Theory of knowledgeTOK辅导

　　前言这些说明概述了审查小组成员在设计每个规定的标题时要记住的内容。 它们表明候选人在回答所选标题时可能采取的方法。 谨请考官注意以下几点：

　　1.虽然考官有充分的理由在论文的实际评分过程中查阅这些笔记，但至关重要的是，他们应抵制诱惑，不要将其包含的要点视为构成预期内容的“清单”。

　　2.预期考官将在评分会议之前仔细阅读这些注释，以扩大和加深他们对如何发展对规定标题的反应的认识。

　　3.这些注释中建议的方法不是唯一可能的方法，甚至可能没有最好的方法。

　　4.在很大程度上，它们是用抽象术语表达的，因为其目的是描述一整类实际论文。

　　5.它们描述了理想的答案–包括许多要点，候选人必须努力工作才能使论点发挥作用，而且大多数候选人不太可能在这项任务中完全成功。

　　6.总体而言，考官备考笔记的目的不是要描述有缺陷的方法或候选人可能无法成功回答的方式。

　　总而言之，这里写的只是一个框架，可以帮助考官评估。 考官应该对其他有效方法有所反应，但是在每种情况下，考官都应考虑考生在讨论题名时是否对知识问题进行了适当而有力的分析。

　　考虑候选人是否具有：

　　a. 了解标题

　　b. 了解其中明确和隐含的知识问题，和/或将标题与自然产生的知识问题联系起来

　　c. 就主题和适当的知识问题，开发并支持了全面而有说服力的观点。

　　1.“学术学科的研究领域可以重叠，但是采用跨学科的方法来生产知识只会导致混乱。”讨论这一主张。标题性质该头衔对知识领域或特定学科的覆盖范围没有特别要求，因此使候选人可以自由探索各种跨学科关系。尽管考官应宽容接受“跨学科”的含义，但考生必须清楚说明他们如何解释该词。学科之间在学习方面存在重叠是给定的，但是候选人将需要尝试在方法上将“什么”与“如何”进行对比。标题中的主张具有挑衅性，旨在引起挑战，必须小心谨慎地在寻求知识生产的过程中做出回应。候选人可以考虑标题中提及的混淆是指一般的知识状态，还是指试图理解它的个人。高成就的候选人将被期望找出混乱的根源。可以说，这个头衔为候选人提供了一个机会，使他们可以参加超越TOK标准知识领域所规定的正常限制的学术学科，并且理想地借鉴了那些在IB中学计划中采用跨学科方法的候选人的一些经验。知识问题候选人在回答标题时可能会发现的知识问题包括：•跨学科的知识方法是否涉及学科的融合或仅仅是学科之间的协同作用?•学科必须共享知识生产方法的必要方面，以使它们成功地合作吗?是否存在某些方面会自动导致学科不兼容?•由于什么原因，跨学科工作可能会引起混乱?这种混乱可能位于何处?•学科之间的合作是否更多是由于故意合作而产生的，还是更多是由于意料之外的后果或知识的不可预测的发展而产生的偶然结果?•为什么通常认为跨学科的知识方法是件好事?

　　可能治疗的评论成功对此标题做出回应，需要澄清该术语的含义“跨学科的”。考官应采取相当宽松的立场，接受各种解释，包括将仍然相互独立的学科融合在一起，以及将学科融合在一起，以使他们的个人方法无法完全区分开。尽管如此，候选人的意图应该明确。一门学科的研究领域涵盖了该学科能够探索的一切。候选人可能会用地图隐喻来解释重叠部分，不同的学科会提供同一地区的不同地图。为了在此标题上取得进步，考生将需要区分特定学科感兴趣的对象和该学科采用的调查方法。这些方法极有可能被解释为方法，但也可能根据该学科为了引起理解而采用的概念进行讨论。在考虑这个标题时，一些候选人可能会提出异议，认为研究领域是由不同学科采用的方法定义的。虽然可以在此基础上建立复杂的论据，但有可能破坏标题中的权利要求的实质，因此可能无法为成功对此做出回应提供依据。然而，它可能会被有益地提及。

　　候选人应该发现相对容易确定跨学科主题重叠的示例，例如，生物学和化学(新陈代谢)，物理和化学(物质)，生物学和心理学(大脑)等等。重叠的学科可能会在方法上有一些普遍的相似之处-物理和数学，或历史和文学-而相似性很少的学科不太可能能够证明跨学科的方法-也许是数学和伦理学。如果候选人从同一知识领域选择学科，则他们需要确保存在足够的差异以提供富有成效的分析。还可能需要指出的是，某些问题似乎仅属于一门学科。需要谨慎处理数学案例。自然科学将数学方法作为其常规方法的一部分。乍一看，这种关系似乎是不对称的。给定科学学科中的方法可以适应纳入数学程序，但数学本身不适合学科的要求。尽管如此，出于这个问题的目的，这种不对称的关系应被视为跨学科的。在更高层次的分析中，考生可能会指出，结合特定学科的要求开发了特定的数学技术。例如，物理学的需求催生了新的数学形式，例如张量理论和梯度流形理论。经济学推动了随机建模和生物学向动力学系统理论和突变理论的发展。认识到数学确实可以适应在这些跨学科组合中面临的问题，应该对此予以奖励。邀请该标题中的候选人对跨学科企业引起的混乱提出反诉并提供支持，对主张的挑战可能提出有关学科之间的互补性和协同性以及随之而来的启示的想法。可以说成功的伙伴关系需要涉及在方法或概念使用方面表现出相似性的学科。较不成功的关系可能会破坏和稀释经过长期实践而完善的久经考验的协议，并且无法尊重历史发展的悠久而古老的传统。在这些情况下，通过尝试组合不同的概念系统或不兼容的方法，可能会引起混乱。这里有使用知识框架的范围。另一方面，相距甚远的学科可能会产生震撼的启示-可能是通过将学科假设完全抛弃并暴露传统知识方法的局限性来实现的。可能会出现新颖而有力的新思维方式。无论如何，候选人可能想考虑为什么在假定这些学科足够有效地孤立地运作时将这些学科放在一起的原因。在整个自然科学中，方法论方法存在明显的相似之处，这促进了生物化学和物理化学的发展。可以说，科学方法的这些相似性中的一些延伸到了人类科学中。在艺术中​​，基于相似的方法，音乐和歌词或电影和音乐的并置可以被视为成功的跨学科项目。从历史上看，当统计方法与物理，生物学，心理学和地理学等领域的工作相结合时，作为数学的一个连贯领域的发展对知识产生了深远的影响。最近，行为经济学可以说是心理学和经济学之间的成功伙伴关系，以及心理学和进化生物学之间的进化心理学。在前一种情况下，一个学科的新见解弥补了另一学科的不足。在后者中，一门学科的影响力已经通过后者的影响得以扩展。当前对“大历史”前景的兴奋反映了从各种学科的知识以其各种方法创建宏大叙事的可能性。在某种不同的情况下，可以争论的是，只有生物信息学的两个组成学科发展到其研究领域趋于融合的阶段，生物信息学才成为成功的跨学科企业。候选人可能会探索这样的可能性：知识突破更多是由于未曾预料到的统一而不是有意的跨学科合作而产生的。

　　不利的一面是，合并不兼容学科的尝试可以记录为规定标题中支持索赔的项目。尝试通过新古典经济学的视角来解释人类的行为，可能不太可能获得个案研究和人类学定性研究的支持。尽管最近努力建立神经心理分析的全学科交叉学科，但精神分析和神经科学似乎为理解心理生活提供了替代方法。尽管科学家们可能会接受还原论的观点，即所有自然现象原则上都是物质基本实体行为的体现，但要解释在化学​​，生物学和心理层面可以观察到的内容，则需要在这些层面上有意义的概念。不是那些属于物理学的。因此，可以说每个学科都需要利用自己的概念储备，因此与其他学科的兼容性受到限制。此外，可能会声称某些学科做出了不幸的“选择”。一些人认为，历史应该关注特定的事物，而不是试图模仿科学来努力寻找符合普遍规律的事物。可以认为仅根据自然或地理环境对历史事件进行地面解释的努力通过限制历史的传承而缩小了历史的范围。一些人认为，经济学在系统地追求数学基础而不是接受其作为具有历史框架的学科中的地位方面迷失了方向。更普遍的是，有人声称人类科学遭受了所谓的“物理学嫉妒”。更雄心勃勃的是，候选人可以声称道德本身是一个跨学科的项目，是描述和规范人类行为的尴尬组合。人类和自然科学最近对文学研究的侵犯催生了数字或达尔文式的人文学科以及远距离阅读的概念。这种事态发展引起了严重的批评。有人可能会争辩说，土著知识系统通常本质上是非学科的，因为它们没有做出这种区分。如果是这样，则可以得出结论：没有混淆的危险，或者存在主要危险，这取决于该术语的方式已经定义了“跨学科”。一时之间，有可能将个别宗教视为一门学科，并提出一些有关如何将它们结合起来的想法可能产生各种积极或有害影响的想法。许多宗教人士仅将宗教决策的基础置于宗教领域之内，但也许可以考虑认为宗教和伦理学是独立的学科。

　　2.“只有在我们所知甚少的情况下，我们才充满信心;知识的怀疑增加了”(改编自JW von Goethe)。参考两个知识领域讨论此声明。标题性质候选人应注意，该头衔对两个知识领域提出了具体要求，并且应该对它们进行大致平衡的对待。主张分为两个部分：首先，我们只有在很少了解的情况下才有把握地了解;其次，随着我们的了解，怀疑会增加。这两个部分都需要进行测试，并且必须检查它们之间的链接。可以想象，候选人接受其中一部分，而拒绝另一部分。尽管候选人必须仔细解释其依据，但这种选择是开放的。无论如何，“信心”和“怀疑”之间的关系至关重要。引用似乎暗示这两种情况都可能由于拥有的知识量而产生，因此在每种情况下什么算作知识的问题也需要引起注意。标题的措词为探索知识生产和知识获取打开了可能性。知识问题候选人在回答标题时可能会发现的知识问题包括：•信心和知识之间有什么联系?•对个人知识主张有疑问的依据是什么?在什么情况下，我们可以预期怀疑会随着知识的增长而增加?•哪些知识可能会引起怀疑，哪些知识可能会导致自信?为什么?•有什么理由认为信心和怀疑是负相关的?可能有直接关系吗?•由于对我们知识生产方法的脆弱性的了解增加，怀疑与知识之间可能存在正相关关系?

　　可能治疗的评论这个标题中的主张有点自相矛盾-凭着知识怎么会有更多的疑问呢?有人可能会认为疑问与知识的数量成反比，而这种期望可能会被候选人很好地证明。在早期可能会做出许多相关的区分。如前所述，候选人可以将注意力集中在知识生产的过程上，或者更密切地关注知识的获取及其所产生的影响。因此，标题中的“我们”可能被解释为习得(我们所有人都以相似的方式单独地学习，当我们对知识的了解很少时就会充满信心地了解它们，而在我们学习时会变得怀疑);或作为(集体)生产(当我们与研究企业进一步接触时，作为一个集体，我们对自己的了解很少，但是充满怀疑的时候就充满信心地知道)。与此相关的是，可能需要在例如考虑具有更广泛解释的个人中的邓宁-克鲁格效应之间保持平衡，在这种解释中，“我们”是指特定知识领域中的整个知识者群体。对于疑问的性质，在早期进行一些澄清也是有用的–与之相关的不确定性可能是心理上的(“我/我们不确定了”);或认知的(采取异常或反例积累的形式)。怀疑可以是关于某个领域知识的整体状态，也可以是关于单个知识主张的怀疑。有效分析标题的关键是要考虑对知识的信任程度和怀疑程度受到影响的各种知识。如果更多的知识意味着更多的数据，这很可能将知识呈现为一个整体的“混乱”，而相反，以对已知信息更好的理论概述的形式出现的知识更有可能理解“混乱”并减少“经验熵”。不难看出，这两种知识的作用将明显不同，前者很可能会支持所有权主张，而后者会破坏所有权主张。此外，考生可能希望考虑程序知识的性质

　　–在大多数情况下，积累有关技能和习惯的经验和做法很可能会减少怀疑–从而与头衔相矛盾。尽管标题中没有明确列出有关信心和怀疑的价值观，但如果不参考此处的某些可能性，就很难建立令人信服的解释。在这里，对自信和怀疑的态度至关重要。最明显的解释可能是怀疑是不好的，信心是好的。按照这种观点，所有权要求变成了一种表达，即“(仅仅)一点知识就是危险的事情”。但是，知识渊博会破坏采取行动的信心并导致瘫痪。信心可以导致知识领域的进步。另一方面，理论知识可能会破坏道德领域内根深蒂固的直觉。过于智能化我们“知道”为真实的东西并削弱了我们的信心。另外，也许怀疑是好的，而信心是坏的。怀疑使见识者和学术从业者诚实工作;的确，出于这个原因，一些学科已经有效地将对其工作实践的怀疑制度化了。防止过度自信不仅是防御不诚实的必要手段，而且因为人类认知中已经发现了许多无意识的偏见。另一方面，有些人由于无能或懒惰而永远无法获得更多的知识，并因此而保持自信!正如当前的政治似乎表明的那样，这可能是一种危险的状况。所有这些都可能对教育产生影响。第三种可能性是怀疑和信心都很好。怀疑可能是信心的标志–了解如何进行知识的获取或生产;表明一个人了解很多知识的临时性质。需要参考选定的知识领域对上述许多论据进行说明。在新的证据破坏了最初的共识的任何领域中，几乎所有发现领域中都可以找到支持所有权声明的例子，这些新证据包括大陆漂移，以太假设，迈克尔逊-莫雷实验，量子电动力学等。候选人可能会引入托马斯·库恩(Thomas Kuhn)在范式和异常积累方面的工作，从而导致疑问和解决方案–一个新发现破坏了以前稳定的正常科学，而随着新证据的出现，旧范式的疑问增加了。必须小心使用这种材料–不仅是在理解范式概念时，而且在抛弃旧秩序如何构成怀疑方面。这似乎可以肯定旧政权是错误的。 19世纪末的假设表明，物理学的工作几乎已经完成，这证明了人们的错误信心。信心的价值可以通过诸如自然选择进化之类的总体理论将信心赋予对特定现象的解释和应对新挑战的方式来例证。人类科学和历史可能会接受类似的分析方法，新的证据使人们对现有的现有智慧产生怀疑，而新的理论则提供了新的信心。推测关于艺术知识是否可以辨别出相同的模式是很有趣的。一种新的流派或表达形式的出现有可能巩固对现有形式的信心，而不是产生怀疑。例如，对巴赫(Sachvinsky)的巴赫(Bach post)演说会让人更有信心吗?现代人向我们介绍了许多声音的本质，现在可以将它们用于对巴洛克的理解。数学的性质似乎仅是对所有权主张的反例，其知识的建立是建立在可靠的基础上的，但是对替代性公理系统的更多了解可能会引起怀疑，对提高进步的不同方法的认识也可能会引起怀疑。如上所暗示的，已经有人宣称人类长大后具有一种与生俱来的“民间”伦理学，这种伦理学独立于对该学科的任何正式研究而发展。可能有人会争辩说，对正式的道德理论的充分了解会导致对什么是正确的或应该做的事情产生怀疑而不是澄清。

　　学习外来文化(通过人文科学，可能还学习土著知识系统)提出了局外人的难题，其中一小部分知识似乎能给人以启发，但进一步的研究则揭示了先前被接受的局限性。这里的宗教领域有潜力。 宗教信徒可能会声称，对圣经或志趣相投的宗教社区的熟悉(例如，更多的知识)会导致更大的信心，而其他人可能会指出，他们自己的生活经历如何导致自我怀疑，甚至可能放弃宗教信仰。 整个。 更广泛地讲，对我们信仰体系的挑战已经显示出会产生“适得其反的效果”，在这种情况下，我们会将先前接受的内容“加倍”。 这使我们面临着重要而紧迫的问题，即如何以最大程度地让接收者适当注意和注意地考虑知识的方式来介绍知识。3.“如果不假设存在统一性，就不会有知识。”参考两个知识领域讨论该主张。标题性质候选人应注意，该头衔对两个知识领域提出了具体要求，并且应该对它们进行大致平衡的对待。有必要考虑统一性和知识之间的替代关系-前者是否是后者的自然特征，或者假设它们是否可能是知识生产中的必要步骤。换句话说，无论是缺乏统一性还是缺乏关于它们的初步假设，都会导致“没有知识”的情况。无论如何，分析将围绕标题中这三个关键术语之间的联系进行。知识问题候选人在回答标题时可能会发现的知识问题包括：•自然统一性存在的假设与我们用来生产知识的方法之间有什么联系?•是否可以通过任何方式确定存在均一性的假设的有效性?假设没有知识就没有知识，那么是否存在统一性的假设实际上是否重要?•如果对于知识而言，必须假设存在均一性并且事实证明它是错误的，我们能知道吗?•如果知识的产生需要接受未经验证或无法验证的假设，对知识的有效性和可靠性有何影响?•自然统一性的假设是否超越了我们对自然统一性的科学探索?自然统一性存在的假设是否是信仰问题?

　　可能治疗的评论如上所述，对标题的至少两种解释可能会导致对该标题的成功响应。一种解释是知识的结构必须包括统一性(以便将其视为知识)。我们几乎可以定义为存在这些统一性，而我们作为好奇的知识者的工作就是找到它们。因此，一致性的发现是知识产生的关键。因此，没有统一意味着没有知识。统一性是知识结构的一部分。某种不同的解释是，即使最后最终证明不存在的统一性(或者不像以前那样强烈或明显地不存在)，知识者也需要假设统一性的存在是知识构建的起点。假定)。这些假设是构建知识的过程的一部分，即使在过程中的某些时候它们可能会被放弃或淡化。它们是“引导”知识的必要步骤。从这个角度来看，如果我们出发时没有统一的思想，就无法获得知识。调用统一性是产生知识的过程的一部分。完全有效的论文将处理第二种解释。候选人可能会注意到，一般而言，假设的作用是“清理”知识，但代价是在知识与现实之间产生楔形。在上述每种解释的背景下，这个价格可能会大不相同。候选人还需要清楚所考虑的统一性–标题中的单词是复数形式，因此请候选人考虑一下。至少有两种方法可以充实统一性的思想：不变的自然定律–如果发生X则发生Y，而更普遍的思想认为统一性是行为或实验结果中的一种模式。这两个统一性概念都是针对此标题的合法调查对象。因此，例如，我们研究的对象(电子，原子，人体等)具有统一性，这会影响我们进行研究的方式。其次，对象之间的关系可能存在统一性–

　　因果规律，自然规律，模式和相关性的持久性。同样，这种一致性允许某些方法。第三，方法本身可以是统一的，因为可以有通用的可重复性标准等，因此可以共享知识。此外，方法的统一性允许进行归纳过程以及纵向研究。最后但并非最不重要的一点是，知识者的能力是统一的，即知觉，语言，认知手段等的恒定性。候选人需要在仔细选择知识领域的基础上嵌入这些分析点。对自然科学中方法的讨论可能不会揭示一种单一的科学方法，而是揭示一些具有家庭相似性的集群。假设演绎模型的使用基于自然法则的存在。类似地，归纳方法似乎本质上需要相关性或规律性。关于因果关系的任何论述都指出自然是由因果规律构成的。几乎可以从科学的所有分支中得出例子。从类似法律的概括出发，候选人可以将分类方案视为要分类的对象或现象的基本规则集合的前提。这样的规律性可能是真实的，系统发生的，或者仅仅是有助于分类的过程，因此可以说明上述标题的两种解释。更广泛地讲，宇宙可理解的假设是基于普遍统一性的存在。人文科学也构成了一个肥沃的领域，因为一方面它们在假设代理人的自由意志与另一方面存在某种有效的统计(类似于法律)的概括之间似乎存在紧张关系。这里相关的统一性可能是人的天性。对这可能意味着什么的讨论必须明确地与问题联系起来，即，人性的假设相当于对有关人类特征和性格的一组统一性或规律性的主张。理性期望是经济学的经典例子。对不规则的反应说明了标题的竞争性解释，因为在第一种观点中，它们是知识的障碍，而在第二种观点中，它们仅可以看作是该学科知识日趋成熟的指示。也许对历史也可以进行类似的分析，但是这里有一些特殊论点的空间。那些将历史视为基于个人特质的建构的人可能会拒绝人性论证，从而排除了历史重演自身或提供预测见解的可能性。此处假设均一可能会产生令人失望的结果。另一方面，比较方法依赖于情况和时间段之间的一致性。也许有些历史学家将第二种观点归因于：统一性的假设更多是一种启发式工具，而不是对现实的认可。从表面上看，数学似乎不需要任何关于世界本质的假设。但是，一旦开始应用它，可能会说很多假设。例如，为什么我们可以期望宇宙根据可以用相对简单的数学术语表示的确定性原理进行操作?这门学科表现出对逻辑运算的服从，因此，数学家理性能力的统一是至关重要的，这使我们回到了上面列出的最后一类统一。艺术可以提供一种对比，因为它们处理特定的实例而不是通用性或概括性。但是，艺术创作可能会假设人类具有审美欣赏能力，也可能会假设人类体验具有统一性。如果我们所有人都有不同的艺术敏感性，那么有组织的公共艺术就不可能起步。关于社会力量在产生趋同品味，构图惯例和艺术价值方面的作用，可以进行有趣的讨论。

　　伦理学作为一个领域似乎做出了普遍的假设，这些假设可以被认为是一种统一性。 但是，有一些专家主义者的版本表明此结论不是必要或不可避免的。在宗教知识体系中，常被赋予全知和全能之类神性的特质意味着对世界的普遍应用，因而意味着某种统一性。 可能有理由争辩说，土著知识体系在与传统和随时间的连续性相关的特定类型的统一性上与自身有关。 但是，与往常一样，候选人必须格外小心，不要陷入陈词滥调和不受支持的投机活动。

　　4.“难以置信”是剧院的基本特征。在其他知识领域是否必不可少?参考两个知识领域来制定答案。标题性质候选人应注意，该头衔对两个知识领域提出了具体要求，并且应该对它们进行大致平衡的对待。如IBIS上发布的澄清说明中所述，这两个知识领域必须与艺术领域不同。但是，如果候选人不首先阐明“怀疑中止”在剧院(或其他艺术形式)中可能意味着什么，那么他们将很难达到最高水平。成功的候选人很可能会这样做，但是这不会算作两个必需领域之一。标题中的主张是坚决主张暂停是必不可少的。但是，预计候选人将在每个领域提供细微的评估，而不是提供单个反例以使索赔无效。值得注意的是，使用此标题需要克服一些特殊的挑战–尤其是难以置信的“双重否定”被吊销，这需要考生认真对待并由考官进行评估。对于成功的响应至关重要的是，暂缓怀疑是选定领域知识生产的重要特征。候选人需要解开自己对“基本”的理解，然后都通过示例进行说明，并说明这些示例在某种程度上是典型的。知识问题候选人在回答标题时可能会发现的知识问题包括：•知识者可能会怀疑的可能性有哪些?•何时停止怀疑会构成寻求知识的卓有成效的策略?何时会阻碍知识的获取?•中止怀疑是否总是有意识和积极的选择?•我们怎么知道什么时候应该停止怀疑，何时停止这样做?•我们如何分辨别人何时变得难以置信或仅仅相信?可能治疗的评论候选人很可能将“怀疑的中止”解释为涉及故意的可能性娱乐，而现实中可能并非如此，例如“我知道这不是真的，但我想探索假设并向他们学习一些东西”。这涉及到与小说的互动，例如：“我不知道自己在舞台上的那个演员并不是真正的《哈姆雷特》，以了解角色所面临的生存困境”; “我抛弃了对经济学中理性行为假设的保留，以构建人类行为的普遍化模型”; “我撇开了对第一次世界大战中弗朗兹·费迪南德大公被暗杀的了解，以检查其爆发的其他因果关系”。对该短语的另一种选择可能如下。当某种现象看起来非常违反直觉时，知识者可能会想不相信它，而将他们的怀疑搁置足够长时间以进行调查。在过去的时代中，很容易不相信日心说的原理，但是有些人征服了本能地拒绝它，以便对真相有所了解。也许存在第三种可能性–在某些情况下，尽管有人one昧地认为应该更好地了解，但还是以引诱人的主张赢得了胜利。这种停职可能是由于一再坚持认为例如巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)出生在肯尼亚而被一些人收留的原因。只要对“难以置信的中止”的最后解释可以维持对标题的令人信服的回应，就应该接受它，但是似乎很难证明它导致知识领域的“必要”处置。第一种解释(标题的措词最明显地引起了这种解释)涉及一种主动的故意选择-暂时接受某些东西是为了从中获得一些认知上的好处。第二个方面在这方面是相似的–但这一次是为了抵制驱散那些确实有价值的东西的冲动。第三

　　interpretation seems to lead into the murky territory of gullibility, intransigence and conspiracies, and might in many circumstances be regarded as a failure of cognition.

　　The first two interpretations imply that the state of suspending disbelief is temporary. That it is instrumental in achieving some specific goal regarding the production of knowledge and can then be discarded. The third suggests a more permanent state – that suspension of disbelief might be thought of as belief in something despite there being compelling evidence against it. A general appraisal of the first interpretation might contrast the value of asking high-order counterfactual questions with the merits of a more prosaic incremental approach to knowledge in which we simply accumulate beliefs as we go along, sticking doggedly to what seems to be true.

　　As mentioned above, candidates may start by explaining “suspension of disbelief” in theatre and extend that explanation to other art forms. Poetry requires it. Novels use it. Film effectively engages our willingness to suspend disbelief as we believe in the pictures we see. A bad film will make us aware of our incredulity. Candidates will need to explain what it means to say that it is an “essential feature” in these art forms – for the audience to become emotionally involved in a play, they must respond as if the characters are real and as if the events are really happening at that moment, even though they know that that is not the case. Otherwise there would not be empathy with the characters, nor would we agonize over situations that didn’t actually happen. That is what makes “suspension of disbelief” essential in the theatre. Without it we wouldn’t be able to construct knowledge, nor acquire it at a personal level or as shared knowledge.

　　In this understanding of suspension, there is a need to “unsuspend” when the exercise is over – the suspension needs to be temporary in order to return to the real world. Permanent suspension of disbelief can morph into delusional adherence to a pet theory, and lack of awareness that the original suspension was an epistemic device for exploration of the issue. This way lies ideology and rigid doctrine. On the other hand, with the second interpretation, perpetual suspension of disbelief in the actual state of the world might a good thing if it takes the form of a skeptical attitude to what appears only on the surface to be the case.

　　Candidates need to explore their own unpacking of the key phrase in the title in the context of selected areas of knowledge. Historians argue about the value of counterfactuals in their area – some scholars welcome them as a means of making comparisons in a discipline in which experiments are not possible, while others dismiss them as flights of fancy with little inherent value. Hence the first perspective on the key phrase finds no general consensus in this field. However, a positive application of the second perspective would support historians in their efforts to remain open to new interpretations of events.

　　In the sciences, there are many examples of suspension of disbelief in action. There are useful fictions in which models and theories are deliberately simplified in the interests of furthering comprehension, making predictions and finding applications. And then there are many counterintuitive findings in science that require mental fortitude in order to accept (ie stave off disbelief). Both kinds of demand are made in connection with quantum science, where orbitals and hybridization involve simplification, and where the acceptance of quantum phenomena is necessary despite the fact that they seem impossible in the world with which we are familiar. With regard to scientific method, the hypothetico-deductive model seems to elevate the suspension of disbelief in the creation of hypotheses and then champions an attitude of disbelief in how we treat them.

　　An aspect of religious experience is the management of doubt. There is perhaps a role here for a consideration of various ways of knowing – particularly faith, emotion, imagination and intuition. Perhaps a believer’s faith is dependent on the extent to which they are willing to suspend disbelief. But, if so, this is not about “entertaining” religion; it is at most about suppressing disbelief and thus here we seem to have an instance of the third notion of suspended disbelief as described above. With regard to the existence of deities, the issue would seem to be whether adherents are suspending disbelief or simply believing. In the human sciences, we find relevant scenarios in economics. For instance, we suspend our disbelief when accepting the model of perfect competition to understand the world of markets. There is the danger here of economists introducing assumptions (under the guise of suspensions of disbelief) that they know do not actually hold in the world, but then the disbelief starts to fade and the assumptions recede into the broader set of ideological settings that have become accepted.

　　Anthropomorphism is a feature of many indigenous communities, and an exploration regarding how essential it is and why, might be fruitful. Arguments can be made regarding the extent to which their worldview is influenced or even depends on this “suspension of disbelief”, and the meaning derived from it. Andean indigenous peoples, for example, attribute to mountains the power of male spirits that fertilize the female land – this is their explanation of how nature works – one that provides meaning. Again, it needs to be asked whether members of these communities are really suspending disbelief or just believing what they happen to believe.

　　Once again, this title seems to exhibit connections to current affairs. Candidates might also explore the conditions under which we are not prepared to suspend disbelief and why that may be so. 5. “The quality of knowledge produced by an academic discipline is directly proportional to the duration of historical development of that discipline.” Explore this claim with reference to two disciplines.

　　Nature of the title

　　Candidates should note that this title makes a specific request for two disciplines. The two disciplines could even come from the same area of knowledge, but candidates would have to take care to ensure that sufficient contrast was available in such a comparison in order to sustain a worthwhile analysis. It is important to note that the title is asking about the production of knowledge, not its acquisition. The success of a response to this title will depend to no small extent on a convincing unpacking of the idea of “quality” of knowledge – there is a lot of leeway in this concept and several pitfalls loom, such as a conflation with quantity. The best analyses will need to provide not just evidence for and/or against the claim in the title but also some plausible reasons for whatever conclusions are drawn. The title claims explicitly that the degree of progression in quality is proportional to the age of the discipline. Candidates must focus on this rather than the temptation to deal exclusively with the question of whether there is any progress at all.

　　The notion of proportionality is ambiguous and examiners should try to accommodate alternative interpretations. Some candidates might take a strict mathematical view that there is a linear relation between duration and quality. Counterexamples to this position would be claims that quality changes in a non-linear fashion: exponential increase say. A broader view might be that the change in quality has an upwards linear trend but that there were some dips in development. In any case, examiners should not insist on a discussion about the origins of disciplines although such discussion may well be illuminating.

　　Knowledge questions

　　Knowledge questions that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a response to the title include:

　　• What features of knowledge can contribute to its quality? Are these features similar across disciplines?

　　• What kinds of developments in knowledge might contribute to its quality? Might some developments detract from it? What if the criteria for quality have themselves shifted over time?

　　• Is the historical development of knowledge in a discipline sufficiently regular in order for its duration to function as an accurate measure of quality?

　　• To what extent is it possible to identify the origins of disciplines as benchmarks for their duration?

　　• Do the differences between objects of study in different disciplines fatally compromise any attempt at comparison of quality across them? Are there other particularities of disciplines that invalidate comparison of quality?

　　Commentary on possible treatment

　　As noted above, there is an urgent need to unpack what might be meant by “quality of knowledge”. Candidates might consider some of the following – that “quality” is related to success in explaining phenomena in the discipline’s field of study, to the identification of real-world applications and improving quality of life, to the degree of internal coherence and consistency in the discipline, or perhaps to the degree of comprehensibility or communicability of the knowledge itself. One obvious problem is that it is difficult to maintain one measure for quality over time, and it is possible that some of the measures that seem to resonate with us today might not make any sense to those working in the same disciplines long ago.

　　Candidates will also have to consider why the quality of knowledge in a discipline might have increased. Perhaps there has been more time for refinement and review of pre-existing knowledge, maybe there are more people working in the field finding out more things, possibly there has been more opportunity to root out error, or there has been time for the knowledge to be tested against a wider range of circumstances. The degree of assent to the claim is likely to depend upon the nature of the objects of study in the various disciplines, and this arguably creates another confounding circumstance in the quest to make valid comparisons across them. In these circumstances, it will be easy to fall back on some measure of the amount of knowledge rather than its quality, and that should be resisted. Quality of knowledge may not always increase in a linear fashion and this might prompt further reflection on whether a comparison made across two disciplines is actually fair, given that some crucial breakthrough might be made in one of them tomorrow that would unilaterally and substantially alter the comparison.

　　Candidates are likely to suggest that the quality of knowledge is dependent on things other than just simple duration. These may include the priorities attached to different kinds of knowledge now or in the past, the contributions of eminent individuals whose impact was largely contingent, the emergence of a dominant theory or paradigm that proved particularly fruitful, or of a single method that can be applied to a wide range of circumstances, or even as a result of pure serendipity. Nevertheless, some of these influences can be factored into an analysis based on duration as many of them become more likely the more time is available for them to occur. This might make it harder to sustain strong counterclaims that exclude duration as a prominent factor.

　　As implied above, perhaps a relativistic argument based on irreconcilable differences between objects of study in different disciplines might be most successful in this regard. In any case, candidates will need to be careful that they do not wholly dismiss the main thrust of the title and then write an essay which answers a different question.

　　Not only is “quality” a problematic term in this title, but the candidate also needs to cope with the definitions and the historical integrity of disciplines. In many cases it is hard to pinpoint the origins of certain disciplines, and their relationships often seem to resemble a complicated dance through time. Furthermore, disciplines have changed names – natural history to biology, political economy to economics, and so on.

　　All these definitional and operational difficulties notwithstanding, the candidate will need to select two disciplines and hang the analysis upon them. In mathematics, ancient scholarship still carries great value. This is because of the method by which knowledge is produced in which something established remains so (by proof), so mathematicians can only add to the corpus over time. These kinds of additions might count as increased quality if they are about filling in gaps and enhancing the overall cohesion of the field of knowledge. Increased quality of knowledge in this area might take the form of a larger arsenal of techniques and procedures at the disposal of mathematicians. By contrast, many scientific claims from ancient times have been shown to be mistaken. Again, this is due to the methodology involved, which here leaves knowledge provisional and open to revision. In this sense, it could be argued that the sciences have increased their quality of knowledge over time to a greater extent than has been the case in mathematics. But the title asks for treatment of individual disciplines so it is crucial for candidates to drill down into a particular one and proceed from there.

　　Most human sciences have shorter histories than natural sciences, so responses to the claim in the title might rest on whether these disciplines can be shown to be less mature and/or more riven by disagreement. As an exception as a group 3 IB subject, philosophy might offer candidates opportunities for a different conclusion, but a case would need to be made that this discipline counts as a human science.

　　Ethics, perhaps partially insulated from developments elsewhere, seems to rival mathematics as an ancient discipline, but the question of how much progress has been made is controversial. Technology continually throws up new issues for ethicists, but arguably these are mainly new formulations of old questions and do not contribute to the quality of knowledge.

　　Change in the arts is beyond doubt, but candidates might struggle to present these changes as instances of increasing quality. It is difficult to agree with the claim here unless some way of arguing that art builds upon itself can be mounted.

　　History is another example of an ancient discipline, but it can be claimed that it has become truly empirical only since the 19th century, so, depending on the time period under consideration, we might be faced with the dilemma of different criteria for quality over time. Those of a non-religious stance may want to argue that religion is a prime example of stagnating knowledge divorced from progress in other areas, but counterarguments may revolve around the capacity of religions to absorb quality by adapting influences from numerous cultural origins. Examiners should accept individual religions as instances of disciplines. Candidates who want to address indigenous knowledge systems would do well to select an example with which they are familiar and consider the difficulties with identifying disciplines and the origins of whatever knowledge is under consideration.

　　Counterclaims to the title claim may deal with emerging disciplines such as robotics, data analytics or quantum biology. Candidates might note that such enterprises tend to be interdisciplinary in origin.

　　6. “Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.

　　Nature of the title

　　Candidates should note that this title makes a specific request for two areas of knowledge, and that there should be a roughly balanced treatment of them. The underlying dynamic of this title is that both consensus and disagreement are essential for knowledge to attain robust status. Candidates might deliberate on whether these two are processes that lead to the production of robust knowledge or merely descriptive features of that kind of knowledge. An important task for the candidate, then, is to keep the concept of robustness distinguishable from each of the other key terms so that a meaningful conclusion can be reached. It might be difficult to produce a strong argument against the claim in the title – if this is the case, then the key task for the candidate is to elucidate the roles of consensus and disagreement in the matrix of knowledge production and indicate how these roles might vary according to circumstances.

　　Knowledge questions

　　Knowledge questions that a candidate might identify in the course of the development of a response to the title include:

　　• What might be the features of knowledge that contribute to its robustness? How can we know when we have robust knowledge?

　　• Under what circumstances might broad consensus with regard to an item of knowledge render it robust? Under what circumstances might consensus undermine it?

　　• Is robust knowledge the kind of knowledge that resists disagreement (and can be seen to do so) or is disagreement part of the process by which knowledge becomes robust?

　　• Should consensus and disagreement operate simultaneously or in some kind of sequence in order to generate robust knowledge?

　　• Whose consensus and disagreement should count in the processes of the production of robust knowledge?

　　Commentary on possible treatment

　　Candidates addressing this title will need to make some decisions as to the character of robust knowledge. As indicated above, the description of this type of knowledge must not simply echo the meaning of either of the other two terms in the title – while consensus sounds like a good start for robustness, it cannot be sufficient. Robust knowledge might mean knowledge that is solid, healthy, durable, comprehensible, defensible, coherent, open to scrutiny, or resistant to challenge. At the same time, the range of these possibilities highlight the danger that the interpretation of robustness may vary across areas of knowledge.

　　It seems obvious that consensus is essential if there is to be shared knowledge of any kind. But candidates need to consider who has the qualifications to be part of any consensus that matters. Consensus may arise not from common conclusions that arise from dispassionate consideration of evidence but less helpfully from ideological positions or from self-centred calculations among individuals with common interests.

　　There may be knowledge that is robust to the extent of being settled – in such cases disagreement may be unnecessary or even unhelpful. It may even be advisable to shut down pointless discussion about it when it involves the participation of outsiders lacking in relevant credentials

　　(eg climate change, Holocaust denial, evolutionary origins) and who may have little stake in the disinterested accumulation of knowledge. Disagreement can narrow to trivial details or the absurd. Sometimes there is a need to avoid engagement with adversaries in order to prevent legitimization of corrupted views. Disreputable disagreement stems from ignorance or from those with an agenda in mind. Often such disagreement is focused on the practitioners rather than on the knowledge itself. Candidates are likely to note that excessive consensus can easily lead to stultifying unanimity of views and weakening of overall conclusions through convergence and compromise. Similarly, consensus does not automatically imply truth. Filter bubbles and echo chambers populate communal space these days, and consensus is often associated with unhelpful aspects of committee dynamics.

　　A satisfactory response to the title will almost certainly emphasize the importance of balance. What is needed is an equilibrium point between too much consensus and creeping complacency (stagnation) and too much disagreement and no common foundation for work or progress. There may be agreement as to the importance of language to consensus and disagreement: robust knowledge must be couched in unambiguous terms in order to avoid disagreement about trivialities.

　　Candidates will need to situate these sorts of considerations within the context of the areas of knowledge that they choose for this essay. The balance between consensus and disagreement will depend upon these choices – perhaps a wider consensus can be found in natural sciences and mathematics. Furthermore, a standard answer to the title will likely place the sciences and arts at opposite ends of a continuum (perhaps with the goals of reaching universal truth and provoking controversy respectively).

　　In the arts, there may be some consensus on conventions, but disagreement on the message to be taken from the art itself. Stagnation would occur without disagreement, and hence there is continual tension between consensus and disagreement. Perhaps today that tension is stronger than ever and many audiences or spectators lack confidence in what art tells us and how it does it, making it harder to identify robust knowledge in this area.

　　In mathematics, there is likely to be greater disagreement about methods of approaching problems rather than about the knowledge itself. While one cannot disagree with an established proof, there may be disagreements at the level of methodology or notation.

　　The sciences can be considered as an institutionalized space for controlled disagreement, and hence there are deeply embedded norms that guard against lazy consensus. Nevertheless, consensus is essential in this area, not least because of our reliance on applications – we need it or else lives may be at risk in the manufacture of medicines, aviation, bridges and so on. Candidates may mention that in the natural sciences we need knowledge which is reproducible, replicable and generalizable but that does not mean that it is static at any point in time. For the production of knowledge, we need consolidation for which we need disagreement.

　　Candidates may argue that the objects of study in the human sciences make it inevitable that disagreement will play a prominent role in knowledge production. Living with more disagreement, human scientists find themselves prey to the dangers of politicization and the injection of ideology into debate.

　　Progress and patterns in history would seem to support the title statement easily. But as with other areas of knowledge, what is meant by robust knowledge needs exploring. In this context it might be characterized as knowledge for which there is evidence and exhibits coherence with what has already been established. It may be that the individualized nature of the historian’s work produces disagreement more between particular historians rather than between groups. Ethics is an area fraught by disagreement due to its very nature and strongly dependent on culture for its knowledge claims. The challenge for the ethicist may be to try to see past these specifics in order to reach conclusions that demonstrate robustness when applied to humanity as a whole. In religious knowledge systems, candidates can explore the role of consensus as expressed through common practice and ritual. Disagreements can be regarded as heresy, but then they are also responsible for divergence in doctrine and origin of denominations, not to mention longstanding debate within religions. In indigenous knowledge systems, consensus can be strong as a binding factor for culture. In order to draw a response together in a coherent manner, candidates may consider the various ways in which consensus and disagreement interact. For example, a sequential paradigm model might be invoked in which consensus is followed by disagreement and then by a new consensus. In contrast, there is a parallel cumulative model according to which there is consensus with continual disagreement at fringes leading to consolidated consensus as time goes on. Examples will need to be provided in order to illustrate these alternatives.

　　Finally, it may be worth scrutinizing the objects of disagreement and consensus – it is possible to have consensus about the “big knowledge picture” and disagreement about the details. This would produce a very different scenario to one in which the disagreements were much more deep-seated and concerned with fundamental aspects of knowledge in the field. So the analysis might in the end revolve around the best locations for consensus and disagreement in the quest for progress.