A Theory of Theory of Knowledge

It is interesting to read what concerned citizens (of the United States, which sometimes seems to have a monopoly on those) have to say about the IBDP curriculum from another perspective. Over the last few weeks, I've had a good look at the website known as The Truth About IB. It's interesting in particular because it clearly and openly declares its intent, and then attempts to defend that intent through various means.

Here is what they have to say about the TOK curriculum. In particular, this is an interesting piece of rhetoric, which I shall quote in full (with one tiny spelling correction, if you can spot it) below:

According to the IBO website, "IB puts everything in perspective". But WHOSE perspective? That is the question. Delivered from the perspective of secular humanists, is it fair to ask minors to put aside religious and family values and rely solely upon the opinions of philosophical atheists such as Nietszche and Kant to determine what correct knowledge is?

I'm not sure whether an objective reader would characterize this as a fair position concerning the IBDP TOK curriculum. I am quite certain that asking people to justify their religious and family values is not part of the TOK curriculum, but I think it is a valuable exercise. After all, the Good Book itself is full of injunctions to give defence of the faith; Paul himself uses Hellenic logic to argue his position, but says in Romans 14:22, "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

Having taught TOK myself, I am quite certain that a fair account must also include the fact that we argue about the limits to science and all other human areas of knowledge; that we discuss the ways of knowing and their limitations; that we often conclude faith to be a matter not for logic and yet for belief. The idea of TOK is explicitly not to fall into the fallacies of postmodernism, but to at least have a grasp of the kind of issues that can be justified with the tools at hand.

TOK, in the final analysis, is about learning to argue positions, and what the limits of those positions are. It has not persuaded me to lose my faith; rather, I do not see how it can weaken my faith. And as for it being fair to ask minors to rely solely upon the opinions of anybody, I have two points to make: 1) "Let no man despise your youth, but be thou an example...", says Paul to Timothy; 2) have you known any minor of IBDP candidate age to rely solely on the opinions of anybody?

The reason that TOK is at the core of the IBDP is a simple one. It is a healthy control over the need to respond to the teachings of this world with uncritical acceptance. That is why it must be central. It tells us to evaluate philosophy and philosophers not as the idols and touchstones of knowledgeism, but on their own merits and failings. If anyone teaches TOK in any other way, then it's probably not being done right. I mean, Nietzsche and Kant, forsooth!