TOK Philosophical Dialogue Reflection by

Your KQ Goes Here (Name will appear automatically)

schestnut1 — 2024-09-17 18:01:41 UTC

The body of your reflection goes here.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 18:05:29 UTC

Looking over the PQPs I can say that my examples were one of my strong suits. Including pop culture references helped to engage my audience. However, most of the dialogue only pertained to the field of science, so more branching out is needed. The characters were a bit too similar and stuffy in how they conversed. I know more about how to argue opposing points of view due to this assignment. Highlighted elements of the assessment tool include insightful, relevant, and organized. In order to grow I will try to include more contrast in my writings, so that a variety of unique points of view can be seen. I give myself an 8 on this assignment because the perspectives I considered were fairly similar and should be more varied.

Why are there so many challenges with taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context?

2024-09-17 18:06:10 UTC

One of my strengths for this philosophical dialogue was my examples I used within the dialogue which were mostly specific instead of sticking broadly with more general examples; one of my weaknesses was my ability to transition between each of my points. After completing this philosophical dialogue, I better understand how dialogues should be formatted, as well as how to strategically place guiding questions throughout the essay to continue pushing through the discussion and bring in different topics/points of discussion. Some elements of the TOK essay assessment tool that are highlighted for me is linking the discussion to several different areas of knowledge because I mainly stuck with one or two areas of knowledge instead of branching out to further areas of knowledge. Another element that is highlighted for me is the different points of view that are required because I think I highlighted multiple different perspectives in my discussion. I will continue to work on including more areas of knowledge to provide a more diverse range of perspectives as sell as the transition between those points to make the dialogue flow smoother. I give myself a 7 because my discussion is pretty focused on the main title while still linking to a variety of 2 different areas of knowledge. Similarly, I had cohesive arguments with good inclusion of multiple perspectives.

Do we underestimate the challenge of taking knowledge out of its original concept and transferring it to another context?

2024-09-17 18:11:10 UTC

When reviewing my philosophical dialogue, I found the most common feedback from myself and others was that it was strong in verbiage, yet weak in specific examples. Though there are ways my dialogue could improve, the practice of getting back into Theory of Knowledge based thinking will be immensely helpful to the writing of our extended essay. I know now through the process of writing and reviewing my dialogue that I need to work on my cohesion of TOK verbiage with conversational verbiage after the review of my PQPs. This outside opinion helps me better obtain a realistic view of what an IB grader might also be thinking. While my peer’s interpretations are not at the same professionality as an IB grader, I can apply both their feedback and the expectations found in the IB rubric to gain a broader understanding of my interpretation of my knowledge question. From the IB rubric, I gave myself a 6 due to my many knowledge questions and applications embedded into my dialogue, along with the greater understanding of the Theory of Knowledge course goals and vocabulary I incorporated into my writing.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas so why are areas of knowledge so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 18:12:32 UTC

I think my strengths are that I incorporate both past and present examples and have balanced discussion and good analysis. I think my biggest weaknesses are talking fast and not loud enough and working on structure. I have learned as a result of this paper how to flesh out ideas using a dialog to further represent different points of views. The elements regarding arguments with supported examples and different points of view are highlighted. I will improve my overall structure and my presentation. I gave myself a 5 because based on the feedback I received it appeared that most people thought I had balanced ideas and clear argument with good evidence and good incorporation of different points of view and I observed that as well.

Is subjectivity overly celebrated in the arts but unfairly condemned in history? Discuss with reference to the arts and history.

2024-09-17 18:12:52 UTC

On the Philosophical dialogue activity in TOK, I felt like I did a good job of adapting local examples to better support my overarching claims I made for my argument. I felt like I struggled to try to flow this into a specific conversation as I am so familiar with writing in an essay-like format. I felt like I had an imbalance of character dialogue that somewhat threw off the dialogue format of the paper. Furthermore, this furthered my understanding of how TOK manifests itself in the world around us; I feel like the concepts further show to me that the concepts are everywhere in that finding examples were not particularly hard to me. With the assessment tool, I feel like this project emphasized the idea of relating examples to an argument, a key factor in succeeding within the TOK essay as one must explain how TOK manifests itself in the world as a whole. I will work to grow on flowing my essay better into answering the question, I felt like I chunked mine out into examples and feel like I should add flow to better argue my points and connect back to the thesis. On the rubric I think I got roughly a 6. I believe this due to my relation to the examples and making real world links, yet I felt like I could’ve better argued and integrated my question to offer more perspectives.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 18:13:10 UTC

When writing this dialogue, I didn't know what to expect. I gained knowledge on how to write a philosophical dialogue but it was a long journey. In the beginning, I was struggling on choosing the topic I wanted to write about. On the second day of individual work-time, I ended up picking a KQ but had failed ideas on what to talk about. When I began to talk to my peers, they threw out some great ideas and that helped me along the way. Another difficult task was to reach the minimum word count of 1200 words. Right when I thought I was about finished, I checked the word count and was under word count. A strength that I experienced was choosing the different areas of knowledge to talk about. I liked my inclusion of using the references and theories. I will work on inputting questions to make it cohesive and flow with the dialogue. Throughout these obstacles, I managed to complete my first philosophical dialogue in a timely manner and complete the objectives required. I rate myself a 6/10 for this assignment because I could have included a better flow and advanced vocab to tie my KQ.

Do we tend to be too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

2024-09-17 18:14:24 UTC

My strengths pertaining to this assignment are my interest in the topic (allowing me to speak about it), communication skills (which allow me to create a dialogue in my head), and the small amount of knowledge i have in the sciences. My weaknesses are my ability to incorporate TOK specific details and verbage. As a result of this practice I know more about the system with which we evaluate the reliability of knowledge, along with more details on the sciences. The discussion and argumentative elements of the essay are highlighted for me within this practice, and I will work on cohesively incorporating more TOK verbage and topics into my work.. Overall, I would give myself a 7: I had a good link to the sciences, a detailed discussion about the topics, and a good evaluation of both sides. One of my biggest missing factors was incorporating TOK ideas into the dialoge, costing me points.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 18:14:32 UTC

My dialogue was strong in the number of examples present and their relevance to the question at hand. However, the dialogue tended to switch up quickly between arguments and not give ample time to explore each of these examples. The dialogue also tended to be short bursts of argument and then the character would cave quickly to the other, instead of defending their position in a more natural way. I now know more about how to write this natural dialogue and how to express a sense of push-back from characters as their ideas are challenged. I tended to discuss perspective and responsibility in my dialogue, even though I never actually used the word responsibility. I will work on going deeper into my dialogue and giving each example enough time to be fully explored. I gave myself a score of 5 due to the fact that I addressed each example, but did not provide a thorough enough explanation.

Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context?

2024-09-17 18:15:44 UTC

My most significant strength was likely my use of extension questions to explore the topic extensively. However, I do gloss over some details and discuss some examples too swiftly without further elaboration before moving on; I also tend to discuss a concept first broadly before referring to an example, which may result in some divergence from specific example-based discussion. I do know that the concept of using specific examples and discussing them in detail has transferred over from the TOK exhibit. It also made me familiar with the trickiness that is understanding, defining, and using verbiage (such as “transfer”) to be relevant. The most significant element of the TOK essay assessment tool to me is the necessity to support arguments with examples, especially by discussing them in more detail. Thus, I will work on stretching my understanding of the specific contexts I use as evidence to use them to their fullest potential in answering the knowledge question. Because I do make several arguments within my discussion as responses for my extension questions and consider caveats and different points of view within the essay, but I also should further support my arguments with my evidence, I gave myself a 6 with the TOK essay assessment tool, deeming it competent, somewhat underdeveloped, relevant, and analytical.

Nothing is more exiting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 18:21:37 UTC

For this dialogue, I feel that I had a good grasp of the basic ideas and nuances around my examples and topic. However, I believe that I could have done more in exploring those nuances like ethics and revolutionary ideas contrasting with simple ideas. I also could have incorporated more examples that would have allowed me to explore different ideas that relate to the prompt. As a result of this practice, I learned more about how to write a dialogue between two people. This is an activity that I have rarely done in my academic career. Due to my being able to listen to how others created their dialogues, I learned more about the amount and complexity of ideas that could fit in around 1600 words while still feeling thoughtful. I feel that my dialogue fits with the word of being “satisfactory.” It does do some analysis on how knowledge exists in the world but I could have done more. I will mostly work on having a deeper understanding of my examples while also including more examples that allow me to explore different ideas of the prompt. In total, I would give myself a six due to the reasons already stated. I believe that I could have done more in analyzing more AOK and examples about the prompt. I focused too much on religion when I could have explored more.

Why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 19:14:48 UTC

There were many strengths and weaknesses that were portrayed in my philosophical that determined the points where I was most confident and which I did not have enough evidence to justify. Specifically, when shifting from one point to another did not flow as easily, I just jumped into one another without going deeper in and relating it clearly back to my knowledge question. I am however confident in giving context and laying out the pieces that go back to the knowledge question. As a result of this practice, I can understand the depth of knowledge and its effect of being accepted or not and the many different points of views that could argue differently. This practice also helped me explore the contradicting views and write from both an opposing view which allowed depth in my writing. There are many of the 12 concepts of the TOK language and the areas of knowledge. I will work on analyzing my points of views more deeply and elaborate more on my claims. Out of 10 on the assessment tool I would give myself a 6. This score perfectly exemplifies my work since my dialogue s focused on the title, it does flow away from the focus. It's developed to some areas of knowledge but do not have clear and justified examples, they are a bit weak. Finally, there are a few awareness’s of different points of views this is why I give myself this score.

Nothing is more exciting than fresh ideas, so why are areas of knowledge often so slow to adopt them?

2024-09-17 19:17:34 UTC

I think one of my strengths pertaining to the context of the P.D is drafting my ideas down in a good format so that my ideas are well established. Although, one of my weaknesses for this assignment was not expanding my ideas enough because it was going back and forth a bit without any expansions to other ideas. Something that I learned as a result from this assignment was how I should write my actual essay next time and where I should improve in my writing. The ToK assessment tool that is highlighted for me is adequate but basic. I want to expand my ideas next time so that I can bring in more perspectives instead of being stuck between 1 or 2 perspectives. I gave myself between a 4-5 because although it meets certain criterias, there is still a major room for improvement in my writing.

Are we too quick to assume that the most recent evidence is inevitably the strongest?

2024-09-17 19:19:24 UTC

One of my strengths was that I had strong points to support my claim and a variety of different evidence to support it, however, I did not go in enough depth when talking about the points. Going more in depth could have helped me with my word count and also with my support for my question. I now know that I should go more in depth with my reasoning rather than giving a brief explanation because it will help support my claim with more information. Although I tried my best to enunciate, I need to enunciate more and maintain eye contact with my audience when presenting. I would give myself a 5 out of ten for my philosophical dialogue based on TOK essay assessment instrument because my arguments are supported by examples and there is some awareness of different points of view.

Do we underestimate the challenges of taking knowledge out of its original context and transferring it to a different context?

698994 — 2024-09-18 00:47:01 UTC

My strengths for the philosophical dialogue was the connection of different areas of knowledge for specific examples to explore the knowledge question. One of my weaknesses was not using TOK verbiage to explicitly connect how it manifests in my examples and leaving it to a broader analysis of the relationship between mathematics and history. The process of writing the philosophical dialogue helped me understand what it takes to examine how a dialogue can be crafted effectively within the TOK framework through the feedback and the process of choosing what topics and effective examples to convey the different perspectives. In the TOK essay assessment tool, the arguments being supported by examples part was my biggest focus because having specific examples to connect to the knowledge question is the basis of explaining how it connected to TOK. I will work on creating arguments that can be clearly connected to specific examples. From the assessment scale, I would give myself a six because there are attempts at specific examples with connections to multiple areas of knowledge but there is not much elaboration of the different points of view to make the dialogue more balanced.

Why are areas of knowledge slow to adopt new ideas?

2024-09-18 16:37:58 UTC

A frequently mentioned polish from my pqps was to include more areas of knowledge rather than only science. Although my examples and evidence were clear, I need to explicitly use the language within my question to connect it back better. Another weakness includes my limited use of TOK verbiage. I should also apply my examples to non-fictional events to expand my answer to the question. Another aspect for me to improve on is connecting the terminology “hero” and “villain” to a specific area of knowledge. I decided to choose minions because of my prior knowledge on it. It was something I knew well and can explain. I believe I did well making it flow as a conversation and going into detail of the situations that were my evidence. I'd mark myself 4 out of 10 because I do not relate my examples explicitly back to the prompt even if my justification for examples were in detail. This practice helped me learn TOK can even manifest in kid movies.