Tok Presentation Script

Good morning teachers and fellow students. Today, for my TOK presentation, I will be discussing the inaccuracy of the creation of knowledge. The real-life situation I will be examining is a sexual assault case evaluated by Julia Shaw. According to an article written by Emma Bryce for WIRED on 22 July 2017, Julia Shaw, a criminal psychologist, became involved in solving a case related to two women who were supposed sexually assaulted by an older female relative in approximately 1975. However, given the peculiarity of the assaulter, the sudden recollection of these repressed memories forty years later and the shared memories between the sisters, Shaw concluded that this account was highly unreliable, and may have been a false memory. At the bottom of the ladder of abstraction, my real life situation can be generalised to include all cases of sexual assault. This can be further generalised to include all instances of crime and subsequently all misdeeds. This can be further generalised to include all errors since misdeeds are the result of an error of judgement. Finally, at the top of the ladder of abstraction, errors can be generalised into inaccuracy, which is the topic my knowledge question is concerned with. Consequently, my knowledge question is “to what extent is the creation of knowledge inaccurate?” When Shaw first received the case, she noticed several characteristics of the victims' recount that caused her to doubt the validity of their claims. Given the forty year gap between the supposed crime and their recount and how the perpetrator was female in their recollection, despite how most sexual assaulters are male, it raised suspicions of how reliable their recount was. However, the reasoning behind Shaw’s suspicions was based on her research into false memories as a criminal psychologist and pre-existing trends of such cases. While such reasoning is mostly accurate, it does not account for anomalies, so her evaluation may not be completely reliable. My knowledge claim is "Some ways of knowing are inherently superior to others when considering the breadth of their usefulness and reliability." To discuss this, I will be examining this in regards to reasoning and emotion. Reasoning can be divided into three types - inductive, deductive and abductive. Inductive reasoning is concerned with applying universal truths to specific

situations and is often used in mathematics, especially when applying formulas to solve specific problems. Deductive reasoning is concerned with creating universal truths from specific situations. Abductive reasoning is akin to theorising and hypothesising - it is concerned with finding the cause for an effect. Deductive and abductive reasoning are often used in the natural and human sciences for different purposes. Deductive reasoning is used to achieve conclusions from the data gathered during experiments and studies, whereas abductive reasoning is often used to form the hypotheses for experiments and studies. However, each type of reasoning also has its own inherent flaws. For instance, inductive reasoning often uses trends or patterns to examine specific occurrences. While this is mostly accurate, it also means that it cannot account for anomalies, of which I will expand on later. Deductive reasoning is similar - the suggested universal truth or generalisation is only created using examples that the knowledge creator is aware of. As a result, there is always the possibility of an exception that could negate the validity of the claim. Alternatively, the knowledge created by abductive reasoning can be subjective - despite how evidence can support claims made through abductive reasoning, there is almost always an alternate explanation that will have at least slight validity until one is fully proven. An example of this is a problem I encountered when studying complex numbers for Mathematics. Recently, I started to study complex numbers and I encountered two formulae which link imaginary and real numbers together. These two formulae are Euler’s identity and Euler’s formula. Using these two formulae, it is possible to solve this problem - finding the value of i^i, “i” of which is the square root of -1. Intuitively, this seems preposterous - how could you raise an imaginary number to the power of an imaginary number? Well, if you use these two formulae, you get a surprisingly elegant solution - e^(-π/2). And e^(-5π/2). Aaaaaaaaaaaand e^(-9π/2) etc. The point is, i^i has infinitely many solutions, which can be expressed like this. Once again, intuitively, this seems incredibly contradictory - how could a finitie expression like i^i not have a finite number of solutions? However, if you work this out the whole way through, you get this solution, so through reasoning, this makes sense. Consequently, the principal issue is whether to have faith in this knowledge

created through reasoning - of which forms the basis of mathematics as an area of knowledge - or our intuition, which is known to be unreliable and inaccurate. In contrast, emotion is highly subjective - it is unique to the individual. Emotion acts like a sixth sense and is instinctive - it is not about proving, it is about feeling. Because of this, knowledge created about a single concept, idea or object using emotion can be highly varied and is more personal than the shared knowledge created by reasoning. As a result, it is nearly impossible to use emotion to perform objective analysis. This is why knowledge created through reasoning is so widely accepted, while emotion is not. As an example, consider the area of knowledge ethics. One of the central debates in ethics is whether something doing good or something feeling good takes precedence. While both are significant, in many situations emotion takes precedence, as our moral compasses are often governed by emotion. My counterclaim is "All ways of knowing have flaws, thus no one way of knowing is superior to any other." To discuss this, I will be exploring this viewpoint through language and memory. Language is irrevocably valuable to the creation and distribution of knowledge, including the transformation of personal knowledge into shared knowledge. However, the central issue with language with regards to objectively conveying information is that it is inextricably linked to emotion, because of the positive and negative connotations many words have. For example, consider the words terrorist and freedom-fighter. These two words are used to describe the exact same idea, but have VERY different connotations and are used from different perspectives. For instance, to a member of ISIS who supports their cause, ISIS members are freedom-fighters, actively fighting against the system for what - in their opinion - is a brighter future. However, from an outsider’s perspective, ISIS members are terrorists, actively seeking to destroy societal structures to create a world akin to their own desires. This means that knowledge conveyed through language is open to interpretation, and the resultant knowledge can be very subjective. Similarly, memory - along with language - allow knowledge to persist through time. However, while memories may seem inflexible, they are actually highly complex and malleable. For example, memories can change as you age or as your

worldview or ideology changes. They can even change through constant suggestion. Emotion can also play a massive role in how memories are formed. In particular, you would remember an event differently if you were angry during the event rather than happy - it’s highly subjective. As an example, consider the trigger warnings Harvard law students request to be used during lectures involving the discussion of sexual assault. These trigger warnings are an emphatic and intuitive response to the trauma suffered by sexual assault victims, and are used to warn sexual assault victims of content or discussions that may trigger traumatic memories. However, psychological research papers into PTSD suggest that the exact opposite is true - that trigger warnings not only stunt the personal growth of sufferers of PTSD due to paranoia, but rather encourage exposure to discussions about sexual assault to aid them in personal growth and to loosen the grip their PTSD has on them. Alternatively, you could argue that because reasoning is only capable of objective analysis, it seems paradoxical to consider an objective analysis of personal growth reliable, as personal growth is emotional by nature. Hence, because they are both flawed, this question arises should we have faith in reason or emotion and intuition? Despite this counterclaim being a perfectly valid argument, I disagree with the principle that all ways of knowing are equal. For instance, the reason why reasoning is highly regarded when creating knowledge is because it is mostly independent of the spontaneity of opinion and emotion. Consequently, it is not heavily influenced by subjectivity, and the diversity of contradicting knowledge about a single concept is relatively limited compared to other ways of knowing, hence why it is used in the areas of knowledge of mathematics and the natural and human sciences. On the contrary, emotion is used in a very different capacity. Because it’s so heavily influenced by subjectivity, there is a large variety of contradicting knowledge about a single concept, and it is all opinionated, as a result, it is not highly regarded. Hence, it is only used in areas of knowledge that encourage personal interpretation, such as art and literature. In the context of my real life situation, because of the lack of influence subjectivity has on reason, it is more reliable than the knowledge created from the memory of the two sisters.

In summary, the inaccuracy of knowledge is entirely dependent on the methods used to create it and the ways of knowing involved. In the context of my real life situation, because of the two women's questionable recount combined with her research into false memories and the general nature of sexual assault cases, Shaw concluded that the recount was most likely a false memory and was highly unreliable. However, you could also argue that Shaw's basis for her reasoning is also flawed and that her conclusion is not necessarily accurate, as general trends do not account for anomalies and the processes behind research, such as the scientific method, also have their own flaws. This conclusion is applicable to all real-life situations involving the creation of knowledge, such as academic studies, artwork interpretation, people's recollections of past events or even school projects.