• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

1. Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future. The past and the future are two opposing sides of the spectrum; however both share the quality of being ambiguous. This quality is what makes human beings seek knowledge about them, although what differs is how we approach each one. The question asks to compare and contrast each approach, thus we find that in the difference of how we approach knowledge of the past and knowledge of the future, we also find similarities between the two. Our approach on knowledge about the past is based on evidence and sources, while our approach on the knowledge about the future, although it is no more than just speculation, is usually based upon past patterns. Both these approaches also have their own limitations, creating differences in the similar fact that both can be questioned of their validity. The main difference, that is also the focal point of the differences and similarities between each approach, is the fact that the past has already happened, while the future is yet to occur. Thus, we find that when comparing knowledge about the past and future, we find more differences than similarities between acquiring knowledge about evidence than knowledge about speculation. The first basis of comparison between our approach to knowledge about the past and our approach to knowledge about the future is what this knowledge is based on. ...read more.

Middle

In other words, both approaches to knowledge are limited as both carry certain biases which make us question their validity. As we approach knowledge about history we have to be aware of the many biases that may be prevalent. These biases all stem from the same issue of us (people we are seeking the knowledge) not being the primary source/witness of the historical event. As we read a piece of historical analysis, we are instantaneously flooded with the author's point of view, which include his biases; such as whether he is supporting any particular group (social bias), if he has left out any details (deliberate manipulation), whether the topic the historian has chosen is influenced by current preoccupations (topic choice bias), whether the historian has only chosen evidence that supports his point of view (confirmation bias), or whether the historian has disregarded his pre-existing cultural and political prejudices (national bias) before writing the piece. An example of one of these biases would be the exclusion of the Japanese massacre of the Chinese people during World War Two in Japanese history textbooks. This would be an example of deliberate manipulation, as the Japanese government purposely excluded this significant event in history as a way of erasing their gruesome past. Moreover, since history, as we know it, is only what has been recorded by previous sources, we can not be sure of any unknowns that might have happened. ...read more.

Conclusion

Thus, there is a difference in our approach to knowledge about the past and our approach to knowledge about the future, as our approach to knowledge about the past is set with a precondition of hindsight, which plays a significant role on how we view past events (history), while foresight does not play as significant a role on our approach to knowledge about the future as it is merely a prediction. In conclusion, our approach to knowledge about the past as compared to our approach to knowledge about the future has more differences than they do similarities. Our approach to the past is based on evidence and sources, while our approach to the future is based on the past; which creates a similarity in the difference. Both approaches have limitations which make us question their validity, but what differs is that our approach to knowledge about the future is limited as it is only speculation, while our approach to knowledge about the past in limited by various biases. Another major difference is that hindsight is a significant factor in our approach to knowledge about the past, while foresight only reinforces the speculation of our approach to knowledge about the future. The ambiguity of both the past and future creates a similarity between them, but how we approach gaining knowledge about them is completely different. ?? ?? ?? ?? TOK History Essay ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Theory of Knowledge essays

  1. Scientific approach to History

    It might not be so in experimental science: although Galileo's theory about the spherical Earth was severely condemned at the time, it survives till modern time. The method aims at assisting the establishment of relationship between natural occurrences and events- causation.

  2. Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to ...

    We are wary of accepting historical knowledge because we know that history was authorized by rulers and people in power. The historical accounts could have been compromised, and can present a distorted, prejudiced version of the past wars and truces.

  1. Theory of Knowledge: History Essay

    Although there is previously a hypothesis that Vikings could have discovered Americas long before Columbus, Menzies totally shocked the audience with his theories. Given the Chinese were good sailors and adventurists, the conclusion that they could sail from China to Americas in approximately 30 days with enough food supply is not convincing to ordinary people.

  2. Theory of Knowledge

    The statement insinuates that truth is subjective rather than objective. Objective truth is data based as opposed to subjective truth that is based on perception, beliefs, theory and philosophy.

  1. work based project

    It was important for me to take into consideration the timing of giving out the questionnaire as 'there may be particular times of the day when someone feels more able to focus on a discussion because of their medication' (White and McCollam, 1999).

  2. What do you understand by George Orwells comment that Who controls the past controls ...

    A case that reaveal this statement can be traced back to 19 century. When'Christhoper Columbus' discovered the new and unknown continent, the Europeans flocked in the America and found the 'United State of America.' During the process of settlement, it was inevitable for the new comer to have conflict with the aboriginal population, the India.

  1. Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to ...

    On the other hand living during the historical event still does not secure a fully accurate and truthful knowledge, as humans tend to forget certain points which may therefore affect the accuracy of the knowledge or evidence. Language is another factor that must be taken into account while approaching the knowledge about the past.

  2. The historians task is to understand the past the human scientist, by contrast, is ...

    Many of the experiments run by human scientists were actually run with the intent of exploring the present human behavior, but ultimately were helpful for future purposes. An example of this would be the prominent Milgram experiment, which was run in 1963 after the trial of the German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichman.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work