Essay Title 6: Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

In this blog I will be examining how to meet the requirements of the sixth and final Theory of Knowledge Essay in the May 2024 series: Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.

Recent evidence is an idea here that of the newest or most recently produced knowledge in a field. In this essay it asks you to think from the perspective of the natural sciences and the most accessible way to consider this is to explore the idea that the newest evidence on a topic produced in a lab is better or supersedes all other evidence that has been presented before it. The question then asks us: Are we too quick to accept this newest knowledge? 

In any good TOK essay there are a number of prerequisites that are important to ensure you have a good basis to your answer. We will look at these with particular reference to this question and consider some ideas and real life situations that you can use to ensure you are maximising your marks from this task. You should use the structure below to shape your essay. Remember the essay is limited to 1600 words so make sure that you use your allocation wisely. There are 8 paragraphs listed below meaning you should write around 200 words for each one. 

The key thing about the TOK essay is that you need to make sure every part of it contributes towards answering the question, whether it is through an example or with direct reference to the question itself. This will give your essay focus and keep you on track. 

You should follow these steps to give your essay the required structure: 

Introduction: Unpack the title and state your opinion on the question. Initially what are your thoughts? 

In your introduction it is essential that you demonstrate that you understand the key terms in the essay and that you outline your answer to the question in the title. This doesn’t mean that you write out a series of key terms and definitions, you should use them in sentences effectively to show your understanding. The discussion of the key terms in this essay in a TOK context are below: 

Key Terms: 

Recent: In the context of this essay this can be interpreted as the newest or the latest knowledge that is produced. As mentioned above you need to explore this idea in the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge. Depending on which second area of knowledge that you use it will be good practice to establish what is accepted as recent knowledge and why. 

Evidence: Essentially this is information or knowledge that is presented to prove that something is true. In this essay you must discuss the idea that the newest evidence is the most relevant and most useful in the field. Is this always the case? Have there ever been any examples of academics reverting to older evidence as they believe it to be more useful than the newer evidence that has been presented? This could be explored in History. 

Too quick: This term is important in this essay and should be considered carefully. It is helping us to understand that you will need to consider the methodologies behind gathering data in the areas of knowledge that you choose and the processes that lead to their acceptance. In the natural sciences there are a lot of restrictions and regulations in place to ensure that the production of knowledge is consistent. If this process is carried out too quickly this will lead to problems and may invalidate the most recent evidence. 

Body paragraph 1: Claim 1 linked to Natural Sciences

Recent evidence is accepted too quickly in the Natural Sciences. 

The most relevant example to us here that we can all relate to is the generation and acceptance of knowledge regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. To explore this carefully and accurately it is important that you focus on whether the acceptance was too quick. Consider the impact of the side effects of the vaccines on some people as opposed to the necessity to roll out the vaccines as quickly as possible. The side effects may demonstrate that the acceptance was too quick and the lives that were saved as a result of the vaccines suggest it was not. You will need to back up both of these arguments with clear facts and data, perhaps through news articles. 

Body paragraph 2: Counterclaim 1 linked to Natural Sciences. 

The most recent evidence is not accepted too quickly in the Natural Sciences. 

The idea of peer review and the process from theory to everyday use is perhaps the most accessible here for you to discuss. In the majority of cases the average time for medical knowledge and theory to be accepted is approximately 17 years. This in turn illustrates the contrast between the timelines for COVID 19 vaccines and other processes. Here you should research and find an example that will demonstrate that evidence has not been accepted quickly enough and enable you to argue that knowledge is not accepted too quickly in the Natural Sciences. 

Body paragraph 3: Implications on the Natural Sciences. 

The production of new knowledge in the Natural Sciences is highly regulated. There are a number of reasons for this including concepts such as consistency, replicability and the ability to verify results through controlling the conditions under which the knowledge was created. If these processes are no longer followed and knowledge is accepted too quickly this will mean that the production of knowledge is left vulnerable to irregularity and inconsistency in the natural sciences, enabling flaws to creep in. 

Key thinkers in the Natural Sciences who can support your ideas: Copernicus (new theories), Edison (collaboration), Pasteur (new breakthroughs and acceptance)

IF YOU DO USE HISTORY FOR THIS NEXT AOK ENSURE THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING HOW KNOWLEDGE IS GATHERED IN HISTORY, NOT JUST THE FACTS THEMSELVES.  

Body paragraph 4: Claim 2 linked to History 

The most recent evidence in History is accepted too quickly. 

The key to exploring this area of knowledge is the difference between how quickly those who study History in academia accept new evidence and those in the general public accept the new ideas. You could claim here that the general public are easily persuaded by new evidence that they see either online or on the television, changing their minds quickly and easily to give them their interpretation of a past event. The idea of fake news and technology can be used here. A recent historical event you could examine would be 9/11 and the different interpretations of the events as new evidence is presented. 

Body paragraph 5: Counterclaim 2 linked to History 

The most recent evidence in History is not accepted too quickly. 

Those people that study History using the historical method should be the first to acknowledge that their evidence, even if it is the newest, may one day be proved to be false or be contradicted by additional evidence in the future. The idea that History is always changing is one that is accepted widely in the field here. There are many examples you could use to demonstrate how new historical evidence has changed what is believed to be true about an event. This idea is known as revisionism and is particularly relevant to this essay. An example here could be the study of Tudor England. New evidence regarding the reign of Henry 8th has been presented overtime giving people a different understanding of the events and evolving interpretations of what happened. Are we always too quick to accept the newest evidence or are professional historians more measured in their approach? 

Body paragraph 6: Implications on History 

Accepting new evidence too quickly in History can have varying levels of impact. For example if new evidence presented in the COVID enquiry in the UK (December 2023) was accepted too quickly as new knowledge then it could have a significant effect on the next general election. It is important to assess the validity of the way this knowledge is being gathered. 

Alternatively what impact will it have to accept new knowledge about Tudor England very quickly? Who and what will be affected? It is up to you to make a judgement in your conclusion. 

Key thinkers in History who can support your ideas: EH Carr, Hugh Trevor Roper, AJP Taylor

Overall conclusion: summarise your main perspectives and explain how your findings have implications on the real world and overall areas of knowledge you have chosen. So you must now decide whether we accept the most recent evidence too quickly in your two areas of knowledge. You could argue that in some areas of knowledge that we do whereas in others we do not. It is important that you answer the question carefully here. Are we too quick? 

Final Thoughts: 

The highest scoring essays in TOK do the following: 

• They are insightful, convincing, accomplished and lucid (from the markscheme). 
• They demonstrate how TOK appears in the real world by using real world examples. 
• They are supported by academic thinkers. 
• They answer the question accurately. 

Thank you for reading. That is the last blog of the series, I hope you enjoyed reading them as much as I did writing them. 

Good luck with your essay!