Knowledge in Art

Knowledge within arts is not objective & therefore not meaningful.

 Outline a clear argument in support

  • Knowledge within the arts may be mealiness in certain area’s of knowledge due their objective nature. An example of this is knowledge in natural science
    • As art, by nature, is subjective, it can not be used as knowledge in natural science. As a rue of thumb, good science should not be biased, purely based on fact. This effectively discounts knowledge that can be discovered through the arts.

 Outline a clear counter-argument

  • History
    • Art often reflects the world/ society around them, thus being an mode of knowledge in history. Historians often derives knowledge of previous era’s from art, analyzing pictures and paintings done in order to understand and discover culture, lifestyles, beliefs, etc. This can seen through our knowledge found on Ancient Egypt. Vivid painting are often found describing different rituals unique to Ancient Egypt.
  • Human sciences

Pseudoscience vs. Science

According to Popper’s theory there is one clear distinction between pseudoscience and science: FALSIFICATION. Simply put it, pseudoscience rarely, if ever, makes claims that can be proven to be incorrect. For example, a tarrot card reader may tell somebody that they are going to die that day. Of course, if it doesn’t happen, they may say that a part of their soul “died”, or something equally disprovable, Their claims are often times unable to be proven as their claims are positive claims. Positive claims are claims in which speculate on what could be possible rather than what is ____ not understand under fixed circumstances.

However, despite common believes, the lines between pseudoscience and science is more blurred than one may think. Using falsification as a distinguishing rule between the two “sciences”, may lead to people disregarding things too quickly and/or easily.

Introduction to Natural Sciences

Natural Sciences is a unique category within the “AOK’s”, seen through it’s interaction with the world. It distinguishes itself from the 7 other Areas of Knowledge categories through exploration of the physical world. However, some may say that many, if not all, of the AOK’s interact with the physical world. This, of course, is true,  but its the HOW that sets it apart. Natural sciences is the only area of knowledge that is defined by it’s interaction within the physical world, thus making it an unique and fascinating category. For example, if it is not tangible nor perceived through senses than it is not a natural science.

Introduction of Knowledge Questions

Knowledge Claim #1: Science often times has the ability to make wealth gaps even more apparent.

Knowledge Claim #2: Science should be heavily regulated in order to prevent immoral application.

  1. How can one weigh both the benefits and drawbacks of a scientific progression, and decide whether or not to release it to the public?
  2. How can science be regulated without encouraging and/or excluding the underprivileged?
  3. At what point do we say that an application of science is immoral, and how do we prevent it from happening?
  4. Who are the people who “get” to decide what is moral or not.
  5. Do all scientific progressions (medicine, technology, etc.) exclude the underprivileged and make the wealth gap more apparent? If so how could we rectify this?
  6. Due to the cycle that science has “embodied”, does this mean science is ever progressing? We create solutions, thus creating problems, then we create solutions for the new problem, and in doing so creates a problem, so on and so forth.



” The problems with language always limits the production of knowledge.”


What are the problems with language?

What are the different types of language, and the befits and limitations for each style?

what is the production of knowledge?

How do the problems vary based on the type of knowledge an language used?

  1. Art
  2. Religion
  3. Natural Sciences
  4. Human Sciences
  5. History
  6. Math
  7. Ethics
  8. Indigenous Knowledge Systems



Getting to the TOK

There is evidence dating back to the 1800 hundreds, that humans either did not see or recognize the color blue.

  • Experiences and exposure can alter one’s perception of the world.
  • The extent of our perception relies on language, and the ability to communicate knowledge.
  • Knowledge would not expand without different experiences and exposures.
  • Knowledge changes with perception.
  • If we are not able to communicate knowledge, than it does not exist.
  • Language changes knowledge and our perception.

Articulating TOK claims out of order 1 (real life claims), is important as it can be applied to more than one situation, and used to further understand concepts. These TOK claims were created based off the assumption that the color blue “did not exist” until is was expressed though language. This is further supported through a experiment done by Jules Davidoff, a psychologist from Goldsmiths University of London and the Himba tribe from Namibia. The experiment was with the colors blue and green. There were 11 squares, where all except one square were green. According Jules Davidoff the majority of the tribal members found it challenging to distinguish the blue cube from the green cubes. However, interestingly enough, when shown 11 squares of green, with one square being a slightly different shade, they were able to immediately recognize it. It was hypothesized that because their language has so many different words describing the color green, they were able to recognize even the slightest differentiation between colors. Therefore, language can alter our knowledge and perception.


*Study of color, article in which further explains the history and existence of the color blue. Other good examples in which further support the TOK claims listed.






Emotion as a Way of Knowing

“Ethical problems are created because people get too attached to their point of view. Without emotion the world would be a more moral place”

The immediate reaction to this statement is “Well, is there really morality without emotion?”, and to put it simply – No, I believe that in most cases there can not be morality with the absence of emotion. Additionally, the statement is strategically structured in way which indicates towards audience “getting too attached to their point of view” may only be resolved through an absence of emotion. It leads the audience that point of view is fueled through solely emotions, an incorrect notion, and through an emotionless world would become more rational. Furthermore, the wording of the statement stipulates that only problems are created through attachment to ideas and opinions, when in reality opinion and a strong belief in right and wrong (which is driven by emotion), helps the world progress into a more just society. For example, Rosa Parker made a brave stand against the discrimination of African American citizens. Due to her strong opinions of right and wrong, she was a significant part of creating a more equal environment.

The second section of the statement declares that “Without emotion the world would be a more moral place.”. However the definition of moral is “Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior.”. Without emotion it is improbable that our world would be concerned with what is right and wrong. Emotion is what drives society to become a more just place. Without emotion, there would be no sympathy, empathy, and the basic principle was morality. Without theses crucial emotions, decisions would be solely based on our own desires and how to achieve and/or obtain them. Without emotion, we would loose the basic foundation of what makes us human.


Another way to phrase this statement in order to make it more true would be: “Ethical problem’s may be created through human’s unwillingness to listen to another individual’s point of view. A world with fewer selfish people would reduce conflict.

Introduction to TOK

What is Theory of Knowledge                                                                                          The Theory of Knowledge, in the most literal sense, is a required course at the IB diploma programme. The actual course, however, is based on the understanding of knowledge, a subject in which inquires deeper into what knowledge is. Questions such as: “What is knowledge? How does it change within a certain discipline?” will arise. The theory of knowledge will question the understanding of a topic based on how each subject defines and perceive knowledge.

Why does the IB make us learn it                                                                                     I believe the IB makes us learn the Theory of Knowledge as it allows us to fully explore what knowledge is, thus helping us provide more in depth and controversial ideas.

Community, Action and Service

Asides from CAS week, I have decided to complete the rest of my service hours through coaching youth soccer teams for the Major League Football Association (MLFA).

1. How did you become more aware of your own strengths and areas for growth?

I believe that I became more aware of my different strengths and weaknesses through coaching youth soccer players as it tests a large array of skills. For instance, the ability to think on your feet, create creative and engaging solutions is crucial. Initially, it was challenging to adjust drills and activities in a logical manner that benefited the whole team. However, I believe that I was able to gradually develop this skill, as I continued to force myself to think outside of the box. Another weakness that I discovered was my confidence level. As an authority figure, especially for such a young demographic, is it essential that you exude confidence in order to establish respect and and organization.

2. How did you undertake challenges that developed new skills?

Similar to my previous response, a challenge that I encountered whilst coaching at a Under 10’s tournament was making ethical and fair decisions, however still wanting to win. At the level of this age group, the two most important rules of the thumb are to have fun and for everyone to participate. However, the parents, players, and I all still want to win. This proposes a challenge. As each player has different playing levels, strengths, and weaknesses, I was forced to make strategies in order to overcome these challenges, thus developing my inquirer skills.

3. How did you discuss, evaluate and plan student-initiated activities?


4. How did you persevere in action?

Despite the challenges, I continue to enjoy coaching and plan to pursue it further. When I encounter different challenges I either force myself to think outside of the box, get advice from others, and/or research different alternatives/ methods to handle a situation.

5. How did you work collaboratively with others?

I constantly work collaboratively with other in two different situations – with my employers, and the players. I work collaboratively with the other coaches in order to sustain organization and for the practices to go smoothly. For instance, during practices sometimes I will work with another coach to plan and create different drills and topics. I work collaboratively with the players, through their feedback and thoughts on different drills and activities. As a couple primary goals is for players to have fun and to participate, it is essential for a coach to be able to communicate with the players to achieve these goals to the maximum, whilst still helping the players to develop.

6. How did you develop international-mindedness through global engagement, multilingualism and intercultural understanding?

I developed international-mindedness through both CAS week and coaching.

7. How did you consider the ethical implications of your actions?