“The value of knowledge is lost when the lines between fact and fiction are blurred.”

“The value of knowledge is lost when the lines between fact and fiction are blurred.”

    • KQ’s
    • Does knowledge have to be fact to be beneficial.?
    • Are there any “true” facts that are completely independent from fiction?
    • Could the value of knowledge depend on what is being used for? – in some situations it may be beneficial to use fiction but some it might
    • Meaning of quote
    • The quote means that value of knowledge stems from it being facts. Therefore, knowledge must be completely true to have any value. The quote also states that if knowledge may be fiction than its value is lost
    • How might this link to either empathy or imagination?
    • Facts on their own dont make any sense imagination helps to make sense of the role of the facts in the greater history. Gaps have to be filled or else it means nothing. Especially in circumstances when facts are hidden or not evident. Its impossible to tell whether facts in history stem from the imagination of others. When one is not dealing with primary data. Consequently a lot of history involves some element of imagination



Seven Reasons of History

Everything in our society is a result of the past so understanding the past is only way to understand the present

A discovery of truth which helps mankind to improve itsele

Puts our present day relationships and values into contrast with the past

Learning of peoples independence in the past can help people continue  it today

Helps to place where society is today instead of just lost

Knowing what has distinguished a person or a society as a result of the past.

Sees how it is a result of the past and how they can project themselves in the future


I think the most important benefit is the fact that it helps us to understand our society today. Because without knowing how various aspects of our world were created are changed to be the way they are one can’t fully understand their purpose and value


I don’t believe that history repeats itself to such a significant enough effect that looking at the past will help us to predict what will happen in the future.

TOK: Natural Science VS Human Science-Dare to Compare


How did the volcanic eruption affect settlement patterns?

After the eruption the amount of settlement near the volcano decreased in the following years.

Comparing the population densities at various distances from the volcano before and after the eruption

Maps and statistics to estimate the population sizes at given distances

Concentric circles, to determine population density at various distances.

Compare effect of distance from volcano on population density before and after the eruption utilising a scatter graph.


What makes volcanic ash dangerous to humans?

Identify what volcanic ash is made of

Identify what human lungs are made of

Controlled experiment = leave some volcanic ash concentration? with human lung tissue

Investigate before and after condition of human lung tissue.  

The HS investigation seems to be much less reliable. This is because there are many other factors that are going to affect settlement patterns rather than just the volcanic eruption. By comparing the settlement patterns before the eruption and years after there are going to be many other factors that affected settlement. For example, innovations in transportation technology would causes settlement to be more sparse. Increasing world populations causes settlements to be more dense. However, for the NS investigation there isn’t much that affects the reliability or credibility because many trials can be conducted in a controlled environment. stopping other factors form effecting the results. Chemical theories can be applied to make sure results are accurate and reliable. HS could potentially increase reliability but studying the effect of volcanoes across many different explosions in different places and times. This would allow the conclusions to be supported by many different eruptions. Therefore, anomalous factors affecting settlement would have much less of an effect on the trend in settlement.





Correspondence and Coherence

Within the first section within their essay the student should look at there is correspondence within math. The student argues that mathematically equations and concepts are supported. They give the example of a fish population study which they created. They explain that it is fully supported by math. The student should compare this with correspondence theory. Meaning that within the AOK of math the concepts are equal and true. However, once applied to the real world it fails correspondence theory where the concepts fail to be true.

When discussing how with more and more trials I hypothesis can be shown to be progressively more reliable the student should discuss how the falls within correspondence theory.

In the conclusion the student should also discuss how the knowledge within some AOKs correspond theory is more applicable. For example, it is impossible to falsify or test what is “ethically” right or wrong while many areas math can be tested in the real world.


Our question: Can there be certainty in mathematics?


What is the difference between theorem and conjecture?

Conjecture is only a opinion or idea. However, a conjecture is not proven. It is created at a time when not all knowledge is produced. However, a theorem is proven. It is a truth that is accurate under any circumstance. A theorem is a proven conjecture that will always be true.

Essays Analysis

Martin Powers Essay

The essay is saying that books and words can help one to understand facts and some emotions associated with a war. However, he is stating that art can be so powerful as to make someone feel such strong emotions as if they were taking part in an event. Therefore, only art can fully capture the fundamental truths.

Art and Truth Essay

The essay is describing how art may have some type of deeper knowledge than written words. The author is stating that by trying to analyse art as true statements deters from the emotional and cultural truths that arts communicate.


I agree with the perspective of the first essay. This is because I believe art can help one to feel exactly the same as someone who witnessed an event. I believe this is possible due to the fact that art is able to communicate through a readers sense (smell, sight, touch, taste and hearing) in order to communicate how events happened. Although science is able to prove undisputed and universal truths it is not able to communicate emotions in the same way that art is able to.

Unlike The Arts, Science tells us something valuable about the world.

Argument in Support

Although art can communicate emotions, facts and themes it does not tell s something valuable. This is because the facts, emotions and themes in art are not necessarily accurate or true. This is due to the fact that arts can be created by anybody without any regard for truth or accuracy. Contrastingly, science produces high valuable scientific knowledge. Unlike artistic knowledge scientific knowledge is accurate and true as there is a rigorous method, scientific method, that knowledge is produced through.

Country- Argument

Arts do not produce accurate knowledge or facts. However, they tell us many valuable things about the word. Art can help for one to discover moral knowledge about the world and help individuals to come to moral conclusions. Art also allows one to experience other cultures that one could not understand through photographs, text or videos.

Analyse Why They Are Considered Separate AOKs

Human vs. natural sciences.

I believe that the distinction between human and natural sciences is very complex. Because they are both sciences all types of human and natural sciences are based in facts. Subsequently it is difficult to actually distinguish one from the other. However, I believe the main distinction is the fact that all laws of natural sciences existed before humans. Even though, no one had discovered the laws they still existed as governing laws of earth and the universe. Subsequently humans didn’t invent natural sciences we only discovered them.


However, human sciences could not have existed before humans because they describe humanity. For example in economy, there are many scientific laws and rules that you learn. However, these laws and principals are completely reliant on human societies and would not have existed before people.


Therefore, I believe that the main distinction between human and natural sciences is the fact that natural sciences had already existed before humans.



Tok Reflection – Problems of Intutition as a WOK

Ways of knowing are how people attain knowledge. intuition can be quite problematic as WOK’s. This is because intuition is possible without definitive proof or evidence. This is because intuition is defined as knowledge that is immediately evident.  Although there are problems with intuition as a WOK there are also benefits. For example, when producing knew knowledge and making discoveries it can be quite useful. Because in many situations people have an intuition without any evidence. However, there intuition is used to discover evidence that proves it.

Despite the positive aspects of intuition there are also many problems. Most notably is the  ethical implication of intuition. Because intuition does not require rational processes when one  attains new knowledge it can be quite problematic.  It can lead to unfair and unreasonable judgments of people or ideas without any substantial evidence or reasoning. Another issue with intuition as a WOK is the fact that an intuition can lead to a false sense of knowledge. One’s intuition might cause them to believe an incorrect fact to be true. This can lead to a lot of misinformation and “truths” between different people. Therefore, when Intuition is seen as a WOK it can be quite problematic.

“The vagueness and ambiguity of language always limits the production of knowledge”. Explore this claim.t

“The vagueness and ambiguity of language always limits the production of knowledge”. Explore this claim.


From a scientific standpoint this statement leads to a lot of questions. Does production of knowledge require language? If language is required in the production of knowledge then the claim may have some truth. I believe this did not used to be the case when the study of science first begun it was very abstract and did not require language. However, recently science has become very rigorous and  thesis or ideas require vigorous proof. Therefore, it has recently required more specific language language. The question of whether or not language is ambiguous is also quite relevant. Does the english language have specific enough language to describe knowledge discovered in science? Although we have hundreds scales such as temperature, weight, pH and density that can qualitatlviel quantify a given object. I don not believe our language is specific enough to qualtitativels describe an object.