Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Why do we seek indisputable evidence when it is so often unattainable?,…
Why do we seek indisputable evidence when it is so often unattainable?
Significant/Key Terms
Evidence [TOK Concept] (observations and observational claims that justify or help prove knowledge claims and support arguments) is variable, not absolute - meaning some evidence is more convincing and plentiful than other evidence. For this reason, some forms of evidence can be considered 'indisputable,' while others are contentious.
Indisputable (unable to be successfully or meaningfully challenged and denied) knowledge is important because it can act as building blocks and axioms for further knowledge.
Unattainable (impossible to attain) reflects the difficulty to arrive at certainty when dealing with knowledge claims or questions of knowledge.
Claims
We seek indisputable evidence because we strive to arrive at certain truths. We strive for 100% certain truths because we can confidently use these established, indisputable truths as building blocks for further knowledge.
AOK: NS - concept of axioms in knowledge and the coherence theory of truth
We seek indisputable evidence because of an inconsistency between our primal survival instinct to classify and cluster and our modern notion to be open-minded.
AOK: NS or History or Arts - looking for simple black and white answers to questions.
Many connections to AOK of human sciences since this claim is closely tied to human psychology and the mechanics of the human brain.
In some AOKs, scholars do not always seek indisputable evidence to support their schools of thought - some AOKs thrive on and are entirely dependent on ideas, patterns, and theories being disputed.
AOK: Arts or History - although some are seeking indisputable evidence, they are still entirely dependent on disputes.
Assumptions
"We" actively seek out indisputable evidence, looking for the strongest and least contestable justification to support knowledge claims.
Indisputable evidence is more often than not unattainable. This is different from it simply not existing.
This habit of seeking indisputable evidence applies across AOKs, even though the procedure of prooving or evidencing claims may differ from one AOK to another.
TOK Concepts
Perspectives - the act of searching for indisputable evidence enhances the argument for various perspectives and their intersection and interplay helps give us a fuller picture of the truth.
Certainty - in the search of certainty through indisputable evidence, you end up gathering more evidence, and although that knowledge may dispute or support the original KQ, it is productive to the development of the given AOK.
.
Justification: justifying a KQ involves providing strong evidence and reasons to accept and assert it. Various cognitive tools, which serve as evidence, must be present based on the context and AOK in which the KQ exists.
Responsibility: is it not the responsibility of the claimant to find the most possible, most indisputable evidence to support their KQ? Much like competing attorneys who are responsible for best presenting their case in court, competing claimants should find the best evidence to support their KQs.
Implied Causation
Scholar creates knowledge claim.
Seeks said 'indisputable evidence' to prove KQ.
Fails to find something truly
indisputable
, but nonetheless finds strong justification for his/her claim, which allows it to be considered as 'true,' within said AOK.
In the search of such evidence, ends up discovering/collective evidence that lays credence to another knowledge claim or a competing knowledge claim.
In AOKs that don't have objective answers, such as History/Arts, searching for indisputable evidence is more an exercise of justifying one's stance/supporting their argument, so they can achieve that through this search.
Ved Pant