Hey guys, I recently did my TOK presentation and I didn't get a good grade on it hence I would be re-doing it. I've decided to do my TOK presentation about whitewashing/authorities using their power to manipulate knowledge. There are many instances of this which I've learnt in history (eg: Sharpeville Massacre, Amritsar Massacre, manipulation of information in USSR). It made me question if the knowledge gotten from history can be deemed valid/true. Some questions I've come up with include:
1. How much evidence is needed to validate knowledge gained from history?
2. Under what circumstance is the manipulation of shared knowledge by authorities justified?
3. How can the manipulation of shared knowledge by authorities be justified?
4. How much evidence is needed before personal knowledge becomes shared knowledge? (This doesn't really relate to the RLS but is another question I came up with).
Thank you so much!
Turn on thread page Beta
TOK Presentation Help watch
- Thread Starter
- 19-05-2017 04:00
- 29-05-2017 03:19
hello! i would definitely, for the TOK presentation, give a lot of thought as to the structure and flow of your presentation: make sure your ideas follow one another, and make it easy to your teacher to identify the separate rubric characteristics in your presentation (give the criteria a good look and use that to formulate your presentation). following the rubric i found here (https://ibpublishing.ibo.org/exist/r...rt=3&chapter=4), i would (and did) start with a description of the real-life situation that brought these questions to mind (your history class + any of the specific incidents you mentioned would work perfectly), to then present your question as a logical follow-through. i cannot stress how important explicit, organised structure is when you're reasoning through anything.
then, make your way through separate perspectives on the question, or (what i did), different implications and sub-questions posed by it (whether or not this works depends on your teacher, i suppose). back everything you say or every question you pose up by an example, whether it's a historical case or a common line of reasoning. i also applied some of the things we saw in class (for example, the Mercator projection) to my specific question, which earned me a few points. this worked for me, and i can't be sure about your teacher, but i made sure to highlight any secondary questions posed... one of the main points of TOK is probably just thinking reaaaal hard about things you take for granted; analyse everything you are stating: are there any assumptions, any biases, any false reasoning behind them? is there more than one 'true' answer? if you can think of any, bring them up! churn through every possible ramification of your question! be thorough!
also, this might be a personal thing, but i usually prefer to stay away from questions that imply you taking a moral stance, because any hardline/universal position you take on morality should be justified, and then you spend a large chunk of your presentation explaining why what you think is right is right (and that's a whole lot of justifying to do). if it were me, i would most likely pick the first question (or something along those lines), but in the end, you should pick a question you are interested in and think you can reasonably and thoroughly cover in the period of time allotted. pick something you're comfortable with, something you believe you've thought through.
good luck (and let me know if you need any more help, i'll try my best!)