Sample Essay B Category 1

This is a satisfactory essay that was awarded 6/10. The student has made a
decent attempt at exploring the title, and there are some effective
arguments and examples. This essay lacks the coherence and critical
evaluation needed to be awarded a mark in the higher bands.

Extended ‘Unofficial’ Commentary by Ric Sims

“Robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement.” Discuss this claim with
reference to
two areas of
knowledge.

Word Count: 1589

What constitutes robust knowledge differs in different areas of knowledge as they are using
different ways to gather and understand information. Therefore, in this essay I will be discussing
the place of both consensus and disagreement in the Natural sciences and History and whether or
not they complement each other or are antagonistic to each other in trying to create robust
Knowledge. In order to establish this, I will be looking at certain examples such as drug testing and
the development of Penicillin in the Natural Sciences and the Eruption of Vesuvius in History. I will
also be looking at whether what constitutes robust knowledge not only differs between areas of
knowledge but also between certain aspects of an area of Knowledge e.g. whether in History the
establishing of a robust fact is the same as establishing causation.

What do we expect from an introductory paragraph? I expect some preliminary understandings of

the key terms of the PT in a ToK context (so preferably not dictionary definitions), a preview of the
conclusions of the essay, and a roadmap of how the essay will get there. There is no idea given here
of what might be meant by consensus and disagreement, or robustness for that matter – but these
come later as we shall see. There is, however, something of a roadmap. Nonetheless there is the
acknowledgement that these terms might be sensitive to the area of knowledge in which they are
applied. Generally, the introduction of an essay is the most important section because it sets up the
terms of the question and establishes the basis on which links can be made with subsequent
discussions.
In the Natural Sciences robust knowledge is defined as knowledge which can withstand tests and is
backed up by empirical data. This seems to be a reasonable definition, and given the comment made
at the top of the essay putting the contextual definition in the paragraph where it is used is a good
strategy. Linking the paragraph to the key words is an effective way of linking the example to the
PT. This definition shows that consensus is required as in the Natural sciences experiments are
designed to be repeatable by a number of different research teams and If they are not then the
conclusions drawn from them are not accepted as valid. OK but I would like to hear a bit more
explicitly about consensus. If the experiments, investigations and results are found to be consistent,
reproducible, as shown by the presence of tested empirical data which can explain the results of the
experiment, and in agreement over time then there is a consensus on the Information gathered then
this knowledge is deemed to be robust albeit the interpretation of the data might not benefit from
consensus. This is shown in the real-life situation in the development of new medicinal drugs where
Clinical Trial Protocol has to be followed. Due to this protocol medicinal drugs are not allowed to be
used on patients until there is widespread consensus on the effects of the drug and strong knowledge
has been gathered by many different parties. Good general example – although it would be even
better if we were told more details of the protocol (and given an in-text reference). This consensus Is
reached by different people repeatedly gathering empirical data that gives the same conclusions.
This then helps to show that the drug being tested is safe for widespread use on humans. Not only
does this help the knowledge gathered to be more robust as more information has been gathered but
also helps to avoid the problem of confirmation bias that may have been originally present in the
collection of the data. Terms like confirmation bias need to be defined in the essay even though they
are good ToK concepts (not in the core 12 though -but neither is ‘understanding’!). This allows us
to avoid circumstances such as those that occurred with Thalidomide where it was hailed as a
wonder drug without all possible variables being tested as the conclusions that the scientists drew
when collecting their results matched what they thought they would find. Needs a reference.
Thalidomide was clinically trialled on animals and on humans but not on pregnant women. The
details of the example should be stated and properly referenced. This therefore shows that in this
scenario consensus is required for the knowledge to be considered robust. If there was disagreement
then depending on the nature of the dispute e.g. whether it is over sample size, controls or the
conclusions drawn from the empirical data then the knowledge previously gathered about the drug
would be put Into question and would appear to be flawed.
A good strategy in the paragraph – make a general argument about what could constitute
robustness in the natural sciences and that it involves consensus and then illustrate/provide
evidence for it via an example. Unfortunately, the example is not as effective as it should be because
the candidate has not given enough detail to allow the link to be made. In the Thalidomide case
there was consensus – that was not the problem, the problem was that the clinical trials were not wide
enough.

However, in other circumstances in the natural sciences without disagreement the knowledge
would not be considered robust such as disagreement over which variables to change as this would
ultimately allow the Hypothesis of the experiment to be refined further. Nice clear topic sentence
introducing a counterargument. Thus, disagreements in the natural sciences are often seen actually as
fruitful, since a disagreement encourages discussions and further testing of a theory until It Is proven.
Clear claim – that disagreement motivates further research although this is not immediately linked
to robust knowledge. Words like ‘proven’ are problematic in the context of the natural sciences
because they suggest an end to the scientific process. However, practically speaking, there are
undoubtedly scientific theories that are so well established as to be considered uncontestable. A
better essay might make this point and link it to the idea that some knowledge (even in the natural
sciences) is so secure that it is beyond reasonable doubt. An example of this in real life were the
constant disagreements between Howard Florey and Ernst Chain without which the production of
Penicillin would never have developed beyond the concept created by Alexander Fleming. This is
not general knowledge and needs a reference and a more detailed description. It was Florey and
Chain’s constant debate that eventually led to them creating the basis of medicine that we have today,
thus showing the importance of disagreement in the natural sciences. Without details this example
does not do any work either to illustrate the point being made or to provide factual evidence for it. If
their disagreement over how to test their hypothesis had not occurred then not al variables would have
been fully tested and the knowledge claim over what Penicillin could do would not have been
considered as robust.
The structure and intention are good here and at least some of this proposed alternative branch of
the argument is supported logically. The example, unfortunately, is skimped upon so it does
nothing to support the argument factually.

This means that If there is only consensus and no disagreements then some people perceive that
this knowledge is not robust. Candidates sometimes get into a muddle with figurative uses of
‘perceive’. It is difficult to understand what is meant by ‘perceiving knowledge’. I suggest that students
stick to using the literal meaning of ‘perceive’. However, others as in the previously stated case of
drug trials would see disagreement as invalidating the strength of the knowledge claim. This shows
that in the natural sciences there Is disagreement over not only knowledge but also over what makes
knowledge robust. This is a good double point, made both at the first order and second order
level. An example of this is Quantum Mechanics. Despite being completely mathematically
provable many scientists do not consider the knowledge extracted from it to be reliable as testable
observations are not able to be made and scientists such as Albert Einstein who worked on the
principle that unless a hypothesis can be completed by being tested then I has not been proven. Oh
dear … This is just false. The student has clearly chosen an example that they have not mastered – a
dangerous strategy. QM is considered completely reliable and has survived some rigorous tests. So
much so that its predictions underly many of the machines found in our labs and hospitals, such as
electron-tunnelling microscopes and quantum computers. The problem here is that candidate
speaks generally without naming the supposed ‘many scientists’ who are dismissive of QM to be
tested. If she were forced to name these scientists, she would find that she cannot do so, because
there aren’t any! This is just a bit of intellectual laziness – “let’s just guess rather than do the
research” (or find a better example). An examiner who lacked the required background would
nonetheless note that this passage is not given an in-text page numbered citation and the supposed
scientists are not named, effectively blocking this as an effective example giving factual support
that can be traced.
In History robust knowledge is knowledge which is widely supported by different sources and
pieces of evidence, and agreed by the majority of historians. This is robustness operationalised in
History. Note that the candidate avoids the common levels-switch that happens in ToK essays about
history where discussion of the past is confused with discussion about knowledge production in the
AoK History. Again, the discussion is connected explicitly to the PT. This once again means that
consensus seems to be far more important as If there is any disagreement about the knowledge
claim then the reliability of the knowledge is called into question. We might originally reason that
this is especially a problem for history as if in the Natural sciences there is disagreement then the
experiment can be repeated and more information gathered. This cannot happen in history as in most
cases more information cannot be gathered as we cannot go back and review the event or recreate the
circumstances. Good point. Experimentation is not part of the methodology of History. This lack of
repeatability in history would seem to make disagreement antagonistic to consensus and the claim
of robust knowledge. An example in History of this is the Eruption of Vesuvius h 79CE. The
knowledge from historical sources that Vesuvius erupted in 79CE is considered to be very reliable as
there is 100% consensus on the date of the eruption. It is a shame that the candidate does not mention
the source, say Pliny the Elder, despite it being in the bibliography. That would make this passage far
more convincing. If any altemative sources were found disputing this date then the reliability of this
knowledge would be called into question. This example therefore shows that in this scenario with
historical fact consensus enables knowledge to be robust and disagreement would call the
knowledge into question. This specific example does not really do any work – any other example in
History could have been used to make the same point. This is a weakness with the way in which the
example is analysed. With causation this is also true as if there is disagreement over what occurred
from one event to another then the reason that each event occurred could be thrown into doubt. This
final sentence seems ‘tacked on’ as an afterthought and destroys the balance of the paragraph. The
reader is left wondering what causation has to do with it. There could have been an interesting
paragraph with an example about the role of historians in making causal claims. But a single
sentence such as this leaves the examiner with far too much filling in. The point about causation is
trailed in the introduction so the examiner is expecting it to be properly established not just stated.
At a large scale there is a nice symmetrical structure here. A set of claims that parallel those made
for the natural sciences are made about history. However, the difference in methodology of
History is used to support a different answer to the PT.
However, in certain circumstances disagreement may be useful (the nice paragraph symmetry
continues) in trying to gather reliable knowledge as if only consensus exists about a certain event
due to only one side creating the historical sources then we cannot gather a complete view of what
occurred at the time and in this case disagreement in the sources may actually help to show the
views of different sides at the time. If this were a practice essay, I would urge the student to rewrite
this run-on sentence. While we are not marking English syntax, clarity can be compromised by poor
language craft. We are all language teachers remember! An example of this is in real life is Sir
Walter Raleigh. British public opinion of Sir Walter Raleigh is that he was a war hero whom helped
us to defeat the Spanish. Can we have some evidence for this view properly cited, please? However,
the Spanish saw him as a marauding pirate and a criminal. Ditto. This split opinion of Raleigh is also
true amongst historians who depending on their background have differing Interpretations of the
facts thus leading to disagreement about him. Which historians? This disagreement does not however
make our knowledge about him less reliable but instead offers a wider view of who he was thus in
this way makes our ability to make knowledge claims about him better. It does this as by offering a
wider opinion on Raleigh we are gaining a greater depth of knowledge over who Raleigh was as a
person and the effects that he had on people thus allowing an objective viewer to have more of an
understanding of who he was and the effect that he had on history. This claim is only substantiated
if we have the details of the historical accounts and the candidate shows that the different perspectives
do in fact combine to produce more understanding. Stating that it does so without giving the details
will not do. Not only this but without disagreement there would be no reason to investigate a
historical scenario further which could lead to situations where there is consensus over what
occurred but this consensus only covers part of what happened and due to a lack of disagreement the
knowledge claims that are being made may only be from part of the possible scenario. Again, let us
see an actual historical example where this is the case. There are sure to be many examples – a bit of
effort to find them would pay big dividends in the essay. This shows that although we would reason
that disagreement only seems to retract from the robustness of knowledge in history in fact
disagreement does have its place although consensus is far more important in making knowledge
more robust in history. I suspect that the candidate means ‘detract’. Slight slips in language are
forgiven providing the examiner does not have to do too much invention and write the essay for the
candidate.
The thinking behind this paragraph is good – it is just that, again, the example does not do what is
wanted of it. This is because of a rather sloppy approach to facts and omitting the details and
specifics of the example.

In conclusion the creation of robust knowledge does not necessitate only consensus or
disagreement but often requires both as in the case of Florey and Chains development of Penicillin,
showing me that consensus and disagreement do not have to be antagonistic to each other in creating
robust knowledge. Candidate is evaluating the general arguments as part of a longer conclusion
paragraph. This is OK. I advise putting the evaluation in a separate paragraph. However, I have
shown that the place of consensus and disagreement in creating robust knowledge does differ not
only between areas of knowledge (e.g. between Natural Sciences and History) but also within areas
of knowledge (e.g. establishing fact and testing variables). The intention has been to do this – and
the candidate would have done better to highlight the two different aspects mentioned here.
But lacking detailed examples these have not been sufficiently supported. The prevalence of
consensus and disagreement and their role in creating robust knowledge matters far more than
whether both help to create robust knowledge. For example, in the Natural sciences although
disagreement helps in the creation of robust knowledge without an eventual consensus then the
knowledge would never be considered robust. Thus in the Natural Sciences consensus is far more
prevalent in creating robust knowledge than disagreement is despite them both helping to create it
Therefore, from this essay although I can see that both consensus and disagreement have their place
in creating robust knowledge and by saying otherwise you are neglecting much of what makes
knowledge robust I can also see that the prevalence of consensus and disagreement changes between
areas of knowledge.

The discussion is focused on the title and is linked explicitly to the PT and effectively to the areas
of knowledge. (This is how we establish whether the discussion is relevant – whether the student
has made the effective link – there on the page. Examiners do not have to make a judgment here
against, for example, what they might have written or what it says in the Examiner Preparation
Notes. Examiners just have to answer the question: ‘is there a link between the PT and the
discussion – and is it effective (does it work)?’ The way to make a link is via the PT key words. Each
paragraph should link explicitly to a PT keyword via a section of text. This is why the introduction
where the keywords are discussed and unpacked is so important for the structure of the essay. This
is where one end of the link can be made.)

Arguments are clear and well set out. There is a very nice symmetrical paragraph organisation of the
whole essay. There is awareness and some evaluation of different points of view.

So far, the essay fits the level 4 descriptor (‘good’). But… the examples do not work and do not
support the accompanying analysis. This fits a level 2 descriptor (‘basic’). The effect is that the
essay ends up being in level 3. I suggest that the sophistication of the arguments means that it is
closer to level 4 than level 2.

A point on referencing. The bibliography is acceptable – but there must be in-line citations. If the
candidate had taken the in-line referencing seriously, she might have realised that her examples
need detail. Referencing can encourage a certain discipline and respect for factual support. I suggest
that Chicago Turabian is used or something with a similar style such as APA or MLA. The inline
citation should at least include the author’s last name and the date (and page number if relevant).

Bibliography

Bynum, W. Howard Florey (1898-1968) and Ernst Chain (1906-79) (Website).

Available at

http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/people/howardflorever nstchain (date of

access 16/12/17)

Anon. Drug Trial Protocol Development (Website). Available at

https://hub.ucsf.edu/protocol-development (date of access 15/12/17)

Clements, W. Sir Walter Raleigh, A discourse of the Peace with Spain (research Paper). Available at

https://guod.lib.umich.edu/c/ciementsmss/umich-wcl-M-4889ral?view=text (date of access

16/12/17)

Reid, M Einstein VS Quantum Mechanics (website). Available at https://phys.org/news/2014-

06- einstein-quantum-mechanics-hed-today.htmI (date of access 18/01/18)

Anon. Howard Walter Florey and Ernst Boris Chain (website). Available at
https://www.chemheritage.org/historical-profile/howard-walter-florev-andernst-boris-chain (date of
access 19/12/17)

Anon. Thalidomide Society (website). Available at

http://www.thalidomidesocietv.org/what-is-thalidomide/ (date of access 20/01/18)

Radice, B (originally Pliny the Younger). Pliny to Cornelius Tacitus (website/ translation). Available at

http://www.u.arizona.edu/-afutreH/404b/web%20rdgs/plinv%20on%20vesuviu s.htm (date of access

18/12/17)

Anon. Mt, Vesuvius (Website) available at

http://www.vesuvioinrete.it/e storia.htm (date of access 16/12/17)