Examiner preparation notes

November 2018

Theory of knowledge

16 pages
–2–

These preparation notes are confidential and for the

exclusive use of examiners in this examination session.

They are the property of the International Baccalaureate

and must not be reproduced or distributed to any other
person without the authorization of the IB Global Centre,
Cardiff.
–3–

Preamble
These notes outline what members of the examining team had in mind when they devised each of the
prescribed titles. They indicate approaches candidates might take in responding to the title chosen.
While there may be good reasons for examiners to consult these notes during the actual marking of
essays, it is vital that they resist any temptation to treat the points they contain as if they constituted a
“checklist” of what is expected.
It is expected that examiners will carefully read these notes in advance of the marking session so as to
broaden and deepen their awareness of how responses to the prescribed titles might be developed.
The approaches suggested in these notes are not the only ones possible, and may not even comprise
the best ones.
To a large extent they are couched in abstract terms because the intention is that they describe a whole
class of actual essays.
They describe ideal answers – there are many points included where the candidate would have to work
hard to make the arguments function, and most candidates are unlikely to be entirely successful in this
task.

In summary, what is written here is only a framework to help examiners in their assessment. Examiners
should be responsive to other valid approaches, but, in each case, examiners should consider whether
the candidate has presented an appropriate and cogent analysis of knowledge questions in
discussing the title.
Consider whether the candidate has:
a. understood the title
b. understood the knowledge questions that are explicit and implicit in it, and/or linked the title to
knowledge questions that arise naturally from it
c. developed and supported a comprehensive and cogent point of view about the topic and
appropriate knowledge questions.
–4–

1. “Existing classification systems steer the acquisition of new knowledge.” Discuss this claim with
reference to two areas of knowledge.

Nature of the title

This title asks candidates to “discuss”, so the candidate is expected to present a balanced
exploration of the two AOKs.

The question states, “existing classification systems”. The candidate must ensure that they refer to
concrete examples of systems that exist (in the context of the chosen AOKs). The word “existing”,
implies that these are the systems that are in place at this time and that others may have come
before them, so the provisional nature of classification systems may be explored.

The question is about the acquisition of knowledge, ie how knowledge is gained, and the reference
to “new knowledge”, suggests that a discussion could also include knowledge production. Indeed,
successful responses are more likely to focus on production than on learning in the classroom as
this approach is likely to provide more scope for discussion of classification systems and their
influences upon the construction of knowledge.

A key phrase in the title is “steer the acquisition of new knowledge”. Candidates will need to clarify
what they mean by “steer” and discuss the implications of that action such as the extent to which
classification systems guide or give direction to or possibly even limit the acquisition of new
knowledge. It should also be noted that the discussion should focus on how classifications “steer”
the acquisition of new knowledge and not simply a description of the classification systems
themselves.

Knowledge questions
Questions about knowledge that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a
response to the title include:
• What is the definition of a classification system?
• What is the role of a classification system in an AOK?
• How do classification systems provide a conceptual framework for understanding?
• How might classification systems promote, constrain, or limit the acquisition of knowledge?
• What is the role of language in creating classification systems?
• To what extent do the labels in classification systems aid or hinder one’s interpretation of
observations or events.
• How we know that our classification systems are accurate or useful?
• How do we decide if one classification system is better than another?
• Who decides what classification system is accepted in an area of knowledge?
• Who decides when a system needs to be changed or replaced?

Commentary on possible treatment

We make generalizations about the world; we seek patterns; we need classification systems so
that we can organize our knowledge. The title suggests through “steering” that new knowledge has
to fit into an already established organizational system or framework. The question for candidates
is how strong the “steering” is, in other words, to what extent it limits or enhances knowledge
acquisition and how we may know that.

Candidates may explain the importance of classification systems by considering that we cannot
have knowledge without classification because observations and events need to be associated
with something – to a concept or category – in order to be known. We have to interpret our
observations, but having to link them to an existing classification system may constrain our
acquisition of new knowledge.
–5–

A classification system refers to the division of something into categories which are created
according to similar qualities or traits. We seem to require structure and labelling, so classification
is a form of reasoning. AOKs are classification systems, and we classify various kinds of
knowledge – personal, shared, propositional, direct, experiential. Classification systems have
probably not developed in the neat, “clean” way we might at first think, but rather through an
historical process, so there is always some uncertainty. We classify according to how things look or
function or otherwise provide us with patterns. Just as AOKs continue to develop, so do
classification systems. Their purposes may change, too.

The natural sciences might be discussed to show how we are dependent on classification systems,
for instance in biology where taxonomy is the science of classifying living things. Examples may
include Linnaean taxonomy or more modern systems based on evolutionary relationships. Despite
the limitations of Linnaean taxonomy, it is a good example to show how decisions need to be made
regarding how and what to classify. Scientists must make decisions about the basis and
parameters of different categories. Paradigm shifts in the natural sciences involve changes in
classification and knowledge, so maybe these systems do more than “steer”. Re-classifying Pluto
as a dwarf planet may be a common example.

The human sciences could provide arguments for and against how classification systems change
and what that means for knowledge. In geography, boundary classifications – countries, states, etc
– are fairly fixed, but classifications such as precincts and wards and other ways of classifying
groups of citizens often change, sometime for political purposes. In economics, sociology, politics,
and psychology, there are many classifications: feudal, capitalist, socialist societies, less
developed and more developed countries, behavioural and cognitive theories. These allow for the
organization of essential information and may, as a result of the organization, have an effect on the
acquisition of new knowledge.

Mathematics will provide more examples of development in classification systems as in pure

mathematics and applied mathematics; each has its own strengths and uses. Even at the simplest
level, numerical systems are classification systems, base ten, etc. Geometry is classified as
Euclidian and non-Euclidian, which may suggest that new knowledge required this differentiation.

In religious knowledge systems candidates will possibly have compared religions or denominations
within a religion by classifying beliefs, practices, rituals, values, etc. There may seem to be much
that is common in these “categories”, but religions remain separate which leads one to ask if a
classification system always allows for the acquisition of new knowledge.

Interpretation requires language, and the labels in our classification systems may steer us to
particular conclusions. The role of traditions in creating classification systems in indigenous
knowledge systems may provide an argument that classification systems do more than “steer”.

The arts may well be a popular AOK to consider. Candidates may consider how the arts are
classified and whether this has changed over time. Are they classified by medium used or by the
product created (whether it is a symphony or a ballet or a sculpture, etc)? They may be classified
by genres and styles: impressionism, cubism, or by periods: renaissance, baroque, etc. Since our
understanding of the artist is of one who pushes boundaries and creates new modes and methods
for expressing creativity, do the classifications within the arts “steer” the acquisition of new
knowledge? Candidates may consider whether the classification affects the artist or whether or not
classifications are mostly useful in the study of art. Artists may be constrained by being labelled as
a particular type of artist. When an artist tries to cross over, this may be the result of trying to
break out of a classification because of the acquisition of new knowledge.
–6–

2. “Technology provides ever-expanding access to shared knowledge. Therefore, the need to

assimilate such knowledge personally is relentlessly diminishing.” To what extent do you agree
with this statement?

Nature of the title

The title consists of a strong, declarative statement and a direct question. The question is
an invitation to the candidate to fully agree, to agree “to an extent” or even i to disagree with
the statement entirely. It is important that candidates recognise the "therefore" that connects
the two parts of the statement and ensure that in the end their responses acknowledge that
the latter part is presented as a necessary outcome of the former. While the assessment
instrument mentions the treatment of AOKs as a likely component of any successful
response, the open nature of this title provides opportunities for candidates to lay particular
emphasis upon other aspects of the TOK course, although it would be unwise to ignore
AOKs altogether.

Candidates will need to establish the scope of technology under discussion; it may be digital
processing technology, but it may also include all tools for sharing knowledge such as the printing
press. Technology has democratized knowledge so yes, more people have access to knowledge,
but there are some for whom this knowledge is inaccessible due to economic or societal
constraints. There is also a great deal of procedural knowledge that we no longer have access to; it
is now “owned” by the computer engineers. Candidates will have to be careful not to limit their
responses to the ways that technology is advancing but instead, the focus should be on the effect
of technology on knowledge.

There will need to be some discussion of the shared/personal knowledge distinction within the
context of increased access to shared knowledge signifying a diminished need to assimilate the
knowledge personally, as stated in the title.

There is a focus in the title on “access” to knowledge. Candidates will need to define the scope of
this term, and this is perhaps dependent on the AOKs/WOKs under discussion. Similarly, there will
need to be a discussion of what is meant by “assimilate” and this will likely be dependent on the
AOK/WOK under discussion. The difference between "access" and "assimilation" may well provide
a key distinction to be addressed in this title, as the former describes merely what is externally
available to the knower while the latter points to a process of internalization that is likely to be
influenced by the knowledge, skills and attitudes already possessed by the knower. It is suggested
in the title that access is “ever-expanding”, and the need to assimilate is “relentlessly diminishing”.
Both of these terms suggest something that is ongoing with no sign of stopping. The vastness of
the terms may provide something for the candidate to argue against. It allows for some relativity in
the arguments, eg access may be expanding but the rate of expansion may be slowing down.

The way the title is written may lead candidates to consider it as an if/then statement. “If ever-
expanding access/then the need to assimilate personally diminishes.” If this is the case, the
candidate may choose to agree with the “If” but question the “then”. Again, the conclusion may be
different in different areas of knowledge. In the natural sciences, the candidate may agree that
technology potentially plays a vital role, but this then leads to an important role for assimilating
personal knowledge as this is what allows one to question the suitability or advisability of pursuing
the knowledge.

The use of the word “need” implies something quite absolute and is an opportunity for candidates
to analyse the extent to which this is the case.

Knowledge questions
Questions about knowledge that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a
response to the title include:
–7–

• To what extent is the claim in the title accurate in different AOKs?

• To what extent is the claim accurate when considered through the lens of different WOKs?
• To what extent does “ever-expanding” necessarily lead to “relentlessly diminishing”?
• Does this ever-expanding access to shared knowledge exist only when one has access to
technology? What are the implications of this?
• What role might be played by ethics in determining whether access is ever-expanding and
assimilation relentlessly diminishing?

Commentary on possible treatment

If a candidate answers this title though the AOKs, it is likely that s/he might draw different
conclusions depending on the area of knowledge. A candidate might argue that the statement is
true in the natural sciences and that the role of technology in providing ever-expanding access to
shared knowledge is essential for science to progress and become more accurate. The more
access scientists and scholars have to each other’s work, the more opportunity there is for
collaboration and building on the work of others. Is this entirely positive? If individual scientists are
able to short-cut their investigations or experiments because they can build on the work of other
scientists, this may save them time, money, energy, etc. However, in not doing one’s own
investigation, there is the possibility that a discovery may be missed or an unanticipated result will
be overlooked.

As access to shared knowledge increases, it is possible that lay people will also have access but
lack the ability to fully understand what they encounter. If one can access information without
having gone through the many years of learning necessary to personally acquire this knowledge,
might this result in the decline of the status of experts in various fields? An example of this might
be the increasing practice of self-diagnosis by using the many health and medicine sites available
on-line. The candidate may also conclude that there is little need to assimilate that knowledge
personally if it is always available through technology.

In the arts it could be argued that technology plays a different role depending on the form of art
under discussion. The conclusion might be that the need to assimilate the knowledge personally is
important, that internalizing the processes of writing, painting, dancing, etc. cannot be gained
through technology. Another interesting discussion may centre on the role of technology in
disseminating digital art and music, bypassing traditional corporate structures.

If a candidate chooses to consider the title through the idea of what mechanisms make this true,
then it is possible that s/he will consider the role of WOKs. In this case, one effective way of
achieving this would be to consider how an interaction of WOKs in specific AOKs work. Hence the
argument could be made that technology allows us to be more accurate and detailed in our sense
perception, and this then links to what we can reason in terms of shared knowledge in, for
example, natural sciences and human sciences. Language as a WOK might be discussed with
regard to the diminishing need to learn second languages in the age of instant machine translation.

A candidate may choose to agree to some extent with the title in which case, there is then scope
for the candidate to explore whether the central idea is always a good thing. This could potentially
lead to exploring the idea of whether there is knowledge we should not seek. Within this argument,
the candidate may conclude that this is a very strong argument for assimilating knowledge
personally, and that it is this personal knowledge which monitors what technology should or should
not be allowed to do.

Linked to the point above, candidates may choose to look at the title through an ethical lens. They
might argue that different perspectives on ethics give us different viewpoints. So, from one
perspective, ever-expanding knowledge may provide a high degree of happiness, whereas from
another perspective – the consequences to the environment, for instance – the cost may be so
high that we should not pursue this knowledge.
–8–

There may be a focus on the role of different technologies. In this case, it is important that the
essay remain focused on knowledge and not become a description of different technologies. For
example, the use of technology in mathematics allows us to do “tedious” calculations quickly which
perhaps leaves more time to focus on the arguably more “meaningful” parts of mathematics. The
candidate could discuss the argument for allowing/not allowing the use of graphic calculators
during examinations in schools/universities.

A candidate might argue that one negative result of the lack of assimilation of knowledge by
individuals might be the loss of serendipitous discovery as a result of no longer holding knowledge
in one’s mind in readiness for such possibilities.
–9–

3. Are disputes over knowledge claims within a discipline always resolvable? Answer this question by
comparing and contrasting disciplines taken from two areas of knowledge.

Nature of the title

The title asks if knowledge claims “within a discipline” are always resolvable. The candidate should
not discuss disputes that arise between disciplines. This would be a mis-reading of the title and
would result in less focus on the prescribed title.

The title specifically instructs candidates that the disciplines taken from two areas of knowledge
should be compared and contrasted. One discipline must be selected from an AOK and a second
discipline from a second AOK. However, candidates could select additional disciplines from the two
AOKs as long as the distribution criterion is met. Nevertheless, care should be taken not to dilute
the analysis by including too many disciplines as a whole. Note that a “discipline” is a field of study
within an academic subject. For instance, the disciplines within the natural sciences include
physics, chemistry, biology, geology and astronomy. The human sciences include economics,
politics, sociology and psychology. Because there is sometimes controversy about what is and is
not a discipline, examiners should be generous in their judgment and consider foremost the
development of the question.

The question in the title asks if disputes are always resolvable. Candidates may certainly reject this
idea and argue that claims are sometimes but not always resolvable. They should treat the
disciplines in a balanced way but, in comparing and contrasting them, it is likely that they will differ
in the amount or kinds of disputes and the degree to which they are resolvable.

The response to the title will greatly depend on a clear and thorough interpretation of the keywords
“disputes” and “resolution”. It is possible that the interpretation of these terms varies across
disciplines, and a good response will tie the terms to the examples that are explored.

Knowledge questions
Questions about knowledge that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a
response to the title include:
• What might be the grounds for a dispute and what aspects that could cause a dispute to arise?
• What counts as a resolution of a dispute?
• Is resolution of a dispute always desirable?
• What are the implications if a dispute is not resolved, and might there be positive, as well as
negative, implications?
• What mechanisms exist within the chosen discipline for the resolution of a dispute?
• What features of a discipline make it more susceptible to the occurrence of disputes?
• What role might agreement play? Is it more likely that disputes arise only if there has been a
certain amount of agreement within a discipline?

Commentary on possible treatment

Candidates may answer the question of what are the grounds for a dispute by suggesting that it
might be that there are different goals of an investigation or differences in language or
methodology such as what counts as adequate evidence, what counts as a fact, or how the results
of an experiment are interpreted. There may be a dispute that arises due to having different value
systems at work or a different view of historical development.

A discipline within mathematics may be chosen since the methods in mathematics suggest that
disputes, if they do arise, are usually taken to be resolvable. Perhaps the only types of dispute in
mathematics are those involving speculation or conjectures about the adoption of specific axioms,
the parallel axiom in Euclidian geometry or the continuum hypothesis, for example. The nature of
proof is such that there is little room for disagreement regarding mathematical facts. Candidates
may cite extreme examples of computer-assisted proof such as the four colour theorem or quote
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems; however, these examples are not typical of mainstream
mathematics.
– 10 –

History might be chosen given its reliance on interpretation and the interests and ideologies of
historians. Candidates should offer support for their claims about disputes and avoid the trap of “all
historians are biased”. Perhaps real disputes about history are linked to differences in
methodology. Historians who are too far apart in ideology or interest may not have enough in
common to produce a dispute in the first place. This brings up an interesting idea about disputes –
that there has to be some common ground at the heart of the disagreement.

A discussion of a discipline within the natural sciences might emphasize the relatively great
agreement on concepts, methodology and what counts as adequate evidence. Nevertheless, the
history of the sciences is a history of dispute and examinations of these cases could provide
excellent examples in biology or physics.

A candidate may choose to discuss economics as a discipline in the human sciences. Unlike in the
natural sciences where a dispute can be seen to undermine the production of knowledge, the
human sciences seem more accommodating. In economics, Monetarists and Keynesians seem to
go along quite happily despite their occupying positions 180 degrees apart. Candidates might
examine what it is about human sciences that produce such disputes in the first place and what
makes them tolerant of their lack of resolution. Engineers may not tolerate a dispute when
designing a bridge, for example, while finance ministers might expect expert advisors to disagree
about interest rate policy.

In the disciplines within the arts, disputes may rarely be resolved. In fact, they may be seen as the
natural by-product of creativity. Candidates may link the predominance of artistic disputes to the
individualistic nature of the artist or artistic product. At the same time, candidate might discuss the
disputes that may arise given the existence of basic agreements underlying artistic genres and
traditions. These genres and traditions can be found in all art forms but particularly in literature,
architecture, music and the visual arts.
– 11 –

4. “Those who have knowledge don’t predict. Those who predict don’t have knowledge” (Lao Tzu).
Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Nature of the title

The term “discuss” in this title suggest that candidates should evaluate the validity of the quotation
with reference to two areas of knowledge. A successful response will decide whether the claim is
true of the chosen areas and provide reasons to support this.

It is not expected that candidates research Lao Tzu.

The AOKs must be chosen carefully so that the idea of prediction makes sense in them.
Candidates will need to decide what is meant by “having knowledge” and what “prediction” means,
which may well vary among the AOKs.

The quotation suggests that those who are in possession of knowledge do not predict and those who
do predict are somehow lacking knowledge. The candidate will need to address both parts. The
declarative form of the quotation appears to state a fact. The implication may be that those who have
knowledge are wise enough to realize the possible perils of prediction – that the world lacks
fundamental patterns or uniformities which make prediction impractical – and that those who do
predict lack this wisdom. In this manner, candidates might treat the two parts of the statement as
making independent (and possibly even contradictory) claims about the relationship of knowledge
and prediction. Alternatively, they could be viewed as complementary assertions on the matter as a
whole. However, candidates might also argue that “to know is to predict” as in when we say that we
know that water boils at 100 C at sea level, we are saying that we know that the next time we boil
it, it will be at 100 C, so knowledge = prediction. It is expected that the candidate will work through
the quotation and forge an interpretation that allows for TOK analysis relevant to their chosen AOKs.
It is also possible that candidates will refute the claim and discuss the role of prediction in science
and another AOK and perhaps discuss the roles of intuition and imagination, for example, as aids to
prediction.

Knowledge questions
Questions about knowledge that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a
response to the title include:
• Why might the possession of knowledge inhibit prediction?
• What feature of the world, if known, could suggest that predictions cannot be made?
• To what extent does understanding the complexity of knowledge reveal the futility of trying to
make predictions or, conversely, does making predictions reveal a poor grasp of the limitations
of knowledge?
• How is it that the natural sciences seem to make successful predictions and seem, at the same
time, to produce knowledge?
• If the quotation is interpreted as a fact about human beings, is it not itself a type of prediction?

Commentary on possible treatment

Candidates might choose to start their investigation with the natural sciences where prediction is
not only common but also successful. An interesting exploration of this may centre around the kind
of knowledge produced in science and that much of what we consider scientific knowledge is
eventually rejected. So, perhaps the kind of knowledge produced in science fits the “knowledge as
a map” metaphor really well, and this is different from the knowledge being suggested in the
quotation. Some candidates might interpret the quotation as being about the dangers of induction.
While they may find examples to support their case, eg white and black swans, a balanced account
will need to address the success of science and its dependence on induction.

On the one hand, making knowledge claims in human sciences, such as psychology, relies on our
assumption that human behaviour can be seen as following patterns, and so we are able to
determine what is healthy or “normal”, but is it wise or possible to predict human behaviour? It
– 12 –

would also seem that those knowledgeable about economics and statistics would be skeptical
about the value of prediction. Candidates who choose to discuss the title in the human sciences
will have to address this tension between our attempting to claim knowledge and the limitations of
the methodology.

History might be chosen to support the idea that the making of predictions is foolish. George
Santayana (“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it”) notwithstanding,
candidates may discuss the seeming lack of validity in the idea that remembering leads to avoiding
future errors of the same kind, ie that knowledge of the past leads to useful predictions about the
future.

Some AOKs may seem closed to the possibility of prediction – the arts, for example, but there are
patterns in the arts which might make the notion of prediction less remote. One might make a
prediction about a new sculpture by Dale Chihuly based on the vast number of his completed glass
works or a new building by Renzo Piano. While the academic study of the arts is not about making
predictions, they can be made. Conservatory students are asked to write works in the style of past
composers, and we may ask our candidates to write the scene that would follow the final scene of
a play. While both these activities have merit, the quotation can be seen as a commentary on the
capriciousness of such exercises as they would not allow us to claim that we know that the results
are accurate or constitute knowledge.

Candidates may discuss mathematics as an area of knowledge in which the Platonic ideal of
eternal truths is best exemplified. Candidates might argue that in its pure form, mathematics makes
no predictions as it is not linked to the real world. In applied mathematics, however, there are many
examples of mathematics being used to predict in the fields of medicine and climate change.
– 13 –

5. “Too much relevant knowledge in a field might be a hindrance to the production of knowledge in
that field.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Nature of the title

The title asks candidates to “discuss” the statement, so this requires an exploration of a range of
arguments and perspectives presented in a balanced manner.

Candidates will need to decide what counts as “relevant” knowledge in the two areas chosen. While
the prescribed title does direct candidates to consider the result of “too much” relevant knowledge,
the idea of relevance might also lead to a discussion of the quality of the knowledge. Ways of
knowing may be discussed as a means of determining relevance.

In this essay, the focus must be on the production of knowledge as opposed to the acquisition of
knowledge. An argument could be made that the production of knowledge is accomplished after
we have absorbed or learned the knowledge that already exists in the field, so there is acquisition
as a part of production. If acquisition is presented as a step toward production, this would seem to
be a reasonable assertion.

Candidates will decide what is meant by a field of knowledge. They may decide this equates to an
area of knowledge, or they could decide to focus on a discipline within an area of knowledge.

There is an idea of quantity within the question implied by the use of “too much”. Candidates will
need to decide what is meant by “too much”. At what point do we decide there is “too much”?
Some may decide not to try to precisely quantify the idea and consider, instead, what happens
when we have a non-specified large amount of relevant knowledge.

Candidates should clarify what counts as a “hindrance” to producing knowledge. This could be
different in different AOKs or disciplines, and there may be different kinds of hindrances. While
being careful not to refocus the prescribed title, candidates might also consider what other
concepts hinder knowledge production other than too much relevant knowledge.

Knowledge questions
Questions about knowledge that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a
response to the title include:
• How do we determine or judge what counts as relevant knowledge?
• To what extent do ways of knowing allow us to determine relevance in different AOKs or
disciplines?
• How do we know what counts as “too much relevant knowledge”?
• What are the different sorts of hindrance to knowledge production when we have too much
knowledge, and how is this dependent on the AOK chosen?
• What other factors hinder the production of knowledge and how might these be seen as counter
claims?

Commentary on possible treatment

The idea of relevance is central to the title. Candidates may begin by considering whether we
always know what is relevant knowledge. Is it always clear to which aspect of the subject the
knowledge is relevant? We may have knowledge in the natural sciences but we do not always
know at what point it might be relevant to helping science progress, for instance. In the arts, there
is always the potential to break rules and conventions, so we do not always know what is relevant.

Candidates may choose to consider the ways of knowing in determining whether or not knowledge
is relevant. A primary way of determining relevance in natural sciences might be reasoning,
whereas in the arts, it might be emotion, language or imagination. Of course, a case could be
made for the use of any combination of WOKs in determining relevance. Intuition may also play a
part in the natural sciences and reason may play a role in the arts.
– 14 –

Candidates will likely analyse what is meant by “too much”. Perhaps “too much” is when we have
so much relevant knowledge in an area that we can no longer see clearly. The difficulty of not
seeing the “forest for the trees” comes to mind. Some will, no doubt, consider the challenge of
having “too much” to the challenge of having “too little”. In the natural sciences, we are dependent
on past theories for observation in order to create new theories, but might all these past theories
get in the way of producing new knowledge? In history, rival perspectives may complicate the
production of “new knowledge”.

It may be that different kinds of hindrances are created by too much relevant knowledge. This
could include the idea that we might have multiple perspectives on aspects of knowledge. It could
be that someone is too influenced by what went before and so finds it difficult to “think outside the
box” making truly revolutionary changes in knowledge difficult. It could also make it difficult to
determine the direction in which to focus if there is too much relevant knowledge which is
conflicting in some way.

Candidates may make specific links to methods of producing knowledge. In the natural sciences,
the process of falsification may be complicated by having too much relevant knowledge. Producing
knowledge in the field of ethics and religious knowledge systems may be complicated by too much
relevant knowledge, but this complication may be a good thing as it will mean considering more
variables which may ultimately produce a stronger conclusion. It is possible that candidates will
argue that it is not too much relevant knowledge which hinders knowledge production but other
factors, for example, lack of technology, the influence of culture or tradition. These will have to be
considered in the context of the question. The candidate should not just discount the possible
negative results of having “too much relevant knowledge” and then write an entire essay on the
hindrances caused by ethical considerations, for example.
– 15 –

6. “The importance of establishing incontrovertible facts is overestimated. Most knowledge deals in

ambiguity.” Discuss this statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.

Nature of the title

The title asks candidates to “discuss” the statement, so this requires an exploration of a range of
arguments and perspectives presented in a balanced manner.

The title assumes that we give a lot of weight to facts, that there are such things as
"incontrovertible facts," and that we spend a lot of time aiming for these. By being "overestimated,"
it is suggested that we have given too much notice to these facts. The term “ambiguity” suggests
that there may be several plausible interpretations of something. It refers to things that might have
more than one meaning; It does not mean fuzzy or vague.
That “most knowledge deals in ambiguity” is a strong claim that will need exploring. It is presented
in the title as being opposite to the “establishing of incontrovertible facts”. We have two extreme
positions here that must be discussed through two AOKs. Candidates will need to consider where
these two extremes fit in with selected AOKs and the extent to which they are, or are not, mutually
exclusive.

Knowledge questions
Questions about knowledge that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a
response to the title include:
• What is meant by “incontrovertible”, and is there such a thing as an “incontrovertible fact”.
• Is the nature of facts the same in all AOKs, and what counts as a fact in the AOKs being
discussed?
• Why do we care so much about facts?
• In the production of knowledge, is it possible for facts and ambiguity to coexist?
• Is there a place for ambiguity in the AOKs being discussed?
• Is it possible that ambiguity might enhance an AOK, that it might be purposeful or even
instrumental in the AOK?
• Are fact and ambiguity actually compatible?

Commentary on possible treatment

An “incontrovertible fact” will refer to a fact that is undeniable; there is no question about its truth.
For instance, that we are born and that we will die are incontrovertible facts. Being undeniable,
perhaps they serve purposes of definition rather than knowledge production. Candidates who
choose mathematics as one of their AOKs may do so because of the opportunity to offer an AOK
where things are true by definition (and therefore “incontrovertible”) by way of a contrast to another
AOK where facts are more likely to change over time and/or there is a tolerance for ambiguity.

Some areas seem to seek to establish facts more than others. It will be necessary for the
candidate to define fact in the context of the chosen AOK and discuss whether it is ever possible to
have an incontrovertible fact. Candidates are likely to choose the natural sciences and/or history as
areas which are “known” to deal with facts.

In the natural sciences, candidates may argue that the facts we determine or claim to know depend
on the hypothesis we use as a starting point, and we often know what we are looking for before we
begin to experiment or observe. They may also point out that there are no incontrovertible facts
because what we can observe is determined by us and the accuracy of our instruments and the
theories we use to interpret them. Thus, the facts in natural science, which we believe are solid,
may not be as solid as they may sound. As a counterclaim, candidates may argue that we use the
scientific method to make knowledge claims which can be called facts. These objectively verifiable
sense experiences can be proven and demonstrated, and predictions may be made with
confidence. Candidates may then explore the extent to which these facts are “incontrovertible” and
to what extent such a designation is required. Regarding ambiguity, candidates could argue that
language in the sciences, in medicine, engineering and physics, for example, cannot be
– 16 –

ambiguous. Surgeons and bridge builders require language that is as precise as is humanly
possible.

History will be a popular choice. We have facts in history that often answer the who, what, where
questions, but even they may not be incontrovertible as they depend on the accuracy of first-hand
accounts or records of events. Just how useful those facts are may be a topic for discussion versus
the rich fabric of history which relies on the informed interpretation of historians. Candidates will
need to acknowledge that there is rigour in history, a methodology which seeks strong evidence to
make knowledge claims, ie facts. By the nature of the AOK, these facts cannot be incontrovertible,
but that does not mean that there is just ambiguity or bias in the AOK. It is hoped that candidates
will not resort to the facile, “all history is made up and written by winners”, etc.

When considering ambiguity, which may refer to the plausibility of several interpretations of a claim
or situation, candidates should see it as the opposite of “incontrovertible fact”. However, they will
need to consider the place of ambiguity in the creation of knowledge; it can be argued that it
promotes challenge and debate, and without ambiguity, knowledge would stagnate. So, perhaps
they are not simple opposites but instead, ambiguity allows for different “answers” of facts that
complement each other.

The human sciences will be a good AOK to consider and question whether we even look for
“incontrovertible facts” when dealing with human behaviour. As a negative aspect of ambiguity,
candidates could mention that some disciplines within the human sciences use questionnaires and
surveys to gather information, but there is always some ambiguity in the language used which
makes conclusions less valid and reliable despite attempts to ask the same question in different
ways.

The arts will provide a space to defend the place for ambiguity in producing and acquiring
knowledge. In literature and poetry, for instance, ambiguity provides a richness that allows for
levels of interpretation, the creation of sensory experiences and nuance. In the interpretation of
literature or any art, however, this does not mean that “anything goes”, so perhaps that is where
there is a role for fact.