May 2018 #2 “We know with confidence when we know little…,” Goethe. Discuss ref 2 AoK

Please ensure that you get the exact title from your teacher before you start to plan your answer (I can’t write the exact title here for copyright reasons).

In terms of the big picture this question is: what is the nature of knowing ? Is knowing the development of awareness of that that we don’t know (akin to the ying yang symbol) ?

Students could spend time defining the terms confidence and doubt, however I would strongly recommend defining these terms in the context of ToK only, do not pull a definition of a dictionary, use ToK contextualised definitions.

It could be argued that the PT makes certain assumptions:
Confidence is the product of little knowledge (“ignorance” ?).
Increasing Knowledge leads to an increase in doubt.

Therefore is the the PT (and/or Goethe) suggesting that knowledge and doubt are mutually inclusive, and that knowledge and confidence are mutually exclusive ?

I think that the PT starts to make a lot more sense when we take it to the level of Areas of Knowledge. Let’s start with Natural Sciences, Kant & Popper argued that the process of knowledge construction in Nat Sci’s involved falsification – it could be argued that this in many ways supports the PT as falsification is akin to “I don’t know what is correct, but I know that it’s not this”. It could be argued that this is consonant with doubt. However, conversely many people (& scientists) talk about increasing knowledge as a process of ‘proving’ things, or finding “scientific proof”, in most cases apparent “scientific proof” is supposed to increase confidence not decrease it. Interesting discussions could be written in relation to the causes of diseases and the parametric testing of medicines. Last year Scientists discovered that Pancreatic Cancer is better thought of as 4 different diseases requiring different treatments etc (see link here). Does this new discovery (ie increase in knowledge) increase confidence in the scientific method ?, increase confidence in the accuracy of the knowledge ? Introduce doubt as the scientific method has been shown to be flawed in the past ? Introduce doubt as we see how something that we previously thought to be factually correct was actually wrong, and in turn that which we currently consider to be correct will also be changed in the future ?

There is a delicious discussion to be had about modelling in relation to this question. Such modelling could be put into the context of AoKs Human Sciences, Natural Sciences, Mathematics, History, Ethics or even The Arts. Examples of the types of models that could be discussed maybe macro-fiscal modelling in Economics, Behavioural or Cognitive modelling in Psychology, Electoral voting intention models from Psephology, Weather forecast models from Meteorology,  Sports Forecasting from Sports, Ethical models such as Prisoner’s Dilemma etc etc.
Most Models have certain characteristics in common:
1. They give their forecasts in quantitative terms of probability (aka ‘Confidence’ and ‘doubt).
2.  Increased data is supposed to increase the accuracy of the model, however it could demonstrate that the fundamental principles of the model are inaccurate.
3. When models get something wrong the new ‘wrong’ result can vastly increase the accuracy of the model.

There’s something almost bordering on the soothsayer in how people interpret and use models. Students could look at whether increased use of models increases confidence or doubt, further whether increasing the data available to a model increases confidence or doubt. Interesting comparisons could be drawn from various examples of models – contrasting those deemed to be of greater or less accuracy: for example comparing why Economic Models seem to be so often incorrect whilst the modelling of the track of a typhoon is often so accurate. There could also be an interesting discussion on the difference between precision and accuracy, and which constitutes an increase in knowledge (if either).

Let’s look at Religious Knowledge Systems as a contrasting AoK, students could construct strong claims and counterclaims in this AoK. A claim could be that people who have little knowledge of contrasting belief systems to their own have a high level of confidence in their own religious beliefs, and that as knowledge of alternative belief systems grows doubt in their own religious beliefs grows. However, a counterclaim could look at how some people might use their Religious Beliefs as a lens to construct knowledge of other belief systems in order to show the weaknesses of those belief systems, and thus to bolster their confidence in their own belief systems. An example of this could be the intersection between Christianity and politics in the US (with associated conservative belief systems).

I could continue to look at this question in terms of each AoK, looking at the Methodology and Historical Development Sections of the Knowledge Framework. I think that the above examples will suffice to give students a view of the requirements.

Enjoy Your writing !