TOK – What is Art?

by 053514 on November 21, 2017

Claim: Unlike the arts, science tells us something valuable about the world.

Unlike the arts which create subjective, unreliable data, the sciences are commonly used to define some of the biggest dilemmas in human history. Stemming from both human and natural sciences, the sciences allows for the utilization of the empirical data testing method and evidence from multiple scientific theories.

An example of this can be seen in the discovery of the various uses of the element carbon. Seen in everyday life through the re-arrangement of carbon atoms, they automatically become soft and pliable graphite whilst if you rearranged the atoms, it would become graphite, one of the hardest materials on Earth.

However, the arts has yet to inform us of the usage of the Carbon atom in human life as there are no recordings of the arts being able to represent such an important finding.


Though the arts may not immediately provide scientific data, the knowledge gained from the arts do define findings such as the discovery of human evolution. Through the usage of reoccurring themes in artworks and art pieces (theater), evidence of Darwin’s evolution theory can be seen applied into their works of art.


Image result for human evolution artwork

Another benefit of the arts is its ability to touch upon controversial subjects that may commonly be considered unprofessional to be declared in scientific journals. One of the topics commonly seen in art pieces is the depiction of the ethical/moral guidelines of human beings, an important consideration when taking actions in our day to day life.

In conclusion, though the arts may not provide information like the sciences do (objective knowledge), the arts is able to take into consideration of knowledge that is commonly not depicted in the sciences or in other AOKs.


TOK: Science vs Pseudoscience

by 053514 on November 5, 2017

It is unsurprising when we hear that experts in Art can’t always agree what ‘is’ and ‘is not’ Art. We might say that the distinction between what ‘is’, and what ‘is not’ art, is not always clear. Similar to the question of what is art, the distinction between science and pseudoscience is also not clear.  Analyze this claim.


At first glance, it seems that there is no clear distinction between science and pseudoscience as pseudoscience is so well integrated into our society, identifying what makes certain aspects in the sciences pseudoscience appears to be difficult as the empirical testing system may not always appear to be successful when replicating evidence found in the pseudosciences. In our society, one of the common examples of pseudosciences in action would be the creation of certain types of medicine.

Although pseudosciences may have a positive intention, it does not always result in immediate success. In modern day society, people may attempt to utilize pseudosciences in medicine as people have found success in those who took medicine which did not necessarily have medicinal qualities, however, those who took the medicine were made to believe that the manufactured drugs had true medicinal sciences, resulting in the partial success of self-healing through the idea of pseudoscience.

Another aspect of the pseudosciences clearly lies in the possible ignorance of the empirical testing method. Stemming from the utilization of a clear, reliable evidence testing formula, the pseudoscience may disregard the empirical testing formula though it is commonly enhanced with the “confirmation” of a “scientific method”. As a result, one of the common ways for scientist to prove whether the evidence found lies within the bounds of pseudosciences or not is to run it through the empirical testing formula, with the results telling you whether the “scientific method” can be replicated or not.