After we finished the last episode, Kevin Hoye and I kept our conversation going about each of the titles, and I decided to keep the mic on to capture our conversation in the form of a quick little bonus episode to point out some things to watch out for and some interesting bits about each of the 6 titles. Class of 2023 TOK students… listen up!

Again, thank you random musicians on this track… speaking of which, if you’re a musician and would like to be featured,reach out to me! 

In this episode, I talked to Ian Galley (IBDP English Language & Literature) Nicole Mamphey (Science and Applied Ethics) about TOK Essay Title 3: Does it matter if our acquisition of knowledge happens in “bubbles” where some information and voices are excluded? Discuss with reference to two areas of knowledge. 

​We had a rich discussion about “bubbles'' as they exist in social media networks and internet platforms as well as within academia, algorithms, and how this contributes to, enhances and distorts our bubbles. We also discussed many of the real world consequences (why it matters!) that what we’re learning may occur in these bubbles.

We discussed relevant ideas including retracted findings of psychology and vaccination studies, bubbles in comedy and how it fits with the Benign Violation Theory, perspectives and the Soldier vs. Scout Mindset by Julia Galef, Spiral of Silence Theory and the social tendency to reinforce bubbles and silences descending voices, and the Metaverse. We discuss the difference between a community and a bubble: which one is more open to other ideas? How do they overlap? 

We unpack and explore: Does it matter (to who? for what?) Does it matter to our acquisition of knowledge? Does it matter to the voices that are excluded? We challenge the notion that science is objective, and discuss how even in the sciences we want to reinforce what fits our own perspective and beliefs. We also begin to discuss voices that are excluded: silenced voices - why this matters!
Links: 

• The Social Dilemma Netflix Movie Trailer & Website
• So You've Been Publicly Shamed (Book by Jon Ronson) - Chapter 5 (regarding the debunking of Zimbardo’s infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, and the interview with Eshelman (the guard that admitted to faking his actions in the experiment)
• Benign Violation Theory “integrates existing humor theories to propose that humor occurs when and only when three conditions are satisfied: (1) a situation is a violation, (2) the situation is benign, and (3) both perceptions occur simultaneously.”
• Soldier Mindset Ted Talk by Julia Galef - Why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong
• Spiral of Silence Theory 
• Ready Player One (Novel by Ernest Cline) and Ready Player Movie Trailer
• Wind River Movie Trailer
• How to be an Antiracist a very powerful and useful book by American author and historian Ibram X. Kendi
• An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States revisionist history book by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz       

In this episode, I met with Dr. PS and Janka Steinkamp (both IB English teachers to talk about Essay Title 4: Do you agree that it is “astonishing that so little knowledge can give us so much power” (Bertrand Russell)? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

I hope you find this episode as interesting as we did. If you’re looking for the TOK Essay Title Posters I mentioned, you can find them here.

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance” (Confucius in 500 BC)
​
Links:

• Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot
• Sir Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms  TED Talk
• Decolonise IB: How international school alumni are mobilising to diversify the expat curriculum | by Xoài David | Medium
• Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o: "Europe and the West must also be decolonised" | CCCB LAB
• The Big Bang Theory S06E08 The 43 Peculiarity - Wormhole generator test

Music is courtesy of Plastic Daizi Band, just one of our warm up sessions from many moons ago.

Today I had a really insightful discussion with IB Theatre teacher, Alex Campion. We talked about May 2023 TOK Essay Title 6: To what extent is the knowledge we produce determined by the methodologies we use? Discuss with reference to history and one other area of knowledge.

Of course we talked about the Arts, attempting to give light to artistic methods in contrast with "the scientific method". I really enjoyed this one, and hope it leaves you thinking a little about the connection between the way we choose to produce knowledge and the impact it has on what we know. Stay tuned for more of these Essay Title discussions in the next few weeks!

Today I had a coffee with Bill Kyzner and Bob Scheer and we unpacked the 2023 May Title 2: For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences. Questions that arose included: When does one become an “artist” or “scientist”? What does it mean to “explain”? Important for the artist/scientist to do what? So many different questions and ideas came up as we talked, I hope this gives you some food for your TOK thought!

Do good explanations have to be true?
Today’s topic is a previous TOK Essay title:  “Do good explanations have to be true?” To help me explore this question, I am joined by four fellow IB & TOK Teachers: Mr. Bill Kyzner representing Political Science, Mr. Francis Wynne, representing the Classics, including Latin Language & Greek Mythology, Mr. Jordan West-Pratt representing Natural Sciences, and today I’ll be representing the Arts.

Questions we discuss in relation to Natural Sciences, Political Science, Classics and the Arts:

• What does each discipline seek to explain? What might a “good” explanation look like (as opposed to a “bad” one)?
• Are there some explanations in your subject that are good but not necessarily true?
• What is the role of truth in each discipline?

Three things that stand out to me after this conversation:

1.  I was really struck by Mr. Wynne’s example of explanations in Greek Mythology that he argues are “good” and metaphorically true, but not literally true. I like this idea of different layers and kinds of truth.
2. Mr. West-Pratt’s distinction of the role of truth in Natural Science - that truth in philosophy of science being different than the practice of science… For a practicing scientist, there is no distinction between a good explanation and a true explanation - they are one and the same. Whereas philosophers of science are not necessarily truth seekers but model builders.
3. I was disturbed by the idea that truth may be irrelevant in Political Sciences. However, upon reflection, I think this is very much because of our overly liberal use of the word “truth” as a word to describe one’s understanding of reality in this discussion. I do still think there is room for further exploration of the role of truth, perhaps especially as it comes to description of facts and how this then translates into interpretations in different political lenses. Certainly, there is a danger as accepting anyone’s perspective as “subjective” truth, especially in today’s political climate.

Finally, I still am left wondering about the relationship of truth to the goodness of an explanation, and how that might differ depending on the audience of the explanation - who is the explanation for? what is its’ purpose? and does that determine what makes it good rather than its truth quality? There’s still much to be considered here. A title like this one seems so simple, and yet so complex once we start to unpack it.

No matter if you’re a TOK student, teacher or knowledge enthusiast, I hope that our discussion got you thinking about the relationship of good explanations and truth in your areas of interest or expertise. Tune in again next time for the next episode of TOK Talk.

Thank you to the random street performer in Shanghai for the intro and outro music.