IB TOK a Philosophy course?? NO! Here's why... (2021)(IB Teacher)

IB Tok is not a philosophy course! You are getting this wrong! It's almost as if half of you go online, find any smart looking Philosophy example, and use it. No wonder most of us are getting C's in TOK. We just don't get it!
That’s why I’m bringing in a super experienced TOK teacher who is also the IB coordinator for his School. Mr. Michael Wheeler has been teaching TOK since 2013 , and he is phenomenal. He’s here today to explain and give you an overview of the new TOK syllabus. Please stay till the end of the video, because Mr. Wheeler is gonna drop some facts about TOK.
Liked this video? Didn't? I'd like some feedback from you! I'm trying to improve my content, be as brutally honest as you need to be. Fill in the form to give your input: goo.gl/forms/wAs1kjm0RaZDkxhF2​​
@iblikecole for insta
[e-mail]

[@AdamLong1973]

Everything that TOK explores arguably has been explored by philosophers since the ancient Greeks. Philosophy literally means love of knowledge. That's what philosophy is, an exploration of knowledge as a way of explaining reality. So, yeah, I agree TOK isn't a study of philosophy. But I'd also say that it's supremely beneficial to have students understand the rudiments of philosophical contexts when asking "how do we know what we know?". In my very limited experience, TOK texts are heavily influenced by philosophy of the post-modernists and the positivists, both of which essentially deny the possibility of understanding reality and/or knowledge. I'd argue that your statement "no wonder most of us are getting C's" in TOK rests in part on the fact that the deconstructive framework in which you explore these questions leads ultimately to what those two philosophies purport... that you can't. If you, however, understand that there are many philosophical frameworks that allow to actually construct an understanding of an objective reality, and if you understand the historical philosophical contexts, you'll have a much richer and comprehensive understanding of how to form your own thoughts on TOKs questions. So, maybe TOK isn't a philosophy course. But I'd argue you are wholly unequipped to intelligently formulate good answers to knowledge questions without (a) at least a fundamental understanding of the major philosophies in history that have led us to where we are that have has VERY real world manifestations (b) at least a basic understanding of logical thinking

[@iblikecole9167]

I'd agree with you. The problem is when student fully treat their TOK essays as Philosophy essays. Even though they both overlap, they aren't the same. And I'd agree with you (a) and (b) points.

[@dianastroughair2314]

Well said, sir. It is a real challenge delineating where theory ends and the real world begins when we try to explain what knowledge is and where it comes from. To this extend, the IB have set themselves and all schools an possible task of asking students to write essays rooted in epistemological questions, yet the course and it’s time allocation leaves very little scope for learning about and understanding where knowledge frameworks come from in any one discipline you care to take. At the root of any one IB subject is its philosophical and historical background. Simply looking at present day real life manifestations of knowledge is scratching the surface.

[@saetainlatin]

I beg to differ. TOK IS Philosophy: your main argument is that Philosophy is theoretical or conceptual (epistemology) meanwhile TOK is practical. But what you describe as "practical", falls in the Philosophy of Science: how scientist think, what kind of methods does science use and how those methods differ from each other (e.g. math vs history), which are the limits of the scientific method, etc. I recommend reading Thomas Kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions and Karl Popper's "The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge". Plus the work that's student have to do in IB TOK falls in the methods of philosophy: essays, oral dissertations (compare TOK with the book: "Doing philosophy: a practical guide for students- Clare Saunders; David Mossley; George MacDonald")

[@iblikecole9167]

Actually I'd have to differ with you as well. The number one powerfact that I heard from most TOK teachers was that TOK and Philosophy aren't the same. They may have intersecting parts, but treating them the same is a surefire way to lower grades.

[@saetainlatin]

@@iblikecole9167 Unfortunately you are appealing to an ad populum falacy: if all teachers say that geometry is not mathematics, then it must be true right?. I presented some evidence and I encourage you check the topics in a Philosophy of Science class (or the 3 books I mentioned). In TOK you’re likely to cover everything from Gettier cases, to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, to Kant’s CI, none of which you’ll see in any great detail, but still is philosophy. Plus acknowledging that TOK is a branch of philosophy, we have been able to get most students, grades between A and B, with some outliers with a C score.

[@iblikecole9167]

Instead of these books, I recommend looking at the TOK Subject guide and the TOK textbooks. This is the basis for the TOK Course and grading for the course content. Most IB teachers will agree that while TOK and Philosophy share elements, they are not the same.

[@saetainlatin]

@@iblikecole9167 Once again you are appealing to an ad populum fallacy, just because everybody agrees doesn't make it true. If I mentioned the 3 books, it was for you to compare the topics in college level class of philosophy of sciece vs the TOK syllabus, which I'm well aware of. That's why I mentioned "Gettier cases, to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, to Kant’s Cat. Imp. as examples of things that you would find in both TOK and Philosophy of Science (and other branches of Phil). Plus I think there is a practical and intrinsic value in recognizing TOK as what it is: Philosophy.

[@saetainlatin]

@@iblikecole9167 Here is what I found in Theory of Knowledge IB, 2e from Sue Bastian, Julian Kitching: _TOK is not meant to prepare you to study philosophy nor to master other people’s thoughts even though you will probably hear about these thinkers from time to time._ Yet, It goes on and specifies that TOK is Epistemology and Philosophy of Science in disguise: _All the parts of the course radiate out from these two central and related TOK questions: What does it mean to say that I, or we, have knowledge? What is the basis upon which this knowledge rests?_ Even chp.13. Assessment, uses the methods of Logic for the essay and oral presentation. Would you mind pointing out which topic is NOT Philosophy or any of its branches?

[@TonyStack]

Ironically our course code for TOK is grade 12 philosophy lol

[@dakotalovett2450]

Yikes! Looks like someone needs to further develop their critical thinking skills and understanding of the Western Canon… The synthesizing of meta-knowledge and creative ingenuity defines the curriculum and philosophical discourse par excellence (omitting the rigor, of course).