-->
“When
the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems resemble nails.” How might
this apply to ways of knowing as tools, in the pursuit of knowledge?
“Call it the law of the instrument, and
it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find
that everything he encounters needs pounding.”
Can we trust our
sense perception? Examining sense perception through the field Abraham Maslow
was a great psychologist of the 1960’s who created multiple theories based on
very little empirical data with quite biased views considering the world today.
But through his studies he did seem to arouse my mind to ask the question of
“what is good”? When looking at his theory of the hierarchy of needs he seems
to view humans as a population through very narrow parameters. In the sense
that he does not take in to multiple factors such as religion and cultural
background which have a strong effect on multiple levels of the hierarchy. This
very single minded approach to his theories show him to be a spiting image of
the quote itself. Using his resources he took an approach to a problem in a
very single minded approach. I created a knowledge issue surrounding the idea
of using a narrow parameter approach to issues “To what extent are the ways of
knowing individually as tools, reliable in the pursuit of knowledge?” Many different things distort our sense
perception, emotion and language, which therefore make them unreliable as
individuals.
In the field of
natural sciences, the detection of sense perception to be unreliable is too
familiar. It has been found that our perception is rather unreliable when
looking further into certain areas in science that is demonstrated by the
immense amount of technology used in the field today. The technology used, aids
our sense perception to reach new limits that we could not reach using our
senses normally. Humans are not able to
determine what it occurring within a chemical reaction at an atomic level yet
using our reason, we are able to determine that there is in fact a reaction
occurring at an atomic level. If humans were reduced to humans without any
existing knowledge would our sense perception suffice. For example, if we were
to put a pencil in a glass of water we would think that water has the ability
to bend objects or would we believe that pencils have the ability to bend? Our
senses seemed to been shaped over the years to acquire certain way of thinking.
The way of thinking that we have developed limits us at times to perceiving
things in certain ways. Looking at the Gestalt theory we can clearly seen that
our mind has trained our senses to perceive things in certain ways which can
allow us to miss out of certain aspects of the entire image.
Yet at the same
time we would be absolutely hopeless without our sense perception and unable to
establish any form of knowledge therefore we must be able to trust our sense
perception to a certain extent. If life is based only on our perceptions, only the
truth we need is that we can perceive. Empiricism’s approach to sense
perception indicates that knowledge is based entirely upon experience.
Therefore the fire behind our ideas is in fact our sense perception burning a
path for our ideas to be materialized within our minds. As demonstrated by
empiricism, sense perceptions are vital in our understanding of knowledge. A
personal bias lies within this theory, as I believe that sense perception is
the tool that enables other processes such as emotion and reason to occur.
Picture a man without any senses, is it at all possible that he could gain
large amounts of knowledge with such a limited outlook? It would be entirely
impossible to receive any form of knowledge whatsoever which would further
limit his emotions and reason.
Another tool that
belongs to the ways of knowing set is language. Language is a method of
communication that has been developed over the years into a fundamental tool in
our society. Yet, languages are subjective to multiple different variations allowing
the meaning to be distorted. Within a language there are many different
literary devices that can change the seemingly simple meaning into something
rather complex and causing separate interpretations of the topic. Looking at
any piece of literature people seem to have a variety of interpretations due to
the different effect that language has on the individual. Art is an area that
language can create multiple meanings more specifically plays and literature. Looking
at the famous play Antigone, multiple different versions have been created
based on the same play but variations have been added. In the play by Jean
Anigoue that was written under Nazi censorship and multiple meanings have been
derived from the same text. Looking into human sciences we realize that that
language is not universal and translations can easily differentiate from the
original text. Therefore certain sayings in other languages cannot be perfectly
translated which could potentially cause a complete misinterpretation of actual
meaning. For example, within the language of German “geile sau” means “awesome
person” but when translated into English directly it means “horny pig”. In summary languages themselves are an
unreliable tool misinterpretations are common. –EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE!
However some forms
of language can be interpreted around the world in the same fashion. Mathematics
is a form universal language allowing for a reliable of communication often
referred to as numeracy. Religion, culture and language have no effect on
language therefore mathematics has not been modified over the ages. Therefore mathematics has become
universal where algebra, addition or subtraction is the identical all of the
world. The fact that math is identical allows the language of mathematics to be
to have one meaning that does not differ. As a result subtraction or division
will be understood in both Canada and Germany. Looking at mathematics through
history, math seems to be a timeless language, as theories that have been
developed early are understood widely today. The Pythagorean theory was
developed 569-500 B.C.E by Pythagoras and is used in classrooms around the
world today.
Lastly
could reason be the do it all tool in the pursuit of knowledge? But, reason
seems to be a barrier in the pursuit of knowledge. Emotion. Emotion. Emotion is
the most fundamental factor that has an effect on reason and judgment. Often
emotions trump reason due to our passionate beliefs that cause us to throw
reason out and allowing emotion to take the driving seat. For instance, when
studying for finals our reason will tell us to study certain topics that are
vital for the exam. At the same time emotion will play an active role in
deciding what we actually study. Our emotions cause us to gravitate towards
subjects that interest us rather than studying more important subjects on the
syllabus. In addition emotions can hinder our perspective when we learn something
against our belief system. In return we will be less liable to accept other
knowledge that is against knowledge that we had a previous attachment too. When
looking at my faith that God created the world, it was difficult to accept the
big bang theory as I developed an emotional attachment too the idea of God
creating the earth.
Yet
emotion can aid in be a reliable source when attempting to attain knowledge.
Emotion is tightly inter wound with experiences, when pursuing knowledge
experiences are key in uncovering information. Experience attaches knowledge
through sentiments and relevance to the knowledge. Therefore when read through
a piece of art such as literature we are able to experience the emotions of the
author allowing knowledge connections to be created. On the other hand looking
at a painting from a logical view would not yield any knowledge. But with the
aid of emotion you are able to look deeper into to significance of the painting
allowing knowledge to be gleaned. Therefore emotion provides a reliable to
reason when discovering knowledge.
In
order for the international bachelorette to pursue and expand the course theory
of knowledge course they must address the faults in the ways of knowing. In the
future the course will fully benefit as an increased knowledge of how the ways
of knowing are limited when placed in individual situations. But depending on
the perspective of a person the limitations of each way of knowing can be seen
in a different fashion. The perspective of a person lacking emotions could
possibly have a different perspective of the way knowledge is attained through
experiences.
To
conclude a hammer has its limitations as it cannot hammer a screw but a hammer
can solve issues that pertain to its style such as nails. In other words the
ways of knowing, as individuals cannot solve certain issues that pertain to
them as they are unreliable in certain situations. Therefore as individuals the
ways of knowing are unreliable but together they provide a platform for the
gleaning of knowledge. But the IB believe that the four ways of knowing are
quite unreliable in attaining knowledge which has brought four new ways of
knowing into the course. Overall it seems that a entire toolshed is needed to
solve an issue as it could have the attributes of a screw and nails causing for
a need of multiple tools.
EXAMPLE TWO
We acquire new
knowledge everyday, whether we are aware of it or not, but how do we know
whether we are getting the knowledge in its entirety, or whether it is limited
through the ways of knowing. This quote implies that we solve problems the way
that we have solved them before and we tend to disregard that there are other
equally effective ways of solving the problem. Take the example of a plastic surgeon;
the quote implies that the surgeon will notice the imperfections of others more
so than someone with a different profession. The question that comes to mind
when reading this prescribed title is ‘in what ways do the ways of knowing
limit our understanding in the pursuit of knowledge?’
Maslow’s quote
suggests that in TOK, we can look at the ways of knowing as a hammer and then everything
else falls into place. Lets take the example of emotion as a way of knowing and
think of it like the hammer in Maslow’s quote. What Maslow is saying is that
any problem that arises in an everyday situation can be solved by looking at it
through the use of your emotions. After reading an online article about how emotion is the drive for us to think and do what we do, I was almost
convinced that Maslow’s quote is accurate and that all problems are solved by one
tool: emotion. There is a well-known saying of ‘go with your gut instinct’ and it
is our emotion that allows us to feel in that particular way. For example if
you are buying a new car and a pushy sales person meets you, your immediate gut
instinct may be to distance yourself from that person as much as possible. In
this case we see how by using the tool of a hammer: our emotion, we are able to
solve the problem of the nail: the pushy sales person in order to protect
ourselves from making a bad decision.
However it then
occurred to me that this is not fully the case, what about reason? More often
than not, reason runs parallel with your emotions. You can’t only use your
emotions because your emotions are a result of your reason, or vice versa that
your reason is a result of your emotion. *Insert
example* This leads to the idea that, taking Maslow’s quote into
consideration, reason then becomes a screwdriver and isn’t able to help you
solve the problem which is symbolised by a nail. Here we see the dilemma that
is presented in the quote: why is it necessary to only use on way of knowing in
the pursuit of knowledge when two ‘tools’ are used to come up with the
solution? Effectively, the idea is that the ways of knowing are somewhat limiting
us in the pursuit of knowledge in terms of the amount and type of that we can
gain.
Thinking of this quote in a real life terms this
quote could potentially become dangerous. Using the human sciences as an area
of knowledge, the idea of the police force being the tool could soon become the
hammer for which people will become the nails and the way that everyday
problems such as crime are dealt with is by using the power of the hammer: in
this case the police, to solve the situation in the way that they know. The
consequences of this type of attitude are definitely quite shocking. In 2012 a
6-year old was handcuffed at school when she became ‘restless’ and ‘unruly'.
Here it is obvious that even though the girl was just a child, police used
their hammer to solve the problem.
With the idea that
using only certain ways of knowing in the pursuit of knowledge in mind, we can
consider the newly added ways of knowing into the new curriculum in TOK. It is
clear that the IB has seen a gap in the TOK ways of knowing and have identified
that they have possibly limited the knowledge that students studying the
present curriculum could obtain. By adding faith, memory, imagination and
intuition, there are whole new ways of pursuing knowledge. A popular discussion
topic amongst people who are studying the current TOK curriculum is the idea of
faith being a way of knowing. Although now faith has been added, there are some
controversies that could arise as a result. Yes, faith allows people to gain
new knowledge and to look at ideas from new perspectives however; there are
many different ways that faith could be interpreted due to the fact that there
are many different faiths in the world from Christians to Muslims to Atheists.
How is one able to pursuit knowledge confidently in the form of the hammer as
faith when ultimately, there are several varieties of the way of knowing in
itself?
Example THREE
With the hammer of
education becoming increasingly unvarying from school to school and even from
nation to nation through the use of state dictated syllabuses as well as school
attendance being compulsory in almost all countries. The sentiment “I prefer the company of
peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly” put forward by the French
Renaissance writer Michel de Montaigne becomes less and less relevant. But the latter remark
implying that the education system teaches children to “reason incorrectly” is far more applicable today. I especially think this
can be seen with the ways in which education is assessed as in my own personal
education attending both a state funded school in the United Kingdom and a fee
paying international school in Germany I have seen the system of education fail
a large number of my fellow students whilst limiting the future prospects of
others by assessing their intelligence based on certain paradigms. As such I
have extracted the knowledge issue “How do we asses knowledge?”
To understand the
ways in which most modern education systems asses knowledge unilaterally it’s fundamental to understand
the intellectual and economic climate which it was established. The public
education system was principally established in the late 18th and early 19th
centuries as this was the first time in which education funded by the state was
made available to almost all. Such innovations occurred during the intellectual
climate of the enlightenment and during the economic circumstances of the
industrial revolution/ Firstly the enlightenment view of intelligence focusses
on the ascendancy of a knowledge of the classics and the ability to deductively
reason in a certain way. Due to such a perspective it’s not surprising that this view of intelligence
classified people essentially into two categories, academic and non-academic
and as such marginalised those who didn’t correspond to these small paradigms. The economic
climate had an equally heavy impact upon the methods of which such “values” are taught due to it’s modelling on the interests as well as for the
benefit of industrialisation. This can be seen repeatedly in our current school
systems modelling upon many aspects of the factory environment for example its
organisation using ringing bells, the primary divider of children being age
which is somewhat along the line of batches, the division of subjects ll taught
separately with little overlap and standardised testing for each “batch” of children as some sort of quality control. Such
models limits the individuality of each student within such a system with each
school always attempting to improve their average grades and ultimately score
higher on the countries league tables making them a more attractive option for
future students. As such the creativity of each individual student is
marginalised in place of a teaching focussed on achieving high grades on
externally marked exams.
One of the most
striking examples of this stifling of creativity through education is a case
study in the book Break Point and Beyond named “the paper clip test” were a sample of
children are asked every year of their education “how many uses can you think of
for a paper clip?” To briefly outline
the findings, as children progressed through the schooling system the number of
uses they could find decreased exponentially. Displaying how education replaces
natural divergent thinking with the ways of reasoning held dear by the
enlightenment scholars of the early 19th century.
The teaching of the
Arts perhaps best outlines the limitations of assessing knowledge along the
certain paradigms of education enshrined in it’s constitution. It’s generality agreed upon that art primarily uses
emotion and imagination in both it’s creation and interpretation both of which contradict
the reason heavy enlightenment view of knowledge. As such the assessing of the
Arts could be seen as the focal point of the collision of these three Ways of
Knowing as according to the aims of education it must be assessed. But to asses
the very subjective nature of imagination and emotion through what should be
the equal judging of every piece of art becomes more difficult. As such art
could be seen’s as a
manifestation of the problems of assessing knowledge using the paradigms of education.
Often the argument is put forward that by
teaching the same information to every school the society as a whole will be
able to have a shared understanding of what is and isn’t knowledge. The major problem with such an ethos is that for
society to have a “agreed” knowledge certain individual beliefs must be sidelined. As such the
question arises as to how the knowledge that will be taught is assessed. For
example if we look at the recent “gay
propaganda laws” passed in Russia
which essentially means that information about “non-traditional” relationships cannot
be given to minors. Such a situation shows a clash between ethics and religion
as ways of knowing as the law is said to be passed in order to not offend
devout religious believers within Russia.
As such the views of one group have been assessed to be correct despite
massive opposition from other groups within the society.
One of the biggest
challenges to these archaic systems of education is the rise of the personal
computer in the past twenty or so years which undermines the primary
justification for education: “that
such teaching is necessary for an individual to be able to cope with the adult
world.” However now an
individual can answer crucial questions like “what are the primary determinants of photosynthesis?” by simply logging onto a
computer and googling it. As such it’s not surprising that in recent years their has been
an increase in children not seeing the point in education. The increasing
commonness of this sentiment is regarded by Sir Ken Robinson to be evidenced by
our recent “fictional ADHD
epidemic”. Which he regards
to be of no surprise due to our everyday bombardment of information presented
to us in the form of computers and many hundreds of TV stations. As such the “boring” information taught in schools through methods of
memorisation are becoming less and less valued by the generations entering the
schooling system. As such the previously methods of assessing knowledge are
becoming increasingly irrelevant. As opposed to the English education minister
Michael Gove calling for a reversion back to the more traditionalist methods of
teaching arguing that “
tough punishment is just as important as praise”. I would agree with Sir Ken Robinson that such an
interest in the gathering of knowledge should be harnessed rather than feared
and that the assessing of knowledge should evolve to meet the current realities
of society and not simply judge every subject with the same “hammer” of standardised testing.
In conclusion, it
seems definite that the education systems of many countries could be considered
to be a “hammer” as they use certain frames of
reasoning in order to asses as to what should be taught and how this should be
done so. As such knowledge is assessed according to the reasoning of a
relatively autonomous class. On the other hand the participants of the
education system could definitely be referred to as “nails”
as through the use of standardised testing, teaching methods and nationwide
syllabi they are all assessed the same way according to a certain
interpretation of what knowledge is. However, in order to asses knowledge it’s inherent that certain
interpretations of what is and isn’t knowledge to be applied. As such the question must
be raised: “is it possible to
asses knowledge at all?”
and therefore if the answer is no as if knowledge is to be assessed a framework
has to be established as to what is and isn’t knowledge. Due to the individuality of the ways of
knowing such a universal framework would be impossible to establish.
Example Four
The statement by Abraham Maslow, “when the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems begin to resemble nails,” provokes many questions about the TOK syllabus itself. Therefore, this essay will first look to assess the methodology TOK uses to come to conclusions about knowledge – categorisation - and the effects of this. This will lead into a discussion as to if this framework is actually viable – if it is possible to use just one way of knowing, and what negative impacts attempting this can have. Specifically, the essay will look at a variety of both ways and areas of knowledge, as the question addresses the TOK syllabus as a whole, from the natural sciences, to the arts, mathematics and ethics, and consider reason, emotion, sense perception and language to reach a conclusion.
To examine this question, this essay
will first look at the ways of knowing, as they exist as tools. Tools are very
individual, separate objects, and TOK, as I have been taught it, treats the
ways of knowing similarly. This system is called classification, which groups
things to develop a working understanding of the world. However, as a system,
classification is flawed, due its nature of simplification to create meaning. A
recent example is a few strange fossils found in China, dating between 635 and
580 million years ago. Three of them are “difficult to classify as animal or
plant” – Shuhai Xiao, a professor of geobiology states that he does not think
researchers know what category they fit into.
The bulbous structure could be interpreted as a holdfast, which seaweed
use as an anchor (so the organism would be a plant) – or the feeding structure
could make it a proboscis (an animal).[1]
Therefore, for one who was told these fossils were in the Animal Kingdom, one
would logically assume the organism therefore held the features of an animal.
This would result in knowledge being lost in relation to its plant-like features.
This represents a broader concept. Reason is not the only place categories are
used: language is another example of where issues may arise. In English, we are
currently reading the works of Sylvia Plath. At the start we were told that she was
clinically depressed, and committed suicide. For me, the connotation of these
words immediately set up the preconception that her works would be based around
depression and emotions that accompany this. In analysing her works, I based
all of attempts at comprehending them on the notion that they would in some way
relate to her depression. It was only through deep reflection that I realised I
was missing some of the more positive themes of her poems that, for example,
reflected on the beauty of motherhood and life like the poem “Balloons”.[2] It
was through my inherent connotations of a word that I had created a category to
place all her work in – something which humans do to make life easier and more
understandable, but something which can certainly limit our knowledge.
Despite these flaws, it must be
recognised that categorisation holds significant merits that are immensely
valuable to our society. Take for
example food groups, which are very helpful in guiding healthier diets, or
grade boundaries in the IB, which are supposed to convey to students how
successful they are in their studies, and convey to universities what calibre
of student they are considering. Almost everything in our lives seems to be
categorised – emotions, seasons, mattress types, what constitutes a planet,
genres of books… Therefore human life as it exists for us would not be the same
without classification – the paradigms we operate in are guided by these
categories and create a common understanding between people.
Now that classification as a system
has been explored, I will attempt to use it to understand the implications of
the question. The TOK syllabus is centred around classifications – the ways of
knowing, and the areas of knowing. These are taught to the students, who are
supposed to use these categories to understand how and why we know what we
know, and problems that arise with the concept of ‘knowing’. This leads me to a
knowledge issue - do the ways of knowing employed by the TOK syllabus help or
hinder in our understanding of knowledge? The issue is that the ways of knowing
are used in TOK as a hammer, and that we do tend to attempt to make everything
into a nail. Frequently, we have been asked to ‘look at this through the way of
knowing emotion’. Although the syllabus does not call for them to be addressed
separately, saying that students should know that “ways of knowing should not
be viewed in isolation. They interact in various ways,”[3]
categories always lead to certain assumptions. The assumption the TOK syllabus
makes is that knowing can be divided into different ways we can get to it. However,
as TOKs methodology for students to understand its content is categorisation,
the issues mentioned to do with categorisation become relevant to TOK. As
students have assumptions about categories – they classify separate and different
things – there is the possibility (that I have observed in many of my classes)
for students misunderstand and to use the ways of knowing in isolation. The
issue this causes can be shown by the fact that (I do not think) there is a
single example of something which can be known through just one WOK. The
closest I got was reason in mathematics. For my IA in mathematics, I used the
online site ‘WolframAlpha,”[4]
asking it to perform a calculation for me. In theory, this would use only
reason – it processed my question using a series of inbuilt formulas to produce
an answer, and did so without showing me what it was doing (so there was no
sense perception involved). However, to process this, the site needed to be
able to interpret the symbols I was putting in: in other words it had to
understand the mathematical language.
Therefore, even this was using reason and
language together.
This poses a problem to the
categorisation TOK employs. If no situation exists that uses just one way of
knowing, how can these divisions be made? The nature of categories is that they
provide separate divisions – as this is not the case with TOK, this can lead to
false assumptions about the nature of the ways of knowing. Through trying to
assess a problem using just one ‘hammer’, situations could be very easily misconstrued,
leading to popular misconceptions such as ‘art is about emotion’ and ‘the
natural sciences only use reason’. Noted sexual predator Lorne Armstrong, founder of the so-called Church of Cawd, argues that these generalisations lead, not to a greater
understanding of knowledge, but instead to false conceptions. The ways of knowing
do not exist as separate entities – they exist more as many different tools of
one toolbox, where if the carpenter insists on using just one hammer, he will
struggle to create something functional. The issue is that those learning the
syllabus use what they know of categories (a system of grouping different things) and assume this is the
case for the ways of knowing.
To counter this argument, it can be
argued that the classifications TOK employs retain great value, and that it is
important sometimes to not use ways of knowing all together, but to separate
them. Such is the case with D.W. Griffith’s film The Birth of a Nation.[5]
The film itself was a masterpiece – it was created on a scale previously
unknown to cinema, and introduced many new shots and techniques to the
cinematic world, which are still used today. However, its subject matter is
about how Ku Klux Klan saved the South after the civil war. This created huge protests over racism. In
this example, it is vital to view the film through two separate lenses – sense
perception and the language of film as they apply to the Arts should be
employed to recognise the cinematic technique, however, reason and emotion
about the subject matter should be used separately to acknowledge its
inappropriateness in ethics. Without this separation, the fact that it is
beautiful cinematically could prevent people from acknowledging its blatant
racism, and vice versa. It is in situations like these where knowledge may have
been lost to me if TOK had not taught me to approach things through separate
categories and ways of considering things.
Therefore, what has been determined
is that the ways of knowing can be limiting in approaching a search for
knowledge. As the TOK syllabus separates ways of knowing into categories, the
assumptions students make about this can lead to them trying to apply just one
way of knowing to a situation that calls for many. In TOK, when we are given
‘ways of knowing’, our hammer, we try and nail all situations down through this
basic model, which, instead of getting students to consider a broader
understanding of what knowledge is, ends up limiting their understanding of the
importance of ways of knowing working together. Despite this, ways of knowing
as individual hammers retain importance. They may be limiting, but they do
represent a framework, which is vital to understanding our approaches to
problems, and the reasons why we make decisions, similar to categorisation. And
so although it is ironic that the subject that encourages us to see the
problems with how we gain knowledge, such as through classification, suffers
from the same issues, it is also heartening that questions such as this one have
allowed me to recognise this, and therein lies the importance of TOK.
Words – 1580
Works Cited
"Experimental
Feature." Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine.
WolframAlpha, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. .
Parry, Wynne.
"Plant or Animal? Mysterious Fossils Defy Classification." LiveScience.
TechMedia Network, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.
.
Plath, Sylvia,
and Ted Hughes. The Collected Poems. New York: Harper & Row, 1981.
Print.
The
Birth of a Nation. Dir. D. W. Griffith.
Perf. Lilian Gish, Mae Marsh and Henry B. Walthall. Epoch Producing
Corporation, 1915. DVD.
"Ways of
Knowing." Theory of Knowledge Guide. International Baccalaureate,
n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. .
[1] Parry, Wynne.
"Plant or Animal? Mysterious Fossils Defy Classification." LiveScience.
TechMedia Network, 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. .
[2] Plath, Sylvia, and Ted Hughes. The Collected Poems. New York:
Harper & Row, 1981. Print.
[3] "Ways of
Knowing." Theory of Knowledge Guide. International Baccalaureate,
n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.
.
[4] "Experimental
Feature." Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Knowledge Engine.
WolframAlpha, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. .
[5] The Birth of a Nation. Dir. D. W. Griffith. Perf. Lilian Gish, Mae Marsh and Henry B.
Walthall. Epoch Producing Corporation, 1915. DVD.
EXAMPLE FIVE
Being a student in a private school, in which a
well-respected teaching programme known as the International Baccalaureate I
have a strong personal ethical dilemma with answering this question. The tool
that seems to be given to me by and throughout the IB is the IB learner
profile, in which the ways of knowing are integrated. I am supposed to be a
“communicator” using language, my emotions are supposed to be
“balanced” and “caring”, I should be a “reflective” “thinker” using my reasoning,
as well as a “risk taker” using my sense perception. These and five
further ideas make up the IB learner profile, but it is the way that they are
written and interpreted that does not encourage a student to pursue knowledge. It
is a profile which I personally believe is great; if it were adapted to
different societies adequately. All of the attributes of this profile seem to
me as ways of knowing, yet they are presented in such a broad language that it
appears almost meaningless.
The IB tells us to be “risk takers”, but we are told
not to do this in our final exam, as we need to achieve the highest amounts of
points potentially possible, in order for our teachers to keep their jobs and
to keep an elite reputation of our school. That means that the tool that they
are working with is not knowledge, but it is a syllabus. How does a number
which we’ve achieved show that I have received key concepts and ideas for my
life? The IB learner profile consists of 10 points, just like the Bible
(consisting of 10 commandments), yet none nearly touches on any aspect relating
to family or religion. This is why I, just like a lot of American schools, have
a problem with this profile, as it reflects no sort of belief. The school
presents itself as a community, but when walking through the corridor, the
principal of the school does not know my name! That clearly does not represent
the idea of a “caring”, “principled” “communicator” recognizing his “common
humanity and shared guardianship of the planet”. We should be shown an example,
and not someone who is text messaging during a school assembly, while our
phones get confiscated if they are even perceived. We are encouraged to be
communicators, yet the tools the examiners use (being mark schemes) tell them
that different voices and perspectives than our own should be interpreted to
show that we are educated and literary. What is our own voice then? The only
way to prove that we are open-minded cannot be to discard our own voice, and
argue things that we are personally not even convinced of.
In three months I am facing a month of exams, in which
I am supposed to present the “knowledge” which I have gained and pursued
throughout the last twelve years of my life. Yet it seems like the two year
program of the IB is more of a series of “hoops” which I need to jump through
successfully. To jump through these hoops, I have the chance to live in a
completely free, extremely modern country, equipped with a smart-phone and a
laptop, while we are being graded with the same eye as a student in China or
Islam writing this essay; a student which might be limited due to his or her
sex, a student which might be limited due to his or her financial matters, or a
student which might be limited by an oppressive, censoring, political power. We
are all being regarded the same way using the same tool: the mark scheme and
statistics which determine its borders. This clearly doesn’t reflect the human
element and area of knowledge of ethics which is a significant component of the
IB learner profile. We are given a month, for which we memorize six syllabi,
which we need to repeat as efficiently as possible, using a word choice that
will please the marker. How can this be seen as knowledge and how can we be
seen as IB learners if the thing we look forward to most, is burning the notes
we developed our “knowledge” with?
My experience is limited to the schools I’ve visited.
It is therefore limited to mainly being in contact with people whose only tools
are not the ways of knowing or the IB learner profile, but also electronic
devices. This is also an aspect which is completely ignored by the examiner,
but when the only tools we would have were to be our electronic devices, how
would this affect our ways of knowing? In my environment, central and western
Europe, it seems like humanity is being removed for electronics. What affect is
this going to have on our ways of knowing and how is it going to influence our
knowledge? Will coherent (outside information to support an idea)
knowledge or correspondent (which one can see) knowledge become more
significant? Our language is already suffering from it: Facebook has no nuance
or acceptance of sarcasm; Twitter limits its posts to 140 characters in order
for the most worthy, significant, or even dangerous voices to distinguish
themselves from the million others.
My eight year old sister recently received a new iPad
from the public school at which she attends second grade. I have a dilemma with
this as she will suffer from an unhealthy addiction which is clearly a result
of a pointless development of our society. A society which is increasingly
focussing on a “one to one” concept, and therefore completely changing the idea
of knowledge, also giving these young beings a very strong tool, which replaces
the tools we have today. I myself am clearly dependent of my laptop and
electronic devices, yet if so early I would have been exposed to such devices
they would have become my only or main tool. This would have and will strongly
affect the ways of knowing and the IB learner profile, as they will be
developed in a completely different manner – a much less sensual and real manner.
As it is these ways of knowing that enable and force me to pursue my knowledge,
it is these tools that I used to pursue my knowledge about the effects of and
explanations for my sister receiving an iPad.
My reasoning forced me to investigate about the financial
background of this equipment, and to predict their early dependence, and their
future inability to work without such devices. My sense perception forced me to
question how this will affect her language as a tool; how this will affect her
handwriting and physical communication. My sense perception made me inquisitive
about how she is able to use such a device, which barely fits into her hands. How
will the fact of never physically accesses a book, with the smell of paper, and
the weight of a book showing her the meaning and strength which it carries with
itself, affect her knowledge if instead millions of nano-pixels stream into her
eyes, while she is using a monotone movement with her touch to control the
device? The broader question that came up with this concern was the essay that
she might write in ten years: How might Maslow’s quote apply to an iPad as a
tool in the pursuit of knowledge? If the only tool she will ever possess is her
iPad, how will it affect her pursuit of knowledge as opposed to me, being
equipped with my ways of knowing? Plato defined knowledge as “justified true
belief”, if she would only work with an iPad, the only way she would justify
her belief would be through a digital screen and “applications”
Comparing the way a flower is discovered using an iPad
as opposed to ways of knowing, clearly shows that knowledge is pursued in
completely different manners, even though both would be considered knowledge
according to Plato. While she will discover flowers through images which she found
by using a digital keyboard and an automatic finger movement, I will have a
much deeper, complicated knowledge of the plant. But this does not only
influence the acquiring of plants, it goes up to the solving of problems. Her
communicative and argumentative skills will be dependent on “auto-correction”
text and she will not be able to deal with a physical conflict easily without
developed ways of knowing. We can see today the controlling of drones through
devices such as iPads is creating a strong ethical dilemma. It shows how little
value life seems to have become, and how weak we have become as human beings
using our ways of knowing to solve problems. There is no aspect of language,
emotion, or reasoning. Only robot-like touch and visual perception of an
ignorant act are involved.
It is crucial to understand what deeper message Maslow
is trying to convey with his idea. He presents the hammer as the lens through
which one sees the world. This is significant, as any comparison or replacement
to the hammer, must be seen as the perspective through which one interprets or
sees the world, and one is limited by this view. The tool, hammer, or goggle
one uses, limits one in the problems and issues that can potentially be
identified. Maslow seems to support Eliot’s contention that “It is a narrow
mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view”, clearly
defending the idea of our mind – our tool – limiting us in our subjective
interpretation of the world.
