TOK

TERMINOLOGY
1. ESSENTIAL TOK TERMS
a. KNOWLEDGE QUESTION: Knowledge questions are questions about knowledge. Knowledge questions are
open in the sense that there are a number of plausible answers to them. The questions are contestable.
b. REAL LIFE SITUATION: Something that has actually happened in the last 5 years. It could be personal or
culturally-relevant, but it can’t be hypothetical.
c. PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE: depends crucially on the experiences of a particular individual. It is gained through
experience, practice and personal involvement and is intimately bound up with the particular local
circumstances of the individual such as biography, interests, values, and so on
d. SHARED KNOWLEDGE: is highly structured, is systematic in its nature and the product of more than one
individual.
e. PRESCRIBED TITLE: the six titles that are given by the IBO and the to
f. KNOWLEDGE CLAIM: A knowledge claim is the assertion that “I/we know X” or “I/we know how to Y”, or a
statement about knowledge. A belief that what someone beliefs is justified and true.
i. FIRST ORDER CLAIMS Claims that are made within particular areas of knowledge or by individual knowers
about the world. It is the job of TOK to examine the basis for these first-order claims.
ii. SECOND ORDER CLAIMS Claims that are made about knowledge. These are the second-order claims made
in TOK that are justified using the tools of TOK which usually involve an examination of the nature of
knowledge.
a. • “Mathematical knowledge is certain.” This is a second-order knowledge claim because it is about
mathematical knowledge. We establish this by examining the methods of mathematics themselves
using the tools of TOK.
iii. KK PRINCIPLE: knowing that you know. This suggests that you there are the following areas: the known
known, the known unknown, the unknown unknown, the unknown known.
g. AREA OF KNOWLEDGE Areas of knowledge are specific branches of knowledge, each of which can be seen to
have a distinct nature and different methods of gaining knowledge. TOK distinguishes between eight areas of
knowledge. They are mathematics, the natural sciences, the human sciences, the arts, history, ethics, religious
knowledge systems, and indigenous knowledge systems. Students must explore a range of areas of
knowledge, and it is suggested that studying six of these eight would be appropriate.
h. KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORK is a device for exploring the areas of knowledge. It identifies the key
characteristics of each area of knowledge by depicting each area as a complex system of five interacting
components. This enables students to effectively compare and contrast different areas of knowledge and
allows the possibility of a deeper exploration of the relationship between areas of knowledge and ways of
knowing.
i. WAYS OF KNOWING : While there are arguably many ways of knowing, the TOK course identifies eight
specific ways of knowing (WOKs). They are language, sense perception, emotion, reason, imagination, faith,
intuition, and memory. Students must explore a range of ways of knowing, and it is suggested that studying
four of these eight in depth would be appropriate.
j. PERSPECTIVE: A viewpoint, a way of approaching a topic. This is a flexible term it could refer to a cultural,
historical, AoK, personal, gender, developmental, etc. perspective or to a scope.
k. PARADIGM: An overarching theory shared by a community to explain reality. Ex: Evolutionary Paradigm,
Atomic Theory, Newtonian Mechanics. How/Why do paradigms start, compete, and end?
l. METHODOLOGY: a process for constructing knowledge that often involves several ways of knowing. (ex: the
scientific method)
m. CERTAINTY: This could be the psychological feeling that something is true or the probability that something
is true.
 n. CULTURE: the way of life of people, including their attitudes, values, beliefs, arts, sciences, modes of
perception, and habits of thought and activity. (To what extent does culture affect knowledge?)
o. EVIDENCE: information that supports or contradicts a knowledge claim. What counts as valid evidence?
p. TECHNOLOGY: artificial items that can be used to increase knowledge discovery, creation, or its
dissemination.
q. VALUE: Something that is important or significant. A statement about what is right/wrong, good/bad.
r. KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY: A group of people that work together to discover or create knowledge.
s. ASSUMPTION: The underlying premises of an argument that are taken for granted as true and not explicitly
exposed
t. IMPLICATION: What an argument would include if it were taken to its logical conclusion.
2. “KNOWLEDGE” WHAT IS IT?
a. DESCRIPTIVE KNOWLEDGE: AKA: Tripartite Theory of Knowledge (AKA propositional knowledge): Plato’s account
of knowledge given in the Theaetetus that knowledge consists of a justified true belief.
i. BELIEF: To believe a proposition is to hold and assert it to be true. (Is it possible to have different degrees of
belief? How much of the assertion of a proposition is an emotional quality)
ii. JUSTIFICATION: The process of demonstrating that a belief is true.
1. GETTIER PROBLEM: What if a person has a true belief that is justified correctly for the wrong reasons ex:
a stopped what is telling the correct time and is used as justification
2. INDEFEASIBLE: a requirement for knowledge as a response to the Gettier problem that there should be
nothing that could override a person’s justification…ex: like the fact that the watch was actually broken
even though it cave the correct time.
iii. TRUE:
1. QUALITIES OF TRUTH
a. ABSOLUTE: universally true for all people in all places at all times
b. RELATIVE: only true for certain people or certain situations (situated knowledge) at certain times.
c. OBJECTIVE: True apart from any knower (without any knower’s bias)
d. SUBJECTIVE: true because of a knower (the way a knower knows)
2. THEORIES OF TRUTH
a. CORRESPONDANC THEORY OF TRUTH: an idea/proposition is true when it correctly refers to what is/reality
i. PROPOSITIONS: A statement asserting a truth
1. DESCRIPTIVE PROPOSITIONS: propositions about what is.
a. ANALYTIC PROPOSITION: something that is true by definition (2+2=4)
b. SYNTHETIC PROPOSITION: something that is true by reference to what actually is (not just definition).
c. METAPHYSICAL PROPOSITIONS: statements about the nature of Being/existence
2. NORMATIVE PROPOSITION: propositions about what should be
3. PROPOSITION PROBLEMS
a. CORRIGIBLE: a proposition is corrigible if it is capable of correction by new evidence or new
theoretical changes. (are all empirical propositions corrigible? Are analytical propositions corrigible?)
b. DEFEASIBLE: a proposition is defeasible if further evidence may render it doubtful. (Are all
propositions defeasible? What does this do to the Justification criterion?)
c. NATURALISTIC FALLACY: the problem of assuming that a descriptive proposition should also be
normative.
b. COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH: The view that truth consists in its being consistent and logically fitting
together. We test one belief in terms of others and we can’t step outside of our own belief systems. (The
coherence theory is often a shortcut where we lack correspondence evidence, but does that make it a
stand along theory of truth)
c. PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH: Something is true if it “works” when it is applied
 b. PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE: “How to” knowledge. Knowledge of how to ride a bike, walk, play the piano, sing,
dance, etc. (this is different from Declarative knowledge and Episodic Knowledge) If this is a type of knowledge,
what would be the Way of Knowing? How does this knowledge develop? Personal examples?
i. REFLEX: an instinctive response to a stimulus
c. KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE: knowledge that is based on first-hand experience of a thing (is this just a way of
acquiring descriptive knowledge or is it in fact another type of knowledge?...
i. QUALIA: The irreducably emotional and subjective experience of being conscious. (you experience it very
often:) The point of this word is to point out that words can’t reduce/capture this experience. Ex: any attempt to
explain the qualia of pain, love, eating your favorite sandwich, etc. will fall short of capture the subjective
essence. How is this related to ineffable?
d. UNDERSTANDING: knowledge and empathy. To understanding is not only to know, but to know what is is like.
i. EXPERTISE: a higher level of knowledge or sophisticated understanding. The ability to give a more thorough
explanation. Expertise could be in any type or combinations of knowledge. Often times expertise is specialized in
a particular area or topic.
ii. WISDOM: Good judgment, practical knowledge. The ability to use all types of knowledge to make good
decisions.
3. WAYS OF KNOWING
a. LANGUAGE: : 1: RULE GOVERNED: grammar 2: INTENDED: language is not just anything that communicates
3: CREATIVE/ OPEN-ENDED: There are an infinite number of sentence combinations. Words have many uses
and change over time. New words can be borrowed from other languages or even coined. Is the naming of
things arbitrary or is there purpose behind it? EX: Why is a dog called “dog”? Are the rules of grammar
arbitrary, too?
i. MEANING: That which is conveyed through language. What does it mean to know the meaning of a word?
Does it mean you know the definition, the image it refers to, or you know how to use it? What has been your
personal experience with meaning confusion and clarification?
ii. DENOTATION: The meaning is found in the world. What a word directly refers to. A meaningful word
stands for something else. What about abstract words like wisdom or freedom—that you can point to
directly? How is this a source of conflict? Which test of truth does this fit and why?
iii. CONNOTATION: A word has an aura of favorable or unfavorable feeling (connotation) Ex: hero, peace,
democracy, freedom fighter, censorship vs. thief, liar, communism, terrorism, parenting. Is emotion
helping or hindering the transfer of knowledge? Creating clarity or confusion? Is this cultural?
iv. THEORIES OF MEANING
1. DEFINITION THEORY: The meaning is found in the dictionary. Some words are more “fuzzy,” difficult
to define. Consider “triangle, chair, love. If you define a word with more words at what point do you
reach certainty?--What is this all grounded in? Which test of truth does this fit and why?
2. IMAGE THEORY: The meaning is found in the mind. A word means the mental image in one’s mind.
This is the difference between a human and a parrot. How do you know what is in another’s mind?
What about someone who is blind? Which test of truth does this fit and why?
3. FUNCTIONALIST THEORY: The meaning is found in usage; meaning is know-how. A sign stands for
what it intends or does. To know the meaning of a word is to use it correctly. Consider the word,
“fire” how do people use it to do very different things? Which test of truth does this fit and why?
v. LINGUISTIC DETERMINISM: According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis language determines our
experience of reality. They used examples of Hopi Indians not having a word for time/tense and Inuit
numerable words for snow. Does language really change our perceptual abilities? Or does it change our
interpretation of events?
b. REASONING: The process of thinking logically. Can include inductive, deductive, or informal (fallacy). If a
person correctly uses reasoning they are said to be rational. To what extent is reason dependent on other
WoKs? Which AoKs use this most?
 i. SYLLOGISM: A logical argument that demonstrates deduction. Two premises are combined to form a
conclusion. Three terms are used twice and there are quantifiers such as “all, some, or no.” famous
example: “All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, thus Socrates is mortal.” Can you apply this formula to
help with any of your RLS or PTs?
ii. RATIONALISM: Philosophical position that believes that reason is the most important source of
knowledge. Is this personally true for you? Your culture? To what extent are rationalism and empiricism co-
dependent, symbiotic?
iii. INDUCTIVE: Reasoning that goes from particular to general. Generalization. Through induction, sense
perceptions create categories in the mind. Isn’t all language one big process of induction?—labeling
categories? Do we label based on categories in nature or categories in human nature; two what extent is
induction artificially true? How is induction influence and influenced by perception? To what extent is
induction consciously undertaken?
iv. GOOD GENERALIZATION: When a person has induced with good judgment. 1.Number: enough instances.
2. Variety: used different situation/contexts 3. Exeptions: looked for them 4. Coherence: fits ideas 5.
Subject: generalizations are more flawed in human sciences b/c of large # of variables. Find how one of
these has been broken in your paper/pres.
v. DEDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasoning that moves from the general to the particular. The comparison of
categories to reach a conclusion. Does deduction give us certainty or truth? Is it a creator or preservor of
truth? Does a reacting animal use deduction?
vi. FALLACY: Incorrect use of reasoning. Informal Reasoning. Can you find a fallacy of a person’s argument in
your paper/pres?
1. THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION: The basic problem of assuming that you have experienced enough
examples/instances to truly induce a category. In physics, this involves the assumption that the laws
of physics will not change tomorrow. How could you apply this to your Knowledge Issues
2. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT: Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and
attacking it. Ex: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax
specifically to support the poor. Ex: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from
monkey
3. BELIEF BIAS: In psychology the tendency to find logical arguments more valid if you agree with the
conclusion. Apply this to your presentation/ paper. Abduction: using evidence to reach a wider
conclusion
4. LOADED QUESTION: A question or statement that has a built in assumption. EX: “I didn’t cheat today.”
(assumption previously did)
5. NATURALISTIC FALLACY: The basic assumption that “what is” must be right or that what is “natural”
is justified. Can you find a clear “ought” in nature that is not a projection of cultural values? Nature
seems driven to survive-should that be the basis of our ethics?
6. SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT: An argument that quickly moves from one small view or happening to
an extremely significant view or happening. Ex: If you tighten up gun laws, the gov’t will soon be
taking all of them. “If you give ‘em, an inch, they’ll take a foot.” When is this a fallacy, when is a “canary
in the coal mine?” Good Judgment?
7. INFORMAL REASONING: Intuitive, daily reasoning that doesn’t conform to a syllogism and is often
time fallacious.
8. AD HOC: hypothesis adopted purely to save a theory from refutation, but without any rationale
9. POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events
occur together. Ex: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to
rise.
10. ARGUMENTUM AD POPULAM: Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people
hold to it. Ex: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good. Ex: Everyone else is doing
it. Why shouldn't you?
 11. AD IGNORANTIAM: When you claim something is true on the grounds that there is no evidence to
disprove it. Ex: You can’t prove that invisible aardvarks don’t exist, so they must.
12. AD MISERICORDIAN: Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions,
sympathy, etc. Ex: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you. Ex: Oh come on,
I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.
13. RED HERRING: Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand. Ex: I know your car isn't
working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
14. AD HOMINEM: Attacking the individual instead of the argument. Ex: You are so stupid your argument
couldn't possibly be true.
15. GENETIC FALLACY: Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant
history of the claim. Ex: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should
not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
16. EQUIVOCATION: Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different
meanings. Ex: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than
President Bush.
17. CIRCULAR REASONING: Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to
prove. It is circular. Ex: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust
Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.
18. FALSE ANALOGY: Using an analogy that may be persuasive, but isn’t logically sound. Ex: Human’s
reaction to global warming is like a frog that’s slowly brought to a boil. Ex: Students are like nails,
they need to be hit on the head to work.
19. CONFIRMATION BIAS: The tendency to seek out, notice, or use information that supports one’s
opinions (premises) and thus overlook contradicting evidence. How is this true for any of your RLS or
PTs?
20. HASTY GENERALIZATION: Induction that is done to quickly without considering enough examples.
What have you done this for? Consider your RLS, PT knoweldge claims? What do AoKs such as science
and history have in place to avoid this?
21. RATIONALIZATION: Using (twisting) reasoning only to justify your original opinion as opposed to
using reasoning to generate your opinion. How is this an important distiction if a knower is to be wise?
c. SENSE PERCEPTION: 1: The external environment is detected by the senses. 2: Sense organs transduce the
environment into neurological impulses 3: The brain / mind perceive and interpret the sensations. Can
Sense Perception be separated into “senses” and “perception”? If you could TRANSDUCE everything, would
you? Why are we so VISUALLY oriented? Are we?
i. COMMON SENSE REALISM: Perception is both passive and pretty straight forward—the view that the
world actually IS the way it appears to most people. What is YOUR personal experience of this not being
true? How did you feel and why?
ii. SCIENTIFIC REALISM: The world has an independent, objective reality, which is very different from the
way we perceive it. How does science use tools to get closer to objective reality and overcome our
perceptions?
iii. PHENOMENALISM: The external world does not exist apart from the perception/experience of it. How is
this similar to and very different from empiricism? Most don’t believe this, but is it illogical?
iv. EMPIRICISM: A view in philosophy that claims all knowledge is ultimately based on sense perception.
How is this true in different AoKs?
v. Principles of Perception: There are many things that affect how we select and perceive our environment.
We have the tendency to group alike things together, notice contrast, intense sensations, movement and
the unusual, use estimation and approximation and be influenced by expectation. How can these create
bias and yet serve a positive function?
vi. Expectation: One of the principles of perception that has an affect not only on visual but also subjective
experience such as pain and depression. Your personal experience?
 vii. Primary Qualities: In John Locke’s philosophy these are properties that external objects have apart from
the knower/perceiver. Solidity, motion, form. (Objective)
viii. Secondary Qualities: (Locke) Properties that are partly within the knower/perceiver such as Pain, color,
taste (Subjective) Ex: A frequency of light is not color.
ix. “Esse Est Percipi” “To be is to be perceived.”-Berkeley The Philosophical idea that all reality is dependent
on immediate perception. He suggested that “Primary Qualities” are actually secondary as well! Ex: A tree
falls in the woods, if the are no perceivers, there is no noise. Can one use reason to show why the tree does
make a noise? Is your reasoning flawed?
x. A Priori vs A Posteriori: Knowledge that doesn’t require experience vs knoweldge that does require
experience (perception). Kant suggested that truths of reason “all bachelors are married” and certain
cognitive categories: causation, time, space are actually a priori.
xi. Transduction: translation of external energy into internal neurological impulses.
d. EMOTION
i. Emotion: This can be analyzed into bodily arousal, conscious experience and predisposition for action.
Emotions can be graphed by their connotation and level of arousal. Which of the three aspects of emotion
is more important to knowledge? To the knower?
ii. Emotion Impediment: Emotion is often seen as an impediment to knowledge because of biases of
reasoning, and unclear decision making, and alterations to perception and memory. Do you have a
specific example of when this was true for you?
iii. Emotion is Vital To Knowledge: Emotion can also be seen as important to knowledge because it creates
significance, allows for decision making, helps encode memories, provides intuitive insights, and inspires
action. Do you have a specific example of when this was true for you?
iv. Empathy: The ability to “experience” what another is experiencing. This is somewhat different from
sympathy, but important to compassion and virtue ethics. Biologically regulated by “mirror neurons.”
How does art facilitate this? Do Historians need this?
v. Antonio Damasio: Neuroscience researcher whose case studies demonstrate that those without emotion
can’t make decisions and become “rational fools.” The book is called “Descartes Error” alluding to
Descartes separation of mind and body and emphasis on rationalism. Emotion causes BAD decisions, but
why is it important to making any decisions?
vi. Primary Emotion: Six emotions that humans have by nature, as babies, and universal: disgust, surprise,
happy, sad, fear, anger. How are instinctive emotions important to practical knowledge?
vii. Secondary/Social Emotions: Emotions that are developed, have cognitive complexity, and are culturally
influenced such as ambition, embarrassment, envy, guilt, pride, sympathy, worry, etc. Is this what
distinguishes us from animals? How do these affect knowers and knowledge communities?
viii. Stoicism: This is an ancient Greek Philosophy that promoted a non-emotional life. Stoics also believed in
determinism and that reason was the best source of knowledge. Can you really have a meaningful human
life without emotion?
ix. Emotional Intelligence: The ability to KNOW and control your own emotions. The ability to KNOW other’s
emotions. Is handling an emotional event considered knowledge? How is this related to wisdom and good
judgement?
e. INTUITION
i. Social Intuition: Hunch about people’s character and what they are going to do or what they are feeling.
Is this valid or really just bias and stereotype? Can you detect a lie? Or genuine happiness?
ii. Expert Intuition: A hunch by a person who already has developed knowledge in a particular field. Many
great thinkers claim that their best ideas came unexpectedly, nonlinearly, and “nonrationally,” in a dream
or flash of insight. Is it true that we prove by logic, but discover by intuition? How are these intuitions used
in each AoK?
iii. Core Intuition: A particular type of “aha moment” where a person experiences an insight about life, the
workings of the universe, or any metaphysical proposition. Are these valid?
f. FAITH
 i. Confidence or trust in a person or thing. A belief that is not based on proof. Is this a way of knowing or a
way of living?
g. MEMORY
i. Memory Reconstruction: Psychological research shows that we only remember parts of events and then
“rebuild” them based on logic and bias. How might this be problematic for stories a person has heard
several times? In which of your knowledge issues, is evidence dependent upon memory?
ii. Mood Congruent Memory: The tendency for people to remember ideas and events that fit their current
mood.
iii. Hindsight Bias: The inclination to look back on an event and say “I shoulda seen it coming.” This effect
distorts memory, makes events seem determined, and overlooks the complexity and unpredictability of
events. Application?
4. AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE
a. MATHEMATICS
iv. The search for abstract patterns. The science of rigorous proof. Area traditionally thought to be most
certain. Has a huge practical application to other AoKs. Does nature express itself mathematically or do we
interpret it mathematically? Do the abstract patterns of math have meaning?
v. platonism: Plato suggested that mathematical truths have a superior existence because they are more
certain than perception and timelessly true. Math actually does exist outside of us in a “World of Forms.”
Analyze and evaluate Plato’s notion of “superior.” For something to exist, must it be observable? (consider
math, the mind, and World of Forms) If there were no humans, would there be math?
vi. Reimannian Geometry: Because Euclidian Geometry worked so well people assumed that it was the only
possible system, but in the 19th century Reimann created another usable/valid system that started with
very different axioms. What does this suggest about previous questions? Why do you suppose Reimann’s
work wasn’t immediately accepted?
vii. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem: In 1931 at the age of 25, Kurt Godel came up with a proof that it is
impossible to prove that any mathematical system is completely free of contradiction. What does this
imply about the certainty of math? Is this a paradox?
b. NATURAL SCIENCES
i. Natural Sciences: There’s been an enormous amount of progress the last 400 years in both understanding
how nature works and practical benefit. Does this mean that science is the dominant knowledge paradigm?
When and where did “science” start? Do all agree about “progress?” For what type of propositions does science
provide “truth”?
ii. Fake Science: Fields that make scientific claims without using scientific methodological rigor. They lack
tested or testable hypotheses. Ex: Astrology, crystology, homeopathy, acupuncture, graphology, etc. Why
do these groups sometimes claim to be science? Why are they profitable? How does pseudo-science use vague
language, confirmation bias, and self-fulfilling prophecy?
iii. Junk Science: Where actual science is manipulated or misinterpretted for a political or non-scientific
agenda. What are particular examples of this?
iv. The Scientific Method: A five step process of developing knowledge: 1.observation, 2.hypothesis,
3.experiment, 4.law, 5.theory. Experiments should be controllable, measurable, and repeatable. A good
theory explains laws and guides future experimentation. Is science defined by its knowledge content or its
methodology? How has technology changed our powers of observation? How does hypothesis require
intuition/ imagination? (“Imagination is more important than knowledge.” –Einstein)
v. Problem of Induction: When do you know you’ve gathered enough data to declare a natural law? Ex: You
can’t test all metals to see if they expand, finding a black swan, many examples of Newton’s laws working.
Are all laws tentative and provisional and not absolutely “true”?
vi. Anomalies: Observations that seem to contradict accepted theories. Are these dismissed as human error? Are
they essential to the next improved theory? How can one use “good judgement”?
 vii. Falsification: The quality of a hypothesis that it has the potential to be disproven. It is testable. If a theory
explains everything it explains nothing. Ex: Adler’s theory that all humans are driven by an “inferiority
complex” can’t be disproved and can be made to “fit” any example. Why is this essential to scientific
methodology? Does this mean scientists should actually be trying to prove their hypotheses false (as Karl
Popper suggested)?
viii. Normal Science: A time when most scientists are building knowledge within an existing paradigm and are
not overturning broad theories. Is this just as important as revolutionary science or is it dogmatism?
ix. A Scientific Revolution: Where one paradigm is replaced by another. Ex: Geocentric Heliocentric
(Copernican Revolution) 1. Observations of solar system didn’t fit Ptelemy’s model 2. Copernicus suggested
heliocentrism 3. Observation of the changing size of Venus 4. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion 5.
Newton’s theory of gravity How did this require mathematics? How is this “counter-intuitive”…going against
common sense realism—does the Earth feel like it’s moving? How would you graph the progress of science?
How do revolutions take place? Is there bias?
x. Scientism: Science is the only way we can make sense of reality and discover truth. Non-science is
nonsense. Evaluate this.
c. HUMAN SCIENCES
i. Human Sciences: They seek to discover laws about human nature. This is difficult because humans are
guided by a complex number of variables, are self conscious, change when observed, difficult to
experimentally manipulate, biased in their reporting on their own minds. Why are human/social sciences
sometimes called a “soft science”? Why are they not just called “humanities?” In comparison to other living
things, do humans experience a different kind or level of consciousness? Assumptions and implications?
ii. Self Consciousness: Awareness of oneself. This is demonstrated by humans and higher primates using the
“mirror test,” recognizing self in the mirror. To what extent is this necessary for the formation of a personal
and group identity? Which Way of Knowing creates this?
iii. The Problem of Free Will: Is human experience and behavior determined, i.e. the product of natural laws (a
basic premise of science) or is it the product of free will (intuitively felt)? Determinism could be expressed
in terms of genetics, biology(brain/body), cognition (mind), or culture. How does this problem undermine
the scientific methodology?
iv. The Law of Large Numbers: With a large population it is possible to predict behavior. But it is very difficult
to predict individual behavior. Do human sciences have less predictive validity b/c of complex variables, free
will, or limitations in gathering valid evidence?
v. The Reductive Fallacy: The mistake in reasoning that because “A” is composed of “B,” that “A” is nothing but
“B.” Ex: a cathedral is nothing but stones. Humans are nothing but chemicals.
d. HISTORY
i. History: History is about the past, but not much of the past actually becomes “History.” Most history relies
on perception, memory, communication, and interpretation. There is the history of an event and also
personal history. History is both description and explanation, what and why. How is personal history
important to other Areas of Knowledge and influenced by Ways of Knowing? How does “history” make us
human?
ii. Evidence in History: Sometimes there is too much information and sometimes too little. How do we
determine what gets selected as evidence? How do historians consider what is significant evidence? Is
significance determined by the culture or the causal importance? How can we be certain of which variables
are the real causes?
iii. Purposes of History:
1. -Identity: To know who you and your culture is in the present you must know the past.
2. -Direction: “Those who don’t study the past are condemned to repeat it.” –Santayana
3. -Ethical: History can be exploited (propaganda) to justify unethical actions.
4. -Understand Humans: Gives examples of what humans have thought in many circumstances
 iv. Self-Realizing Expectations: If you think something can’t be changed, you won’t try to changing it. And if
you expect the future will resemble the past, then it will. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Why is this important to
history and progress?
v. Primary Sources: communicated by people who “were there” or artifacts/evidence from the event.
vi. Secondary Sources: communicated by people who didn’t directly perceive the event. To what extent is
history a selection of a selection?
vii. Paradigms of History:
1. Cubist Theory: The reality of the past is known best through multiple perspectives. Can we adopt
this without concluding that all is relative?
2. Extreme Scepticism: There is no past, it could be an illusion.
3. Geographical Determinism: Geography is the primary cause in history
4. Great Person Theory: Great individuals make history.
5. Empathetic History: You need to empathize with individuals to understand why events happened
6. Hegel’s Theory: History moves in a dialectical fashion, propelled by the Zeitgeist: “the spirit of the
times” The cultural ideas influence history.
7. Economic Determinism: (Marx) History is determined economics, specifically the struggle between
the “haves” and “have nots”
8. Chance Theory: History is determined by random events.
e. ART
i. Why is anyone interested in things that often times aren’t “true” and don’t have “purpose” in the
convention sense? Art is about an aesthetic impulse apart from a practical impulse. Art is found in all
cultures. Is this a central characteristic of being human? How do aesthetic and functional features coexist in
items?
ii. Intentions: The artist intends an aesthetic response (pleasing or provoking). A deliberate communication
and conscious design. Can nature be art?—must it be manmade or man-found? Is intention necessary or
sufficient?-what about skill?
iii. Quality: the work itself has quality requiring skill/talent by the artist. This can be seen in content (what it
depicts) and form (the way it depects it). Does art need to depict anything other than itself? Is “skill” in the
artist’s mind or motor function? If quality is so important why are forgeries and kitsch (knock offs) worth so
little? Are originality, risk-taking, and insight considered skills?
iv. Response: Art is determined by the spectators. Which spectators count? Are art critics expert spectators? If
artists are ahead of their time do future spectators matter more? Is everything art –or- could anything become
art?
v. Inexhaustibility: Great art stands the test of
vi. Subjectivity: Beauty (art) is in the eye of the beholder. Is art just personal preference? Who is the authority?
vii. Disinterested: Kant claims that art is not a subjective preference. A person could judge that art is likeable
without personally liking it or beautiful without personally being pleased. Can we really escape our
subjective biases?and if we do aren’t we just substituting the biases of our culture?
viii. Psychological Factors: Since humans generally have the same perceptions, there will be universal
responses. (ex: Bach’s Toccata and Fugue won’t calm most people)
ix. Cultural Factors: Since humans have difference enculturated values and knowledge there will be different
responses.
x. Imitation (Mimesis): Art represents and should look/sound like what it represents. This requires skill. Does
imitation imply realism or could art represent the “essence” of something? Is all “copying” an interpretation?
Does art change/improve the spectator’s interpretation? How does this relate to avant-garde art? Are the
paradigms of interpretation?
xi. They differ in methodology, but are they both looking for patterns? Is there an art to doing science? Do
scientists find aesthetics in the orderliness of nature? How are the arts advanced by scientific knowledge?
Generally science is said to be discovered and art invented, but is this actually the case? Ex: If Newton’s
 laws are slightly wrong are they discovered? / If a painter finds a landscape is their painting invented?
Consider how art and science would build different knowledge of the same thing, ex: love.
xii. The fact that fiction can sometimes reveal deep truths about the human condition. Is art “a lie that brings us
nearer to the truth”? (Picasso) What does “truth”mean in art?
xiii. Communication: Similar to language, though the intention may be much less literal. Does this imply that you
must know the “language” of art, to truly understand it (ex: symbolism)? How does art help you to know about
other times and to know others?
xiv. Education: Art develops people morally and intellectually often by provoking our conscience and
challenging our assumptions. How is empathy important to this? How/why does art encourage complex
interpretations? Can art become too moralistic?Should art incite or purge emotions?
f. ETHICS
i. Ethical Dilemma: A difficult situation or decision that involves a conflict of moral principles. These can
occur in any Area of Knowledge. Examples: Steal bread to feed starving? Tell a person a painful truth? Save
another or yourself? Give in to terrorist demands to save a life?
ii. Value Judgment: A knowledge claim that involves ethics; A statement about what is right/wrong. Is the
sense of “fairness” universal? Do we disagree about values or their application?
iii. Moral Principle: A socially imposed rule to minimize conflict. How does this definition already demonstrate
a bias or viewpoint? Do individual need to conform to principles or overcome them? If principles come from
society where do they get them?
iv. Duty: A moral obligation to follow a principle. Philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that duties derive
purely from reason and the a priori “universalizing” test. For example, honesty is always a duty, because if
you universalized lying, society could not exist. Is it sometimes okay to lie—how do dilemmas develop from
duties? Besides reasoning, where else could duties come from?
v. Ethical Reasoning: Using logic to determine ethics. This could include induction to develop a moral
principle or deduction to apply a principle to a particular situation. Does being truly ethical require that you
are logically consistent or does it require you to be inconsistent. If Tom claims that cheating is wrong because
it is a lie, but then tells a fib to his mother about his location, is he being (un)ethically inconsistent?
vi. Ethical Relativism: The claim that our values are determined by our society and are not universal or
absolutely true. Are values really that relative? Is cannibalism barbaric or ethical if you are in certain
cultures? What role does ethnocentrism play in our ethical views? Are some values more relative than others?
vii. Conscience: An inner sense of right and wrong that is developed overtime. A person of virtue is one of
conscience—they have ethically appropriate emotional responses. What does it mean if you see a video of
starving foreigners and don’t have a response of conscience? How is conscience dependent on conscious—how
does knowledge affect ethical feelings?Is conscience a better indicator of morality than ethical reasoning?
(Related terms: EMPATHY, DEHUMANIZATION, Carol Gilligan)
viii. Ethical Egoism: Self interest theory. The idea that humans DO or SHOULD make ethical decisions based on
their own wants. Is ALTRUISM really just EGOISM in disguise?What if helping others makes you happy? Does
this theory have logical flaws. Does it really explain anything? Is this supported by science?
ix. Intention: A person’s motive. What they want to happen/ what they are trying to do. If a person is trying to
save someone and ends up killing them could they still be deemed ethical? How can we determine a person’s
intentions? How is this different than duty based or results based ethics?
x. Choice: A decision between two or more alternatives. Are you truly free to choose (FREE WILL)? If you don’t
or can’t think of alternatives are you less free? To what extent do the following lessen your freedom to choose:
genetics, biology, environment, past experiences, government, ethical principles, etc. Is it possible for you to
refuse to choose? (EXISTENTIALISM: “BAD FAITH”)
xi. Utilitarianism: The viewpoint that ethics is determined by and measured by everyone’s resulting
happiness. Is it possible to measure, approximate, or predict this? Can “happiness” be bad?
xii. Agent: one who acts. (Can an animal be a moral agent? Can a baby? Does being an agent mean you are
morally responsible?)