TOK Essay - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

TOK Essay - "The role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification." To what extent do you agree with this statement?...

Description

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

"The role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification." To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Teacher: Mr. Andrew St-Amant Prompt Number: 4 Candidate Number: htx906 Word Count: 1263 / 1600

When taking a quick glance at the prescribed title, many would come to agree that the role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification, but is that really the case? Is there really a line separating understanding and justification? No, there isn’t – even if there is – the line is blurred. This argument can be supported easily, by examining firstly the false dichotomy that the title presumes. Analogy, in laymen terms is a comparison between two things to show the similarities and for the sole purpose of clarification and explanation. To exemplify, a primary school student will usually use their fingers to do a simple addition or subtraction when they think the answer is wrong or they can’t do it mentally, thus allowing them to understand and provide justification for their answer. Therefore, this essay will limit its scope for supporting the argument to a discussion of how reason and human sciences cooperate to show the role of analogy in aiding understanding, and likewise, how emotion and history cooperate to show the role of analogy in providing justification. In the field of human sciences, specifically psychology, it is said that humans are able to learn and gain an understanding of unfamiliar concepts faster when given an analogy with a familiar one. This not only applies to students, but every single person in general who aren’t mentally handicapped. According to an article by nagc, “analogies in the classroom helps students understand a lesson more easily as teachers form connections between the new topic and what has already been taught” (Lombardi, 2018). The keyword here is connections. The human brain is designed for continuous use, which is why having an eidetic memory is impossible. In terms of computers, if we were to keep storing information on it, eventually the storage will run out and you will either have to delete old info or buy a new replacement. Our brain is comparable to it – if we kept absorbing without deleting, they’ll be a time where we won’t be able to store any more information. Fortunately, this is theoretically impossible as our brain is programmed to delete memory as time passes, and this is called the ‘Decay Theory’ (Mcleod, 2008). When students are learning a new vocabulary or concept per-se, synonymous words are used to make connection so that they’re able to gather information from their semantic memory and use deductive reasoning to aid them in understanding. Therefore, without analogy, it can be inferred that learning a new concept will be harder. While analogy is implied to help humans understand new concepts better, it can be argued that with the benefits comes the drawbacks. When using analogy to compare learned information with new information, it allows us to understand said information better because

we are able to make connections between the two to draw conclusions. But what if we come across a problem – a situation where we use deductive reasoning to create a false analogy? We won’t know it’s false because we’ve already fallen to a habit of analogical reasoning with unwavering confirmation. According to a discussion by 12manage, “once used, an analogy anchors itself and is hard to dislodge, [in addition with] confirmation bias, decision makers tend to seek out information confirming their beliefs and to ignore contradicting data” (Rivkin, 2004). The keyword here is anchor. When we use a certain way of thinking such as analogical reasoning, the psychological effect known as ‘Habit formation’ begins (Psychology Today). This happens simply because when a behavior is used once too many times, it is etched into our neural pathways causing us to behave in said behavior automatically. When we fall into this habit of thinking, it becomes a vicious cycle where we use analogy to help understand new concepts, but when information that contradicts said concepts arises, we tend to reject it. In other words, we become close-minded and our understanding on the concept becomes restricted and undermined. When making an analogy, the purpose is for the sake of aiding understanding, but understanding automatically provides justification as a side-effect simply because there is no better evidence than letting yourself find the knowledge, the proof, within yourself, within your own minds. According to an article by The American Conservative, “historical analogies can sometimes be useful when they are used to inform a debate and give an audience greater perspective on current events” (Larison, 2014). The keyword here is greater perspective. When comparing modern political situation to a century ago, the biggest difference would be the commonality of wars. A historical analogy can be made between Japan and America. As stated in a timeline by History.com, because “the Japanese War Council didn’t accept the Potsdam Conference demand for unconditional surrender”, Americans were forced to drop the second nuclear bomb which devastated another of Japan’s city (History, 2009). Nowadays, we live in a society where technology is more advanced therefore weapon of mass destructions will be more powerful than they were a hundred years ago. A comparison between the present and the past can be made to justify the use of these weapons are wrong and should be banned or should only be used in dire situations. Therefore, by looking back at the incident in Japan, we’ve come to realize the ‘greater perspective’ on current events and what would happen if the same thing back then, happened right now.

Analogies are usually harmless in the sense that it doesn’t cause any harm to others physically nor mentally, but what happens when political leaders start to rely on historical analogies to falsely justify their actions? According to an article by The Diplomat, “it is dangerous for political leaders to use historical analogies to mobilize support [because] these ready-to-use analogies could make people believe everything is doomed, and therefore not make strong efforts to uphold peace and to create new opportunities for reconciliation” (Wang, 2014). It is quite obvious that the keyword is dangerous. On January 2014, the prime minister of Japan has stated that the rising tension between them and China is comparable to Germany and Britain before WWI. Clearly, he’s trying to take advantage of historical analogies to falsely justify China as dangerous as Germany was back then. Once a group of minority people start to fall prey to these propagandas, it’ll spread like wildfire. Naturally there are others who view it as silly, but what about those who truly believe it? It’s simple – their emotions of fear run wild, blocking their logical reasoning as their idea of peace becomes shattered as they strive for their own survival regardless of whatever harm they do to others. Therefore, while historical analogies are helpful in providing justification, it can also be detrimental if used wrongly – therefore: a double-edge blade. While some might say the role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification, is it really true? Analogy not only helps a person to understand and learn an unfamiliar concept faster, it also provides justification for them to see whether it’s right or wrong and allows us to realize mistakes from previous events through the greater perspective. Hence, is there really a line separating understanding and justification? No, there isn’t – even if there is – the line is blurred. In an analogy, to aid understanding and provide justification is two sides of the same coin. When you flip the coin the first time, you’ll come to an understanding, the second time will give you justification to confirm your understanding. Therefore, the rectified statement should be: “the role of analogy is to aid understanding and to provide justification”.

Citations Lombardi, Lisa. “How Analogies Challenge and Benefit the Gifted Learner.” How Analogies Challenge and Benefit the Gifted Learner | National Association for Gifted Children, 27 Aug. 2018, www.nagc.org/blog/how-analogies-challenge-and-benefit-gifted-learner. Mcleod,

Saul.

“Forgetting.”

Forgetting

|

Simply

Psychology,

1

Jan.

2008,

Apr.

2005,

www.simplypsychology.org/forgetting.html. Rivkin,

Gavetti.

“Analogical

Strategic

Reasoning.”

12Manage,

www.12manage.com/methods_gavetti_analogical_strategic_reasoning.html. “Habit Formation | Psychology Today Canada.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, www.psychologytoday.com/ca/basics/habit-formation. Larison, Daniel. “The Uses and Abuses of Historical Analogies.” The American Conservative, 1 Dec.

2014,

www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-uses-and-abuses-of-

historical-analogies/. “Atomic Bomb Dropped on Nagasaki.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 5 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/atomic-bomb-dropped-on-nagasaki. Wang, Zheng. “The Dangers of History Analogies.” – The Diplomat, For The Diplomat, 25 July 2014, www.thediplomat.com/2014/07/the-dangers-of-history-analogies/....