Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
of politics attempts to reach consensuspracticewhat has been described as “an opinion-throughvery strong; you’ve seen how rumoursis[around] can cause havoc.”ÁoatingGarimella, a researcher at theKiranInstitute of TechnologyMassachusettsis studying misinformation in India,whomore than 5m WhatsAppanalysedposted in 5,000 public groupsmessagescovering roughly 1m people. “We have…image-based, subtle misinformation,”onMr Garimella, giving an example ofsaysscreenshots from a reputabledoctoredchannel.newssays it bans roughly 400,000WhatsAppin India every month … .accountsbiggest challenge is that, unlikeTheWhatsApp cannot identify theFacebook,a dierent viewpoint from the onesoeringin the Spectator and the Financialexpressedthis book investigates the conceptThroughout,truth, commonly associated with concepts ofofimpartiality and neutrality. Withinobjectivity,and politics, what can we say of theknowledgebetween truth and impartiality?relationshipissues are, by definition, divisive in thePoliticalof lacking clear consensus. Does that meansenseknowing “truth” in politics is futile? Thethatof a message without breaking itssourcesystem … . “We see manyencryptionwhere the same message wasinstanceson multiple groups, over 20 groupssenta 10-second window, that meanswithinis a person or software sending thetheresays it has also spent aboutWhatsAppin India to run a public education$10maround the dangers ofcampaignon traditional mediamisinformationas television, radio and newspapers.suchthink I would say without hyperbole“Iprobably the largest public educationit’sabout misinformation evercampaignsays Mr Woog. (Theundertaken,”Times 2019)Financialterms: Economist I’dSearchto you Post-truth worldlieand opinion-manipulating art” (ScrutonformingWe could ask the question whether2017).can exist in politics, but the moreobjectivityquestion for us here is: what are theimmediateconsider the case of false balance, aLet’sexample of a media bias that occurscautionaryjournalists (and, very importantly, textwhenattempt to avoid bias by providing abooks)perspective on opposing viewpoints.balancedgive equal air-time or pages of text to twoTheyof a debate. The phrase a “coin has twosidesmight come to mind, but is misleadingsides”it assumes equal weight of both sides.becausebalance occurs when arguments “fromFalseother side” are presented out of proportionthethe actual evidence. It confuses fairness—toas giving due merit to the value ofunderstoodimpartiality. This may be causedevidence—witha pressure to appear “neutral” to avoidbyfee-paying advertisers and customers,offendinga lack of confidence or ability to evaluateand/orperspective.aII. PerspectivesII. Perspectivesmessages,” says Mr Garimella.observed that it is speciÀcally focusedFollow the link below to access an articledisagree with the authors of the other twoarticles on the issues raised on page 33?Times. To what extent do its authors agree orII.3 Truth, neutrality and false balanceIt is not the case that astrology is drivel because[someone] thinks so. It is drivel because it ies inimplications of saying it cannot?the face of four centuries of evidence, from Galileo tothe latest space probe. To claim, as the BBC appearedto do, that whether or not to believe in astrology is amatter of personal opinion reveals a real lack of selfcondence.At best, such a statement is foolish; atworst it is open to exploitation by cranks.(British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) 201135
II. Perspectives7 deals with public trust in scienticChapteris it about a scientic fact that givesexpertise—whatwhat extent should students, among otherTobe encouraged to disregard expertindividuals,commonly cited example of false balance is theAabout anthropogenic global warming,“debate”the scientific consensus has beenthoughfor at least two decades. Followoverwhelmingterms: NASA ScientificSearchEarth’s climate isconsensus:the vast majority of experts—over 97%—Thoughglobal warming to human activity, theattribute3% have been given disproportionatelyopposingplatforms, in the interest of balancedlargeThis has left the public with anjournalism.of inconclusive scientific debateimpressionthough the scientific consensus is welleven(Cook et al 2016).establishedexample, coverage of global warming byForUS newspapers—the New York Times,leadingWashington Post, the Los Angeles Times andtheWall Street Journal (a group referred tothe“the prestige press”)—between 1988 andaswas found to overstate the case against2002“[t]he prestige press’s adherenceclimatechange:balance actually leads to biased coveragetoboth anthropogenic contributions to globalofand resultant action” argued Boykoffwarming,a review of the impartiality andFollowingof its science coverage, the BBCaccuracyfrequent comment received during this review isAelements of the BBC—particularly in the area ofthatand current aairs—does not fully understandnewsnature of scientic discourse and, as a result, istheguilty of ‘false impartiality’; of presenting theoftenof tiny and unqualied minorities as if theyviewsthe same weight as the scientic consensus.haveapproach has for some (but not all) topicsThatwidespread. Conictual reporting of thisbecomehas the ability to distort public perception.kindarises in part because news and current aairsItwho have to think on their feet in apresenters,interview, may have little insight into the topiclivediscussed and hence nd it more dicult tobeingbalance than when dealing with politics,establishmedia or nance.theand genetically modified foods asvaccinationswhere impartial journalism understated thecasesthe journalistic profession shoulder allShouldblame? It is not that simple. Consider thethisin Box 2.3 that reports how fossil-fuelarticlegroups began in the 1990s to targetindustrywho portrayed global warmingreportersa settled fact: “it was the perfect line ofasbecause it played into a core maxim ofattack,to be fair and balanced in presentingjournalism:2Making connectionsPolitics and science—what gives a fact credibility?it authority, versus a claim by a politician?opinion if it clashes with their own beliefs?and Boykoff (2004).similarly reported the following in 2011.The BBC review cites global warming,(BBC 2011)the link to find out more.scientific evidence and consensus.warmingthe contours of a debate” (Eshelman 2014). But36
- 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 and 30: Knowledgeand politics 2is concerned
- Page 31 and 32: I. Scopehas been great concern, esp
- 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: II. Perspectivesobjective “fact o
- 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
- Page 81 and 82: III. Methods and toolsAccuracy (sel
- Page 83 and 84: that object is a black hole, from w
- Page 85 and 86: IV. Ethicsand when those who stand
- Page 87 and 88: are instances in which the“[There
- Page 89 and 90: example of ethical action amongAnoc
- Page 91 and 92: IV. Ethics(using 840 billion words
II. Perspectives
7 deals with public trust in scientic
Chapter
is it about a scientic fact that gives
expertise—what
what extent should students, among other
To
be encouraged to disregard expert
individuals,
commonly cited example of false balance is the
A
about anthropogenic global warming,
“debate”
the scientific consensus has been
though
for at least two decades. Follow
overwhelming
terms: NASA Scientific
Search
Earth’s climate is
consensus:
the vast majority of experts—over 97%—
Though
global warming to human activity, the
attribute
3% have been given disproportionately
opposing
platforms, in the interest of balanced
large
This has left the public with an
journalism.
of inconclusive scientific debate
impression
though the scientific consensus is well
even
(Cook et al 2016).
established
example, coverage of global warming by
For
US newspapers—the New York Times,
leading
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and
the
Wall Street Journal (a group referred to
the
“the prestige press”)—between 1988 and
as
was found to overstate the case against
2002
“[t]he prestige press’s adherence
climatechange:
balance actually leads to biased coverage
to
both anthropogenic contributions to global
of
and resultant action” argued Boykoff
warming,
a review of the impartiality and
Following
of its science coverage, the BBC
accuracy
frequent comment received during this review is
A
elements of the BBC—particularly in the area of
that
and current aairs—does not fully understand
news
nature of scientic discourse and, as a result, is
the
guilty of ‘false impartiality’; of presenting the
often
of tiny and unqualied minorities as if they
views
the same weight as the scientic consensus.
have
approach has for some (but not all) topics
That
widespread. Conictual reporting of this
become
has the ability to distort public perception.
kind
arises in part because news and current aairs
It
who have to think on their feet in a
presenters,
interview, may have little insight into the topic
live
discussed and hence nd it more dicult to
being
balance than when dealing with politics,
establish
media or nance.
the
and genetically modified foods as
vaccinations
where impartial journalism understated the
cases
the journalistic profession shoulder all
Should
blame? It is not that simple. Consider the
this
in Box 2.3 that reports how fossil-fuel
article
groups began in the 1990s to target
industry
who portrayed global warming
reporters
a settled fact: “it was the perfect line of
as
because it played into a core maxim of
attack,
to be fair and balanced in presenting
journalism:
2
Making connections
Politics and science—what gives a fact credibility?
it authority, versus a claim by a politician?
opinion if it clashes with their own beliefs?
and Boykoff (2004).
similarly reported the following in 2011.
The BBC review cites global warming,
(BBC 2011)
the link to find out more.
scientific evidence and consensus.
warming
the contours of a debate” (Eshelman 2014). But
36