Talk:Theory of Knowledge (IB course)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An anonymous editor recently added this content:

The article above fails to mention that Plato's famous definition of knowledge is widely believed (by professionals who specialize in the theory of knowledge) to be incorrect. How a course can be organized around a definition known to be flawed is, to say the least, problematic. Furthermore, the claim that the definition is flawed is easily found on the web. Just find Edmund Gettier's article "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" (I quote the title from memory; but even if it's not right, a little time with Google will correct my error.)

Secondly, the article claims that the course "teaches" that among the forms of justification for our beliefs are "consensus", "authority", and "faith". These are all dubious sources of justification. Five million Americans or Frenchmen could be wrong. "Authority" begs questions about how you know who the experts are. "Faith" is especially problematic. The faith of many Americans leads them to reject well-established scientific claims. If "faith", e.g., is not a source of justification, you simply cannot teach that it is--and pretending that you are doing so is, at the very least, a dubious enterprise. What the course should be doing is not t e a c h i n g that these are the forms of justification, but e x a m i n i n g their claims to be forms of justification.

That's more a problem with the article than with the course itself as conceived by IB. But, the course itself has problems too. One fundamental problem with this course is that there is no real theory here. At any rate, there is no theory in the way one finds theories in the sciences. And, in fact, there are epistemologists who doubt the very possibility of giving anything like a general characterization of knowledge or justification. There are just too many forms of knowlege, and justification itself varies too much. A teacher who is convinced by that will end up teaching an Anti-Theory of Knowledge course.

Another serious problem is intellectual conservatism of a suspicious sort. According to Bishop and Trout, in their "Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgement", published by Oxford University Press. <http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-516230-7> traditional analytic theory of knowledge (epistemology) suffers from a fatal sort of conservatism. We are supposed to be engaged in a serious intellectual enterprise; yet, at the end of the day it must turn out that our ordinary beliefs are pretty much correct. To my ears, that sounds like a recipe for anti-science, and when I read Bishop and Trout's book I immediately thought of IB Theory of Knowledge. The article above illustrates my point. Inclusion of "faith" on the list of forms of justification above is evidence of extremely strong intellectual conservatism--as if its right to be there were a fait accomplis merely because many people would like it to be. What a proper epistemology course should do is examine the claim that faith is a form of justification. (And, it's not written into the unspoken rules that it must, in the end, prove to be one.)

Note: Bishop's homepage has an article (co-authored with Trout) about the above, on the "pathologies" of "standard analytic philosophy": http://www.niu.edu/phil/~bishop/Research.shtml

For one thing, it was added after the stub tag and the external links section, and talks about the article as if it were not a part of it. For another, it uses the first person and is heavily POV. Maybe the author intended to place it on this talk page instead? —Keenan Pepper 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous contributor comments: Thank you for moving this stuff. It was sloppily placed, and your placing is better. On the other hand, if I am right, the errors here are serious ones, ones which cannot be ignored. The article betrays a misunderstanding of its subject-matter. Though I grant you the IB organization at times seems to be suggesting that they've created something new, the truth is that they rely pretty heavily upon traditional mainstream epistemology in the analytic tradition. And my criticisms, I think, are based within that tradition, even if Bishop and Trout criticize mainstream epistemology. I'm not advocating something unusual. And, you can easily enough check that out with a little research.

I am less charmed by Wikipedia-ese.

You don't get objectivity or truth just by getting rid of "I" or what you call "point of view". You may want to disagree, and I grant you that there is room here for discussion. That's precisely the sort of thing that should go on in an empistemology course, whether it is at the unviersity or high school level. Howeever, a contribution may be what you call "heavily POV", and yet, for all that say something true--or, less ambitiously, it may simply improve upon the article it comments upon. Best regards, and thank you again for moving the piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.172.152.139 (talk • contribs) . The same anonymous contributor would like to add the following words of clarification: The original article is misleading about the nature of epistemology and the nature of philosophy. (Epistemology or 'theory of knowledge' is part of philosophy.)

The article misleads when it writes of some definite content that the student learns. An important part of philosophical inquiry is asking questions of the sort: is X a source of knowledge? Or, is X a justification? By making these questions seem more definite than they are, the article misleads.

Moreover, by its choice of "faith" as a form of justification the article departs from the mainstream within epistemology. It is, at the very least, controversial to claim that faith is a form of justification. Moreover, by any reasonable definition, that means that the article contains a very definite point of view--POV, if you prefer. It is very noteworthy that the article has been published in Wikipedia without this being recognized.

A second point which I made is more controversial. However, I briefly expand upon it.

I suggested that the very title "Theory of Knowledge" is misleading. The Theory of Knowledge course within the IB program is supposed to be interdisciplinary. It is supposed to connect with other subjects the student studies. To the extent that it does this, it is largely a course in critical thinking. Consequently, there is a natural emphasis more upon criticism than theory construction. That makes the title of the course misleading.

One final comment. If I am correct to suggest that the article evinces misunderstanding of what epistemology is, and if the article is, in fact, coming from the IB organization itself, then that bodes ill both for IB and for Wikipedia. As I said above, the article clearly contains a certain controversial (and I suggested false) point of view. Yet, it escaped the notice of Wikipedia's content managers. That raises questions both about Wikipedia and the IBO. One might also wonder whether the article is not, in effect, a form of advertising for the International Baccalaureate Organization? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.172.152.139 (talk • contribs) .

I think you're missing a crucial distinction between describing a point of view and using one.

The course teaches nine reasons for justification of things one claims to know: logic, sensory perception, revelation, faith, memory, consensus, authority, intuition, and self-awareness.

Although the claim itself is subject to debate, the fact that the course teaches it is not. The article describes the point of view used in the course. On the other hand, this sentence:

There are nine reasons for justification of things one claims to know: logic, sensory perception, revelation, faith, memory, consensus, authority, intuition, and self-awareness.

uses a point of view and is therefore inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Do you understand the difference?

Similarly, Theory of Knowledge may be a misleading title, but it is the official name of the course so the article could hardly be called anything else.

By the way, I think I should point out that you are welcome to edit the article yourself, as long as your changes are integrated into the article and don't consist of conflicting material appended at the end. —Keenan Pepper 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Keenan. Your points are clear.

I'm going to reply to your comments individually and indent my responses. I hope that will avoid confusion.

You suggest that the article only d e s c r i b i n g the point of view that faith is a source of justification. That's not what I understood it to say. Possibly, the author wished to only describe that point of view. If so, I think the writer could have taken steps to make it clear, such as by adding "alleged" or "commonly believed to be".

Alleged and commonly believed to be are perfect examples of what are known on Wikipedia as "weasel words". A verifiable article in the neutral point of view would say who did the alleging and who believes it. Points of view must be attributed to the people or groups who hold them.

If the article means what you suggest, then its author has been sloppy. In any case, the author makes the thing a bit too baroque by using reasons and justification. One term would be enough.

As a Wikipedia article, it has no single author.

I wonder, incidentally: Doesn't the article have the offical logo of the IBO organization on the page? Doesn't that indicate official endorsement?

No. Articles related to oranizations commonly use their official logos as graphics.

You seem to be saying that The official title is whatever the IB says it is--And, so you (anonyomous editor) can't argue about that. Heck, it's their course, isn't it? Well, in a way, I doubt all of that. The title should reflect the nature of the subject matter. I claim that it reflects poorly on the actual subject matter. The subject wasn't invented by them and what it is is not solely a matter of their opinion--especially if their ideas are not consistent or clear. I think someone can judge whether they've chosen a good name. Cf. If Ford wants to call their new car "the Plum Pudding", and it is actually a very fast, aerodynamically streamlined car, someone might point out that the name is misleading with respect to the product.....

The title of an article must be the name by which its subject is known. For example, many people think United States of America is a bad name for the country, but moving it to United States of the Part of North America between Mexico and Canada is not an option because no one calls it that. I have never heard this IB course referred to as anything other than Theory of Knowledge.

When you say I cannot debate about what the course teaches, you puzzle me. You cannot teach what is not true. Ergo you cannot teach that faith is a source of justification. That is my point of view. And just because the IB writer manages to say (whether or not that is his intention) that faith is a source of justification, it is still not true, and so cannot be taught.

When I say "teach" I don't mean to propagandize, but to convey knowledge, to share truth.

You appear to be using the English word teach in an idiosyncratic and nonstandard way. Most English speakers would agree (whoops, I just caught myself using weasel words, but I can back them up if necessary) that you can indeed "teach" what is not true. What word would you use instead of teach in the case that what is being taught is false?

Your remark about "conficting material" puzzles me. I can't conflict with the article? But I think the article has a serious mistake; so, any honest editing would have to make a serious change. It might be possible for me to find a way around this, though; but I hadn't planned to spend so much time on this......(I'll have to think about it.)

It's perfectly fine to change the article as long as you don't introduce contradictions. An article should be a coherent whole. That's one of the most difficult things to achieve in an encyclopedia written by unrelated people from all over the world, because many people's natural instinct is to add their own comments at the end, as you did. What we're aiming for is not a debate, but an encyclopedia article.

In any case, the article does seem to be a fancy sort of advertisement! :-) And it does make me sceptical about Wikipedial.

I disagree. It's not perfect, and I'm about to make some changes, but mostly its tone is appropriate to an encyclopedia article, and it consists of verifiable facts.

Incidentally, I do teach IB TOK and have taught Philosophy for a for a few years, so I think I'm not just making this up. :-) Thank you again and Best regards, --the anonymous editor.

Ihave the feeling that my remarks could be clearer, but I've run out of time. Perhaps you'll get the main point despite the excessive verbosity! :-)

Incidentally, you can find something related to some of the views I describe in Stephen Stich's article, "What is a theory of representation?" in Mind, Vol. 101, 1992, ppp. 243-261. It's relevant to my remarks about epistemology and "anti-theory". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.172.152.139 (talk • contribs) .

Is it available online? I'll see if FSU's library has it. —Keenan Pepper 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What should or should not be taught in this class and the name of the class is not the point of this article. So what if Plato's theory is wrong? Are you the teacher or an IBO board member? If so, take your complaints there. Mainly, the end result of this class is to have those kids come out and be able to analyze things that happen and not just be that couch potato who sits down and absorbs everything without putting a thought into what is being told. This class is not a requirement in any country. It's a fine class that gets students to critically think, especially if you have the right teacher like me.24.4.221.251 04:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POOR TITLE FOR PAGE

Wikipedia really ought to take a browser from a 'theory of knowledge' link to a disambiguation page, one which includes (a fancy word philosophers use for the disciple they also frequently call 'theory of knowledge') and this page, which is an extremely narrow and technical use of the expression 'theory of knowledge'.

You mean like how epistemology is mentioned in the very first sentence, or are you aiming at something even more obvious? -Obli (Talk)^? 19:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that doesn't really solve the problem, since as it stands a reader without any background might naturally conclude that 'Theory of Knowledge' is most commonly used as a technical term for the particular high school course disucssed in this article, and that the 'theory of knowledge' is merely a species of the broader category of epistemology. This just isn't the way philosophers in academia use those terms. Theory of Knowledge is Epistemology. Two expressions for the same discipline.