequently generalise some phenomenon into laws of nature. This may seem very "scientific" but creativity is invovled in many stages. First, how do you choose to discover something? There must be some creative persuit. Second, how do you choose to generalise something? There must be some creative basis there as well. We must realise that creativity is a huge part of the scientific pursuit in producing knowledge, thus it appears arts' methods play a big role in science as well. Again, consider how they are not contradictory but complimentary with each other.

Another area to look into could be the dissemination of knowledge. Scientific communication could be aided by the use of art and artistic forms. While art may also benefit from some more rigorous standards of communications as well. Suitable examples in this area can inlcude interesting artistic representations of natural phenomena, some "accidental" discoveries in science, or paradigm shifts in science caused by someone going against the grain towards conventional scientific thinking.

The structure for this title will be slightly different. The typical claim-counterclaim structure does not work as well here, as the essay should explore the different aspects in which these 'gains' could be made. So, I recommend following the order of the questions:

One aspect which the artist could gain from adopting some scientific lens

An alternative aspect that artist could gain from adopting some scientific lens

One aspect in which scientists could gain from adopting an artistic lens

4. An alternative aspect that artists could gain from adopting some artistic lens

You may pursue these gains thematically as well, one focusing on how adopting the methods of the other AOK could aid the production of knowledge, while the other may focus on tools and ethics or another part of the knowledge framework. At the same time, both could focus on methods, but different aspects of it. There are many possibilities with the structure.

Hopefully, this helps you in crafting your TOK Essay. If you require more assistance, MyIBTutor offers TOK Essay reviews and tutors here to help you discuss and refine your writing and ideas. Feel free to reach out!

How to learn TOK

TOK 101: Areas of Knowledge Explained

Avoid These Overused TOK Essay Examples

where is th

EXPLAINED: May 2024 TOK Essay Prescribed Titles

What happened to this post? HackIB has been acquired by MyIBTutor . All content is now available on the MyIBTutor Blog with more exciting IB content to come! Click here to see it for yourself!

Looking for November 2024 Session TOK Essay titles? Click here.

TOK Essay Titles – May 2024 Examination Session

The titles for May 2024 are released! Here they are below:

Make sure to bookmark this page as I explain and provide examples for each of these titles in depth! UPDATE: Title 1, 2, 5 and 6 are now available. Stay tuned for more! For general guidance on how to write a good TOK essay, check out my TOK Essay advice collection .

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history? Discuss with reference to the arts and history.

How can we reconcile the opposing demands for specialization and generalization in the production of knowledge? Discuss with reference to mathematics and one other area of knowledge.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them? Discuss with reference to the human sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Do we need custodians of knowledge? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

This title attempts to challenge students on the main school of thought that you learn over the TOK course. The gist of your TOK teaching on both of these AOKs probably boiled down to something like: everything is art and it’s just whatever the artist wants to create, while history is always biased because the winners always write all of history. However, this eliminates much of the nuance in each of these AOKs that are worth exploring. That’s what makes this prompt interesting.

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts? I will be honest, I never thought we really ‘celebrated’ subjectivity. It just, was. Inherently, art is a subjective exercise – you can think about this point a little further. You will find some heated discussion on whether art is subjective or could it be objective on the internet and I won’t delve into that here, because it isn’t the point of this title. The key here is to focus on the EXTENT of subjectivity and is it to the detriment of the area of knowledge itself. Then, we have to consider, whose subjectivity are we talking about: is it the artist’s subjectivity, or the audience’s subjectivity. For example, the Mona Lisa wasn’t that well known when it was first painted. I’m sure the Da Vinci thought it was quite a nice piece, but it seems like we didn’t really celebrate his subjectivity. It wasn’t until a certain audience found it subjectively good, that we accepted it as one of the greatest pieces of art in the world! That is an example of how subjectivity is relevant in the dissemination of artistic knowledge. For a more modern example, what about your favourite YouTuber? Do they truly make what they want? NO! They are often beholden to sponsors, and you – the audience! What you want to see, is what they will make! So it is YOUR subjectivity that drives their decision to produce art, not necessarily purely their subjectivity. Subjectivity by definition is just a person’s opinions, emotions, thoughts. This connects well with the TOK concept of values. What VALUES and WHOSE values are determining what art is created (in a variety of contexts), how art is perceived, and how art changes in its reception over time? These are all good questions to ponder. For more unconventional examples about art, think about how museums choose what art to display, what constitutes good art for prizes like the Nobel Prize for Literature, or why some art is considered more expensive than others? Are there systematic ways to think about our subjectivity and how we apply it to art? Is it really overly celebrating subjectivity or simply a necessity to make sense of the abundance of artistic knowledge in a sea of information today?

History gets a bad rep in the TOK classroom. Students like to trash on History calling it biased and unreliable. In this prompt, I don’t want you to refute these claims, but just think about how they aren’t necessarily catastrophic as we might think. We aren’t denying that biases in history could be problematic. I would be suspicious too, if the only accounts of the Rohingya Genocide came from the Myanmar military. However, the word condemned in the title suggests that we might be too harsh on historians when they get things wrong. We should focus on how the historical method recovers itself from failures in biases from its sources. Yes, it might be biased, but is it better than no history? Furthermore, does subjectivity actually ADD value to the way we produce, and interpret historical knowledge? While I’m sure a completely objective, news story like report of what happened in 1886 would be a historian’s dream, that isn’t the case! No matter how objective we try to be, we colour the events we experience by our own opinions, feelings and emotions. But isn’t that history in itself? In an almost cliched way, history’s subjectivity tells us more about what happened in the past and their beliefs and values more than words could ever say.

In both the historical and artistic discussions, you should focus more on the methodologies of these AOKs and how they achieve their AOK’s purpose. Subjectivity manifests in different ways in these AOKs and their methodology reflects that. In the overt awareness of subjectivity in the Arts, its method to produce knowledge is characteristically defined by subjectivity. In History, the method is to identify the covert influences of subjectivity, then to produce the most truthful knowledge possible. You can see that the goals of these two are different, and hence they deal with subjectivity differently. Don’t fall in the trap of focusing your discussion too much on your examples, but generalise to the patterns of how subjectivity manifest in your AOKs and whether their treatment of it is problematic.

It is crucial, when writing the essay for this prompt, to clearly define in your introduction what specialisation and generalisation means. DO NOT use the dictionary definitions here – since this is a TOK Essay, you want to make a TOK version of specialisation and generalisation, in terms of how these two things differ in the production of knowledge. Clearly defining the two in this way will form a solid foundation for you to have a nuanced discussion on this process of reconciliation between the two. The prompt hints at the competing demands on knowledge of specialisation and generalisation – i.e. you might not be able to produce knowledge in the same way if you were aiming for specialisation versus generalisation. So, this provides a point of contrast for you to choose examples and frame your discussion. Remember, the idea of competing demands is an ASSUMPTION, not an argument posed by the question. You should focus on how your chosen examples demonstrate a way to balance the interests of both and reach a ‘middle-ground’ rather than arguing that specialisation or generalisation are compatible with each other. TLDR: Don’t challenge the assumption.

For the first AOK of Mathematics, you should have encountered many personal examples just from your study of IB Maths. Most of your learning has been on generalisation, and the application of such generalisations. For instance, you learn about Calculus, a general topic within Mathematics, and then apply it in various contexts. Mathematicians love generalisations – that Calculus you learned? Well, the definition of a derivative generalised for all functions could be summarised by the first principles of derivatives function that HL AA students learn. You would have less interaction with specialisation of Mathematical knowledge. In a broader sense, the specific components of mathematics, cannot be separated from the general. You can’t solve calculus problems without the fundamental theorem of calculus. However, you could argue that the fundamental theorem of calculus didn’t need calculus problems to exist. Thus, an interesting dilemma arises in Mathematics – the generalisation could be produced, without a particular need for specialisation, but specialisation often calls for generalisation to first exist.

Looking at the latest mathematics research, you will find that applied mathematics is most common. Rarely do you see people get excited by new discoveries of solutions to elliptical curves, but more do when you tell them a new mathematical model to improve our prediction of the weather. We may place greater value on specialisation of knowledge, because we could see its usefulness more immediately, but, the Area of Knowledge does not require such specialisation to produce knowledge. So, do we encourage people to produce knowledge with the goal of specialisation in mind, or do we tell them to produce whatever theoretical generalised mathematical knowledge they can? Look to how mathematics is applied to Quantitative Finance, Econometrics, and Actuarial Science. They specialise mathematical knowledge and provide for some of the most lucrative careers. Does that speak to our preference and demand for specialised knowledge? But then again, what of the interdependence between generalisation and specialisation? How do we balance the two and how does the methodologies of the AOK contribute to this balancing act?

For the second, complimentary AOK, you could have discussions with all of the AOKs. For the Sciences, you could present a similar argument about needing to have some general theories before you could specialise. The scientific method is essentially one big generalisation process – you take specific observations and you make inferences so that you can generalise about some natural process. However, the knowledge that produces need not be general, it can still be specific. If we take specialisation as the goal, then we could pose narrow hypotheses to test. If we take generalisation as the goal, then we might need multiple of these narrow hypotheses to form a full picture, testing each individual case. Thus, specialisation could lead to specialisation alone, but more often, generalisation is the result of many specialisations.

One last question you might want to consider and attempt to answer in your essay is, do you want to know something about everything or everything about something? The answer to that will depend on your AOK. While we want to know about everything on everything, that is simply not reality. So, what trade offs do we make in each AOK, and how does each AOK decide on what we need to know more on?

You might be able to appreciate how long it takes ideas to actually be implemented in reality by looking at the recent Nobel Prize winners for Economic Sciences. The winner of the 2017 prize was Richard H. Thaler, for his contributions to behavioural economics. He explored the impacts of limited rationality, social preferences and the lack of individual self-control on economic decision making on an individual and market level. He started these findings from the 1980s, but it is only recently, in the 2022 revision of the IB syllabus that Economics students learn about the field of Behavioural economics in any detail! So why is it so?

To some extent, it is hard to criticise things for moving slowly. After all, new discoveries like behavioural economics represents a fundamental paradigm shift towards the way research is conducted in the particular AOK. Often times, fresh ideas are left to “ferment” so that their truthfulness can be tested with time. Nothing is more embarrassing than going down a rabbit hole only to find that your assumptions turned out to be monumentally incorrect. Even if we are making a big shift in light of new ideas towards the way we produce knowledge, doing so takes time! For many years and still now, we rely on strong assumptions of rationality to make economic models function. While the psychology of such behaviours are well researched, applying them to an Economic setting may not be. That is to say, it is important to consider how these new ideas arise, and what effect it has on existing knowledge, and the way we produce future knowledge. New ideas is simply new knowledge, but with the added implication that it has some effect on the existing knowledge within an AOK. It could potentially change how we view current knowledge, or how we conduct research given a particular discovery.

In the AOK of the human sciences, which broadly follows the scientific method, you could drawn some inspiration from the philosopher Thomas Kuhn’s view of scientific progress. He argues that within a period of “normal science” where we make incremental progress under the assumption of an overarching model, but there comes a point where we notice accumulation of imperfections with such a model that leads to new paradigms – new ideas, that fundamentally change how we do science. Then we undergo a sort of scientific revolution, where there are debates and decisions made over what sort of model we need to follow, until everyone eventually accepts the new paradigm and returns to a normal science period so that continual small improvements are made to knowledge, until another paradigm shift happens again. While you are not expected to demonstrate such strong philosophy knowledge within the TOK Essay, it is helpful to consider how each AOK handles such ‘revolutions’. For instance, it is harder to irrefutably find falsities in human sciences given the difficulty in replicability and corroborative studies compared to natural sciences.

As for complimentary AOKs, any would suit here, as each AOK has a very different way to handle new ideas. Many factors influence the way new ideas is accepted. For this title, we need to take the assumption that their acceptance is slow, not argue with it. Instead, you should consider what factors influence this slowness, and how different AOKs have different factors in mind when deciding how to accept new ideas. This relates to the nature of the AOK (what is its purpose) and the methodology guiding knowledge production in them.

Have you ever said something that sounds very weird out of context? That might have just been something silly with no real consequences, but in the realm of knowledge, we need to be careful about the consequences of knowledge taken out of their original context. This article highlights how the context of medical treatment matters a lot! As you can imagine, something that works in one field, doesn’t always apply in a straightforward manner to another. This is why there are whole research teams dedicated to what we call “translational research”. That is, trying to “translate” what you get from something like a lab setting, into actual products, like life-saving medications.

The obvious links to AOKs here are the Natural and Human Sciences. For Natural Sciences, we often start off knowledge production in a lab setting, or in a controlled environment. However, the application of such knowledge is rarely as controlled! So an interesting point to consider is how natural scientists have to account for the fact that their findings won’t ever be used in as perfect a setting as their research. Sure, you might have developed bullet proof wood , but how is that going to work in practically when it comes to mass manufacturing it for the army or the police? This is one of the biggest challenges that natural scientists face. It’s not that we aren’t trying to produce exciting knowledge, but that the application of such knowledge in a practical and appreciable context is often very difficult. Something like the mRNA technology (which recently was awarded a Nobel) took a long time to be developed into actual vaccines. The question then is, do we underestimate this process? Often it depends on the goal of the scientist. If the knowledge producer set out with an idea to commercialise in mind, then they would often consider the practical implications of findings. However, people studying theoretical physics for example, would struggle to immediately find very accessible real life implications. That doesn’t mean the knowledge is worthless, but certainly, the challenges are there.

What about non-scientific disciplines? Recently, I went to an art exhibition that trend Van Gough’s paintings into a 3D digital display. There was a Banksy exhibition that took the original murals he painted on the street, into this museum environment. Does changing the context of how art work is shown, and the manipulation of artistic knowledge change its meaning? What is the goal of transforming art into a different context? There are many reasons. Sometimes, it is to create satire (have a look at the parodies of the Mona Lisa), bringing old art onto a new audience (like VR exhibitions of Da Vinci), or simply making it more accessible to people (by making art works digitally available). The producers of these adapted forms of knowledge take great care in considering how this impacts the meaning of the art in its changed form. When artwork is so subjective, the context of art is often required to understand the artist’s meaning and intention, to ‘interpret’ works accordingly. At the same time, as we know art is quite subjective, is a ‘correct interpretation’ always required? If we are to remain artistic purists, then many of the joys of art could be lost! Imagine if you were admonished for listening to Taylor Swift through Spotify on your AirPods because it isn’t the original uncompressed music file with all the details, and you aren’t listening to it on the exact set of thousand dollar speakers it was created with? It would be ludicrous to assume that artistic knowledge is always going to be disseminated in the same context. Thus, this must be a consideration of artists. Is this consideration more or less difficult for different types of art? How is this consideration different to science considering there is no ‘right’ answer to interpreting art?

When thinking about this title, we aren’t arguing whether it is difficult. I think we all agree it is. However, it is about whether we underestimate just how difficult it is! Center your focus on how each AOK’s methodology highlights the consideration of being able to change contexts, and whether that affects the interpretation of the knowledge in question.

The term ‘custodians of knowledge’ is not something TOK students have likely heard of before, but this concept is relatively simple to understand. If you think positively about it, it could be protectors of knowledge, people who preserve knowledge, keeping it for generations to come – for example, some people might consider the Indigenous Peoples’ in Australia to be custodians of their unique cultural knowledge and what they call dreamtime stories. In this way, they keep culture alive, even if most people nowadays speak English and don’t readily tell their history. However, thought about negatively, it could also mean “gatekeepers’ (pardon the Gen Z language) of knowledge. The idealogical “protection” of knowledge could also be seen as a way to prevent some forms of knowledge from becoming knowledge in the first place. Talk to any university academic, and they will tell you how many times their research papers have been rejected. That’s why there is a bias towards statistically significant results, while research that showed that nothing significant has happened doesn’t often get published. Thus, these two contrasts provide for interesting discussion, particularly when considering how each AOK has different forms of custodians of knowledge and how they “gatekeep” or “protect” knowledge in different ways.

Take the AOK of the arts as an example. The career of artists are laughed upon because it is so hard to “break in” to the fine world of art. Many artists aren’t acclaimed until they are long dead. Perhaps most famously, the Mona Lisa wasn’t very well known until several hundred years after it was made. Thus, artists are often at the mercy of custodians of artistic knowledge like art curators and critics, who decide what merits acknowledgement as knowledge. After all, knowledge is only knowledge when there is consensus it is. And if the big wigs in the art industry doesn’t think it’s worth a mention, your art, however brilliant it seems to you, would not reach the consensus required to be considered knowledge. Of course, there are debates on the necessity of custodians in such a subjective AOK. After all, there were many times I questioned how some “artworks” even made it into the modern art museum when it’s literally splashes of paint on a canvas. I digress. However, there is something to be said about maintaining some form of standard to art. We judge whether some art is good or bad, but not in a very rigorous way. Custodians of knowledge supposedly have a framework to make such judgement in a way which preserves the nature of the AOK, and the knowledge within it. Therefore, discussion about the necessity of the custodians should focus on how they contribute to the purpose of the AOK, and whether it is compatible with the nature and methodologies of the AOK.

To further illustrate what I mean, you could see that Natural Sciences might present a stronger argument to the necessity of such custodians. We implicitly “trust” science, for better or for worse, because we know that there is a level of credibility imbued by the scientific method. It is the custodians’ role to maintain the standard of adherence to the scientific method that keeps this credibility alive. This is why, when flat earthers argue that they can’t see the curvature of the earth from the horizon, that it doesn’t get published in a scientific journal as fact! This is why, when research emerges that denies the existence of climate change, custodians have a responsibility to retract such research . However, at the same time, it also places much pressure on producers of such knowledge to create something worthy in the eyes of custodians. You might have heard of the data manipulation scandal that forced Stanford’s president to resign. Thus, custodians do appear quite important in this AOK, when we value the truthfulness of knowledge so much, but that isn’t without its consequences.

I recommend picking two contrasting AOKs that value much different things when writing the essay. While comparison is not a requirement for the essay, it gives you a more nuanced understanding of the question and thus a more reflective piece. For instance, we have just demonstrated that art is relatively subjective, while the sciences are less so. Thus, this influences the role which custodians need to play in each AOK.

The framework to answering this title for many students will follow a similar structure: an example of when novel evidence was accepted and had groundbreaking impacts, and another example where such evidence was problematic and disputed. Repeat this for the second AOK you choose and you’ll have 4 contrasting examples. This is not the only way to approach this title, but is my personal preference considering the structure I suggest to most students that ensures firstly, you will pass the basic criteria of a TOK Essay, and secondly, you will have a strong foundation to succeed. However, since everyone will have a similar style and collection of examples, it is even more important for this title, that you tease out the meaning and the effect on each area of knowledge, and knowledge in general, that your examples represent.

To demonstrate what I mean, let’s focus on two natural sciences examples. First, consider the case of “Cold Fusion”, a theory that you could supposedly have nuclear fusion at room temperature, discovered and subsequently debunked in 1989. A contrasting example, could be recent Nobel Prize winner of Medicine and Physiology, for the research on mRNA vaccines. Immediately, it is obvious that one shows where recent evidence isn’t the strongest, while the latter shows that it could be. But the focus should be on are we TOO QUICK in assuming so, not whether we should or not. Well, what are the reactions and timelines for each example? While Cold Fusion was met with excitement from the general public for the potential it holds for energy production, I wouldn’t say we ‘assumed’ it to be strong. Looking at the news reports from that time, you can see that there was great anticipation about the discovery, leading to lots of sudden funding and interest to investigate it and replicate it. As for mRNA, that discovery took a long time! First the technology, and the getting it to not appear foreign to the human body was very tricky. Even after it was discovered, we waited quite a while, with many people’s first experience with mRNA to be their COVID 19 vaccine. What you need to draw from these two examples is the methodological similarities and differences which reflect the NATURE of Science, and thus, the purpose of science. You see in both how there is an emphasis on replication which corroborates or falsifies, and only after doing so for a long time do we accept it to be true, otherwise it is debunked. So yes, there are moments where Natural Sciences provides strong compelling evidence that ends up false, there are many hurdles with in the methodology of the Natural Science that prevents us from being TOO QUICK to assume it to be true.

For this prompt, it is too easy to fall into the debate of why something was true or why something was false and tricked the population. This is not the point of the essay. You should avoid talking about the specifics of your examples at length. You need to demonstrate how your examples reflect the wider methodologies of the Natural Sciences (and similarly, for your second AOK) that either encourages or discourages our assumptions that novel evidence is always best. As you can see from my examples above, I focused on how such assumption does not happen too quickly because there are many ways we verify scientific knowledge to be true. I don’t discuss the specifics of the actual science behind Cold Fusion or mRNA as that isn’t required. You are better off focusing on the methodologies behind the AOKs themselves and answering the question.

Some interesting complements to the Natural Science AOK could be History (particularly focusing on revisionism and how historical events could be interpreted differently over time), Mathematics (how could the methodologies differ and are there ‘mistakes’ in Maths), or even Human Sciences (replication is a bit more difficult with that!).