Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
about knowledge intersect in powerfulQuestionscomplex ways with questions about politics.andexample, what we know about the world,Forwe know it, and who can make claimshowit are entangled with questions about whoaboutthe power to make and maintain order in thehasThe answers to these questions form whatworld.call a “epistemic-political system”, and varywehistorical and geographic contexts. Ouracrosssystem has been called a modern-liberalpresentand is being challenged by varioussystem,cultural, economic, spiritual andecological,way out of these crises might requireTheanswers to better questions aboutdifferentway we think about the relationshipTheknowledge and politics is stillbetweeninfluenced by a debate betweenstronglyHobbes and Robert Boyle in theThomascentury. The debate concerned whatmid-17thas knowledge, and where, how and bycountsthe boundaries of legitimate knowledgewhomdrawn. Boyle and Hobbes had opposingareapproach reflected the emergingBoyle’ssciences and he argued thatexperimentallike scientists, could objectively agreepeople,“facts”, if they followed strict processes andondisinterested in outcomes; Boyle’s “facts”wereto a “nature” that existed outsiderelated“society”. In contrast, Hobbes doubtedofpeople could be objective or sufficientlythatwith the political dimensions ofGrapplingand knowledge-sharingknowledge-makingan urgent challenge for us today: in beingposesof ideology that masquerades as fact,suspiciousof a new system. It is an exciting andemergencetime to be coming together to overcomeurgentdivisive issues and wicked problems of thethetoday.worldbook explores and examines the processesThiswhich facts are arrived at, scrutinizesthroughpeople and motivations behind fact-making,thetraces the implications of accepting orandsomething as fact. We have all heardrejectingtimes, “these are the facts”, but canmanyspeak for themselves? Matters of fact arefactsdisinterested, neutral, independent,supposedlyin other words, beyond politics. But whatorthe ideas in the past that shaped this way ofwereand believed that all humandisinterested,was political.activitynotion of communities organized“Boyle’stheir own methods and rules butaroundby limited domains not onlyboundedto the creation of different scientificledbut, more importantly,disciplinesscience from politics and religionseparatedThe final consequence of this would be…power, faith … and knowledge wouldthatseparated, each with its own institutions,beand procedures.” (Stalder 2019)rules,idea defined the modern-liberal era butThisappears to be breaking down, perhapsnowHobbes’ suspicions that knowledgevindicatingalways political and that disinterestedness isisdo we guard against dismissing legitimatehowHowdo we distinguish betweenknowledge?I. ScopeI. ScopeI . S C O P Epolitical crises of our own making.thinking about facts?knowledge and politics, and even theBox 2.1: Hobbes and Boyle on knowledge, power and faithviews on this subject.impossible.ideology and knowledge?23
I. Scopehas been great concern, especially inThereyears, that people ignore facts and dismissrecent1. To what extent do you agree that this isChapter 1, we introduced the counterclaimInpeople are not ignoring “the facts”; they dothataccept them as facts in the first place andnotto believe a different set of facts. Factschooseto have become a signal for identity andappearsolidarity.politicalmass leaders seize the power to t reality toBeforelies, their propaganda is marked by its extremetheirfor facts … for in their opinion fact dependscontempton the power of man who can fabricate it.entirelyis often said that anything can be political. TheItpeople choose to wear, the music theyclothesthe kind of language they use, the foodenjoy,eat, and especially the food they do nottheyWho can legitimately establish what2.facts are and who can legitimatelytheIs it important for at least some knowledge4.be non-contestable?topractice, consider and critically exploreForwhat extent universal human rights aretoCan you think of any othernon-contestable.facts”? Aren’t all facts universal?“universalhave Meatless Mondays and all-genderthough:been politicized, or were eatingbathroomsevery day and having gender-segregatedmeatin public spaces already politicalbathroomsWhat aspects of life have beenstatements?depoliticized?boundaries of politics are difficult to draw.Theof our choices, actions and claims areManyon assumptions and values that arebasedand therefore fall within the domaincontestable,politics. Arguably, this is the case whetherofnot we are aware of our assumptions andoror not our actions are intentionallywhetherpolitical.2For discussionLet’s agree on the factsdisputethem?3. Is there any knowledge that is beyondevidence when it contradicts their beliefs.dispute?thecase?(Arendt 1951)I.1 Is everything political?eat, are all discussed as political acts. Consider24
- Page 1 and 2: THEORY OFO X F O R D I B D I P L O
- Page 3 and 4: University Press is a department of
- Page 5 and 6: ContentsCORE THEMEOPTIONAL THEMESiv
- Page 7 and 8: lucky circumstance brings you to th
- Page 9 and 10: I. Scopecan seem abstract, intimida
- Page 11 and 12: I. Scopeis complicated by power and
- Page 13 and 14: I. ScopeWhat factors limit our know
- Page 15 and 16: I. ScopeII. PerspectivesTOK we exam
- Page 17 and 18: II. Perspectivesmay have inherited
- Page 19 and 20: II. Perspectivesto Quassim Cassam,
- Page 21 and 22: III. Methods and toolsterms: NYT Ne
- Page 23 and 24: III. Methods and toolsof it? What m
- Page 25 and 26: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics(b)
- Page 27 and 28: IV. Ethicsin TOK is about the explo
- Page 29: Knowledgeand politics 2is concerned
- Page 33 and 34: I. Scopeadministrative systems, had
- Page 35 and 36: I. Scopethis book we engage with th
- Page 37 and 38: II. Perspectives“Overton window
- Page 39 and 40: II. Perspectivesopposed to scientif
- Page 41 and 42: II. Perspectivesobjective “fact o
- Page 43 and 44: II. Perspectives7 deals with public
- Page 45 and 46: II. Perspectiveshe adds, ‘It wasn
- Page 47 and 48: II. Perspectivesargued that interne
- Page 49 and 50: II. Perspectivesmedia users report
- Page 51 and 52: III. Methods and toolsLorde said yo
- Page 53 and 54: III. Methods and toolsShould we tes
- Page 55 and 56: III. Methods and toolsend of the po
- Page 57 and 58: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethicsthe
- Page 59 and 60: IV. Ethicsoffence enters the pictur
- Page 61 and 62: IV. Ethicsenabled by technology. Pr
- Page 63 and 64: IV. Ethicsa 2018 article for the Ne
- Page 65 and 66: Knowledgeand technology 3does it me
- Page 67 and 68: I. Scopereach of human-made objects
- Page 69 and 70: I. Scopeterms:SearchSubmarineTelege
- Page 71 and 72: section explores what we know about
- Page 73 and 74: 3.5a shows Margaret Hamilton,Figure
- Page 75 and 76: II. Perspectivesterms: How weSearch
- Page 77 and 78: the challenges outlined in the disc
- Page 79 and 80: 2013 a team of researchers publishe
about knowledge intersect in powerful
Questions
complex ways with questions about politics.
and
example, what we know about the world,
For
we know it, and who can make claims
how
it are entangled with questions about who
about
the power to make and maintain order in the
has
The answers to these questions form what
world.
call a “epistemic-political system”, and vary
we
historical and geographic contexts. Our
across
system has been called a modern-liberal
present
and is being challenged by various
system,
cultural, economic, spiritual and
ecological,
way out of these crises might require
The
answers to better questions about
different
way we think about the relationship
The
knowledge and politics is still
between
influenced by a debate between
strongly
Hobbes and Robert Boyle in the
Thomas
century. The debate concerned what
mid-17th
as knowledge, and where, how and by
counts
the boundaries of legitimate knowledge
whom
drawn. Boyle and Hobbes had opposing
are
approach reflected the emerging
Boyle’s
sciences and he argued that
experimental
like scientists, could objectively agree
people,
“facts”, if they followed strict processes and
on
disinterested in outcomes; Boyle’s “facts”
were
to a “nature” that existed outside
related
“society”. In contrast, Hobbes doubted
of
people could be objective or sufficiently
that
with the political dimensions of
Grappling
and knowledge-sharing
knowledge-making
an urgent challenge for us today: in being
poses
of ideology that masquerades as fact,
suspicious
of a new system. It is an exciting and
emergence
time to be coming together to overcome
urgent
divisive issues and wicked problems of the
the
today.
world
book explores and examines the processes
This
which facts are arrived at, scrutinizes
through
people and motivations behind fact-making,
the
traces the implications of accepting or
and
something as fact. We have all heard
rejecting
times, “these are the facts”, but can
many
speak for themselves? Matters of fact are
facts
disinterested, neutral, independent,
supposedly
in other words, beyond politics. But what
or
the ideas in the past that shaped this way of
were
and believed that all human
disinterested,
was political.
activity
notion of communities organized
“Boyle’s
their own methods and rules but
around
by limited domains not only
bounded
to the creation of different scientific
led
but, more importantly,
disciplines
science from politics and religion
separated
The final consequence of this would be
…
power, faith … and knowledge would
that
separated, each with its own institutions,
be
and procedures.” (Stalder 2019)
rules,
idea defined the modern-liberal era but
This
appears to be breaking down, perhaps
now
Hobbes’ suspicions that knowledge
vindicating
always political and that disinterestedness is
is
do we guard against dismissing legitimate
how
Howdo we distinguish between
knowledge?
I. Scope
I. Scope
I . S C O P E
political crises of our own making.
thinking about facts?
knowledge and politics, and even the
Box 2.1: Hobbes and Boyle on knowledge, power and faith
views on this subject.
impossible.
ideology and knowledge?
23