Some immediate thoughts from me. I’m not suggesting these are the ways you should approach the essays, they are most certainly not the only approaches you could take, but I hope they get you thinking.
Q1 “If a disagreement about knowledge claims needs to be resolved, then it is essential to give equal attention to both sides.” Under what circumstances is this good advice?
This would be nothing new to historians: Germany was responsible for WW1; Stalin was responsible for the Cold War; Mao was a monster; and we could add a thousand more. These are all knowledge claims that may or may not be true. Or may only be partially true. But they are also particular national perspectives or particular ideological perspectives. And they are also the subject of heated debate amongst historians. We need to show that we are aware of different knowledge claims, show that we understand why they have been made; show that there is evidence for such claims, as there is for rival claims.
Whether the knowledge claim “needs” to be resolved is another matter. History can live with debate. It can be enough to show that there are rival knowledge claims, or it may be necessary to state the case for one and refute others. After WW1, German historians were encouraged to refute the whole notion of German blame, for example. But now we are back to national and ideological needs.
Q2 “Understanding something requires being able to answer ‘What if…?’ questions about it.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
There is a ‘What if?’ approach to history: counter-factual history (also known as ‘virtual history’). Some historians see it as a waste of time, some see it as an interesting way to approach the choices people had to choose between: should I vote for Hitler and the Nazis or not? Should we go to war or not? There were always choices to be made in history. Ian Kershaw discusses ten Fateful Choices in his book of that name. In his introduction, he says that ‘assessing the options behind a particular decision helps to clarify why, exactly, the actual decision was taken.’ If nothing else, it’s a great starting point for your essay!
Q3 “Too much of our knowledge revolves around ourselves, as if we are the most important thing in the universe” (adapted from Carlo Rovelli). Why might this be problematic?
An approach that involves history could look at why historians are interested in a study: a topic, a subject, a theme, and whether that perverts the direction taken in the study. As already noted, Germans historians, for example, were encouraged by the German state to “prove” that Germany was no more guilty of causing WW1 than other countries. So, should we discourage certain people from studying certain topics? Women studying women’s history, for example, or African Americans studying slavery, or Jews studying the Holocaust? The worry is, of course, that objectivity might be a victim if we are too passionate about a specific topic. It’s too close to us. I’m not suggesting we should bar anyone from studying whatever interests them, I’m just suggesting a good way to get into this essay for a historian!
Q4 “The process of gaining knowledge is more valuable than reaching an end result.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
History often shows, nay, nearly always shows, that there is no single answer. It is more a matter of different perspectives. Coming to terms with that can be important to an historian. But is it enough for an historian to show the complexities of an issue? Or to explain why there are different perspectives? Or should we be reaching answers all the time?
Q5 “The questions we can ask depend more on what we already know than on what we do not know.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Think of the progression from Year 7 or even IGCSE or MYP to IB: What have you learnt about a topic that you didn’t even know was a factor in your earlier studies? This, of course, could apply to any area of knowledge.
And what about when new evidence is discovered, or is made available to historians by states? Suddenly we know more about an issue or an event and can set off a whole raft of new questions.
Finally, as a counter-claim, what about when we know full-well that information is being kept from us? Does it not set us off asking why this information needs to be kept secret?
Q6 “Reliable knowledge can lack certainty.” Explore this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
We need to first step back and think about the language used here: “reliability” and “certainty”. As historians, we face this in the Source Paper that we learn to love!!!
We can have reliable sources that demonstrate a given perspective but with no certainty that the perspective is in fact true. As historians there are times when we recognise bias yet still see its value. It helps us to understand a given perspective. Think of a speech from any politician. It is a reliable source. It is what they said. It might even be what they believe (though not necessarily so). But it can be a million miles from the truth!
I hope these little insights help you in your TOK essay. History rocks!!!
But if they generate other ideas, or disagreement, let me know, and I’ll add to what is here.