Theory Of Knowledge - Pearson

Virtual exhibition object 2Let’s move forward in time by over 3000 years to a mathematics class in a large schoolin the south-east of England in about 1973. At the back of a class, a 12-year-old boyis working hard on a calculation. In his hand is a plastic instrument that looks likeFigure 2. It is called a slide rule.Figure 2 An ingeniouspiece of analoguetechnology from the 1970s:a slide rule.A slide rule is essentially an analogue calculating machine. The tablets of Knossosare an example of digital technology because their meaning derives entirely from thesymbols written on them. But a slide rule is analogue technology because the crucialfeature is a physical distance between the symbols arranged to give the device itsfunction. The carefully calibrated scales enable the operator to perform multiplication,division, powers, roots, logarithms and trigonometric calculations to around threesignificant figure accuracy (but it cannot add or subtract). The boy in the maths classis solving trigonometry problems. He does not know it yet but in two years he willstart using an amazing new invention called an electronic calculator. For the timebeing though, he is happy manipulating the plastic slide rule with his hands. In 1970s’London, slide rules were everywhere: in schools and universities, in science labs, in thepockets of engineers and surveyors, on the bridges of ships and in aircraft cockpits.The device had a cursor and sliding middle section which enabled the user to exploitthe mathematical principle, log(ab) 5 log(a) log(b) that numbers can be multipliedby adding their logarithms.There are similarities between a slide rule and the Linear B tablets. The slide rule is aphysical object that extends our human mental capabilities; the tablets are a sort ofstructured database. Just like the tablet file, the slide rule is manipulated by a skilledoperator and relies on representations – marks that stand for something else. Themarks on the tablet mean chariot wheels or swords; the marks on the slide rule standfor numbers. Just as the tablets extended human memory, the slide rule extendedhuman calculating ability. In the Mycenaean case, the technology shaped the structureof society: there was a quite high social class of scribes or administrators who couldread and write to the tablets. In 1970s England, there was a technically able class whocould manipulate slide rules to solve certain knowledge problems encountered in theeveryday world. In both societies, mastery of a technology led to social mobility.Digital and analogueYou need to be awareof a distinction betweendigital and analoguetechnologies. Despitethe familiarity ofthese terms, they areremarkably difficult todefine precisely. This islargely because they areexamples of questions ofrepresentation which stillevade the best thinkers.Perhaps the best wayto understand thedistinction is to considerexamples. The discrete1s and 0s of computersand mobile phones aredigital. The continuousvoltage changespowering a loudspeakerare analogue. Thediscrete symbols ofan English sentence(words and punctuation)are digital while thedepiction of a river on amap is analogue.7M03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 709/12/19 5:38 PM

2.2Knowledge and technologyVirtual exhibition object 3The third object in our virtual exhibition is a satellite navigation system for a car(Figure 3).Figure 3 Satnav: digitaltechnology from the 2000s.Outsourcing the taxi-driver’sknowledge – but is it robust?RobustKnowledge is robust ifit can withstand change.The London cabbie’sknowledge is robustbecause short of a badhead injury or a missileattack on London thecabbie’s knowledgecan get a passengerfrom A to B. Therideshare app driver’sknowledge of Londondepends critically on acomplex system beingin place and functioningcorrectly. If the systemchanges, the rideshareapp driver may not beable to get a passengerfrom A to B. Therideshare app driver’sknowledge is easier tocome by but at the costof robustness.8First, we need to consider a particular part of the world without Satnavs. Since 1865,London taxi drivers have had to take a test, described as the ‘hardest exam in theworld’, in order to qualify for a licence to drive one of London’s famous black cabs.They have to ‘do the Knowledge’, that is, learn the exact street plan of the city within6 miles (10 km) of Charing Cross. This involves learning 25 000 streets and how todrive them, the direction they run, one-way systems, dead-ends, where to enter andexit roundabouts. They also need to know everything on the streets: the location ofall restaurants, pubs, shops, landmarks, flower-stands, laundromats, and so on, nomatter how obscure. Examiners expect the would-be cabbie to know anywhere thata passenger might want to go. On average, it takes three years of full-time study toachieve the required standard. Trainee cabbies walk the streets on foot or use a motorscooter usually devoting a day to a particular small area.The Knowledge illustrates the construction of personal knowledge. It also highlightsan important feature of technology: we embrace technology so readily because itallows us to access shared knowledge without the production of our own personalknowledge. The London cabbie must painstakingly construct knowledge of how tonavigate London. In contrast, a rideshare app driver relying on GPS, has only to knowhow to operate the device that accesses the central system.Of course, the difference between production and access raises questions aboutownership and robustness. The London cabbie can be rightly said to own theknowledge that took three long years to achieve. This knowledge of the city is alsopersonal: there will idiosyncratic features that belong only to the cabbie, certain detailsthat enlivened the learning – a decoration here, the colour of a wall there, the smellof the river in Docklands. The rideshare app driver, on the other hand, has access tosomeone else’s knowledge or knowledge that exists as part of a technological system,something centralised and standardised. This driver may have difficulty with nonstandard requests like, ‘take me to a Hawksmoor church’ or ‘take me to a fine exampleof early Victorian architecture’.The London cabbie relies only on memory. The only thing that will affect performanceis the gradual degradation of memory over time. The rideshare app driver, on the otherM03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 809/12/19 5:38 PM

hand, is entirely dependent on the GPS system. If the satellite goes down, driver andpassengers could be completely lost. On the plus side, the rideshare app driver did nothave to undergo the hard work of learning the city, but on the minus side the accessedknowledge is dependent on others and lacks robustness.These two knowledge systems illustrate some deeper questions about the differencesbetween making knowledge and accessing it, about local knowledge and globalor centralised knowledge, about ownership and power, and about how robustknowledge is when the system is disturbed. We examine some of these questions inthe sections to come.Things to think about To what extent do you think the tablets of Knossos allowed the Mycaeans toextend their thinking capabilities? Can you come up with other examples ofobjects that extend our thinking capabilities? Do painters think with theirbrushes and musicians with their instruments? Do you ever think on paper bywriting something down? Do you ever use mindmaps or other visual tools forthinking?In July 2019, a news item was published about a failure of the Galileo satellitenavigation system that affects the GPS technology. This leads us to ask: Howshould we define robust knowledge? Is the cabbie’s knowledge more robustthan that of a rideshare app driver using Satnav? Is robustness a question ofhow many other people or how much technology is involved?For the Knossos tablets to function as part of the knowledge process, anumber of other social practices had to be established. Try to think of threeactivities that people had to perform as part of the tablet record-keepingsystem. Then, consider the role of language and social hierarchy in makingthe system work.Challenge: London taxi drivers are of interest to cognitive scientists andneurologists because the structure of their brain is somewhat different fromthe brain structure on non-cabbies. In particular, the taxi drivers have a biggerposterior hippocampus – an area of the brain known to be involved in spatialmemory. This is an interesting case of a cultural phenomenon – learning theKnowledge changing neural structure and circuitry suggesting that theevolution of human thought processes is parallel to the evolution of culture(and is not driven primarily by genetics). Do you think this idea is plausible?Investigate this issue by checking out some of the sources at the end of thechapter). What are the implications if it is true?There are computer programs called ‘expert systems’ designed to diagnoseillnesses from a description of symptoms. In some parts of the world (such asScandinavia) these ‘expert systems’ are replacing the knowledge of humandoctors. Does the ‘expert system’ have the same sort of knowledge as thedoctor? A recent TV programme in Sweden pitted the skills of three doctorsagainst three people who were experts in using the internet but were notmedics. Each team had to diagnose the illnesses of real patients by asking themquestions. The team of doctors won the competition convincingly. What arethe implications of examples like these for ‘expert systems’? What conclusionscan we draw about the differences between human knowledge and machineintelligence?9M03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 909/12/19 5:38 PM

2.2Knowledge and technologyKnowledge questions How has technology had an impact on collective memory and how knowledgeis preserved?How does the use of technology shape the sort of knowledge we seek?To what extent is the internet changing what it means to know something?In what sense, if any, can a machine be said to know something?Does technology allow knowledge to reside outside of human knowers?Have technological developments had the greatest impact on what we know,how we know or how we share knowledge?PerspectivesObjective andsubjectiveSomething is objectiveif it does not dependon the observer. It is anobjective fact about theworld that atoms aremade up of electrons,protons and neutrons.It does not matter whois observing them, or ifthere is anyone aroundto observe them at all.The taste of honey issubjective: without a‘subject’ there to do thetasting it doesn’t exist.There is a spectrumbetween these twoextremes. A footballreferee might rule that agoal is scored. Hopefullythere is an objectivecomponent to this. Theball actually crossedthe line. However, thecall did depend onthe referee’s subjectiveperception of the ballcrossing the line. Thereare objective andsubjective elements tothe call.This section develops the social aspect of technology – that is, that technology emergesfrom particular views of the world and also shapes those views. In TOK, the word‘perspective’ is used to describe the point from which we view the world. It is a generalfeature of our whole outlook rather than a particular opinion or point of view on aspecific topic. Two people may share perspectives but nonetheless disagree. Perspectiveis shaped by the network of concepts, practices, values and norms that make sensewithin a particular culture. It is also shaped to an extent by our own history andbiography, including our gender, religion, political affiliation, socio-economic statusand so on. We view the world from a particular point historically and culturally, and toa greater or lesser extent, our knowledge and our technology reflect this.A word of warning here: it is tempting to think that because aspects of technologyare social, it is somehow subjective or that ‘anything goes’. This does not follow.Technology has a social dimension as does much of our knowledge but that does notmean that it is radically subjective. Think back to the map metaphor (Chapter 1 CoreTheme). Maps are the product of social factors such as the interests of the mapmakerand the purpose of the map. But maps are objective in that they are primarily about theterritory, not the mapmaker. And as we all know, maps can be wrong.The three objects discussed in the previous section illustrate the importance of thesocial aspect of technology. In each case, the object is situated within a framework ofsocial practices and norms without which it could neither function nor make sense.The tablets at Knossos played a role in an elaborate social structure that co-ordinatedand controlled the demarcation of tasks and duties. Building wheels for chariots ortextile production are highly specialised jobs performed by skilled craftsmen thatneed to be co-ordinated with other tasks and with the needs of the society as a whole.Moreover, the operators of the tablets were highly skilled in the ‘social technology’of a sophisticated written language. Similarly, in the case of the slide rule, the use ofthe device required skill and a certain amount of physical dexterity. Its manipulationrequired technical mathematical knowledge and also a physical ability that wasachieved by practice like mastering a craft, sport or musical instrument. Thesepractices were reinforced by schools and universities and regulated by clear norms andstandards of correct usage. The same is true of the taxi driver who engages in a series ofpractices relevant to driving a taxi in the metropolis. Taxi-driving only makes sense in10M03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 1009/12/19 5:38 PM

a particular kind of society – one with cities, roads, people who need to move aroundand, of course, an available mode of transport. In the case of the rideshare app driverreliant on GPS, society has arranged an elaborate physical infrastructure – satellitessending specific signals to be received by the GPS unit and converted into positionalinformation. In all these cases, the use of the technology is regulated by an equallyelaborate set of social structures; society adopts various methods for technology useand creates structures to support these methods.These ideas have interesting implications, not least the idea that, as a socialphenomenon, technology is also arguably an historical one. You can only understandthe current state of a technology and the social practices it supports with referenceto its historical background. The clay tablets made sense because of the history of thepolitical and social organisation of the Mycenaeans, the history of their language, andthe history of the social practices such as chariot-making and textile manufacturethat the tablets co-ordinated. These histories flow together and converge in thetechnology of tablets. Similar histories can be cited in the case of the slide rule andGPS. Social history provided the need and a history of knowledge production madethe technology possible. Both streams of history are necessary. Even if Mycenaeancivilisation had somehow mastered the mathematics of logarithms there wouldbe no slide rules at Knossos because Mycenaean society did not require the sort ofcalculation that slide rules make possible. Similarly, in an imaginary society that livedunderground, while it might have developed the knowledge to build a GPS system,the concept would not have made any sense given that it could never be used. Thetwo historical strands, technology and culture, converge to ensure the emergence of aspecific technology at a given time.These strands might not be so easy to separate. It is completely conceivable thattechnology breeds technology: that a particular technological environment callsfor the development of new technologies to service it. Twentieth-century Britainrequired the services of the slide rule because it was needed for engineering andscientific applications – in other words – other technology. The practices that weremade possible by knowing how to operate a slide rule were involved in producingother technology such as buildings and machines. These would produce further newknowledge practices, and so on. A good example here is the Guggenheim Museum inBilbao. The architect Frank Gehry has produced a strikingly innovative design for abuilding that houses an art collection. It creates a novel space that changes the way weview and reflect on the artworks displayed. Again, cultural knowledge and technologyare intertwined. And if they are intertwined, so are their histories.The intertwining of knowledge and technology has implications in terms of power.Technology empowers some groups – and disenfranchises others – through theknowledge required to produce it, control it and operate it. Consider how technologydivides society broadly into three different groups: the owners and controllers of technologythe operators or technicians who have the specialist knowledge required toproduce the technology, change it and operate ita third group who are affected by the technology but do not have the technicalknowledge to change it.11M03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 1109/12/19 5:38 PM

2.2Knowledge and technologyIn the time of the Mycenaeans, the textile workers and chariot makers presumablybelonged to the third group. While they were undoubtedly skilled craftsmen in theirown domain, from the point of view of the tablet administration, they were thesubjects of the system. The tablet operators were the civil servants and belonged tothe second group. They were supervised, no doubt, by members of the first groupwho owned and controlled the technology. There are no prizes for guessing whichsocial group had the higher social status (and whose knowledge was valued and takenseriously by society). The keepers of the tablets had control over the informationencoded in them, in the sense that they, or their civil service bosses, could decide whoelse had access. The first two groups therefore acted as gatekeepers for this information.They had the skills to decode it and integrate it with other information to produceknowledge that had an immediate bearing on action. Day-to-day decisions regardingthe running of the palace would depend on the entire knowledge system built from thetablets – ‘more elm chariot wheels are needed because the stocks are running low – weneed to ask the suppliers for more’.Technology divides society into groups such as owners and controllers, those that havethe specialist knowledge to produce or change technology and those who use it. It isentirely plausible that these groups tend to have different perspectives on technologyand its relation to knowledge. These perspectives emerge when technology changes, asit inevitably does.How does change affect the value of the knowledge held by each of the groups? Theend-users – those who have little say in the technology being used – may welcometechnological change especially if, like GPS, it makes everyday life easier. The firstgroup of owners and controllers welcome the possibility of enhanced ownership andcontrol offered by more advanced technology. But the middle group of techniciansmight be adversely affected. The value of their specialist knowledge is under threatand they might resist the introduction of new technology. The London cabbiebelongs to this group. Doing the Knowledge is part of the tradition of taxi-driving.The instinct of many (if not all) cabbies is to resist the introduction of new GPStechnology. One way of resisting is to argue for barriers to its introduction, perhapsby not licensing rideshare app drivers. Another is to devalue it by arguing that GPSmeans a reduction in the quality of service for the user group (passenger) becauserideshare app drivers may not be able to give historical or architectural advice orinformation. On the other hand, a cab fitted with GPS can, if everything is workingas it should, navigate to anywhere in London, possibly anywhere in the country oreven the world.Different technologies produce different expectations, different sets of norms andvalues and ultimately different social practices. We can see the same pattern in thevalue of traditional knowledge in making textiles over the course of the industrialrevolution or horsemanship skills after the introduction of the car. Technologyempowers some groups and marginalises others. Changing technology changes thisdistribution of power which in turn changes the value society places on knowledgeheld by different groups and this, of course, changes their power. The intertwining oftechnology and society is reflected in a parallel intertwining of technology and power.Could it be that conflicts such as the Luddite rebellion or the protests against rideshareapp are conflicts about whose knowledge is valued and ultimately about which grouphas power?12M03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 1209/12/19 5:38 PM

How might membership of these groups affect perspectives in relation to moderndigital technologies? Most people are in the third group – they are the users oftechnologies. They do not own or control the companies that provide the services theyuse, nor

M03 IB Theory of Knowledge SB2 Global 26009.indd 6 09/12/19 5:38 PM. Virtual exhibition object 2 Let’s move forward in time by over 3000 years to a mathematics class in a large school in the south-east of England