Mapping the World:
Exploring the Links Between the Ways of Knowing and Areas of Knowledge
By Alvin Tan
First of all, let me say that this lecture was not my own idea, that is, it was not born in my head. It arose from a conversation I had with a friend about the connections and links between the ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge. As usual, we were not in full agreement but the consensus was that an attempt should be made to at least explore some ideas that will serve as catalysts, to set you thinking and to challenge you to break out of those stifling little pseudo-intellectual boxes they have packed you into. And that is why this lecture was put into the schedule.
What does it mean to map the world?
In this lecture, I will argue that the ways of knowledge (WoK) exist in order for us to explore the areas of knowledge (AoK) and in so doing; a coherent and perhaps useable topography of what we know will be produced.
To begin, let us ask ourselves, what is a map?
A geographer will tell you that a map represents an area, either in part on in whole. It can either be a flat surface or a globe. Usually, there will be items of a map that enable you to extract useable information from it. On very old maps, for your own good, there were even areas marked “There Be Dragons”. There are many things we can map – the Earth, our bodies, the skies, our genes, the list goes on. More importantly, maps reflect and illustrate both the interactions and the potential interactions that can exist between its constituent parts. Put a settlement next to a river and the next thing you know is trade and communication. Put a mountain range and you will see isolated communities. Strictly speaking, maps are produced by cartographers. In reality, anyone can produce a map. Just ask yourself – how do I know place? How do I know Dover Road?
And the purpose of the TOK course and of this lecture is to provide you with the tools to make such a map. Think of the AoK as the terrain and the WoK as the cartography.
What is an AoK? All AoK consists of a corpus of beliefs or claims that are in turned supported by a body of information or data. We might also say that it is the product of an application of the various Woks via a specific methodology or process. Thus, without the WoK, there would be no knowledge per se.
Let us break down this complex (and almost inane) assertion into two parts. First, how do I know? Second, how do I know that a given assertion is true, or that a given judgment is well grounded?
As a historian, how do I know? How do I apprehend the discipline? How do I comprehend it? How do I apply it? How do I analyse it? How do I construct new knowledge? How do I compare it with other disciplines?
Since my primary training is that of a historian, I will use history as an AoK to answer these questions.
As a historian, I apprehend the discipline by using my sense perception. Without it, I will be unable to survey the documentary evidence that lies before me, as well as the body of existing historical works. I comprehend the discipline by using reason and emotion. Without these WoKs, history would merely be drivel, a mindless aggregation of random information and of no use to anyone. Reason in history helps me make sense of the past by putting events in order, following the precepts of cause/effect, time/space and place. It enables me to perceive structural weaknesses, environmental stresses and conceive the inevitability of events. It allows me to identify and trace the consequences of actions, the immediate aftermath and the enduring legacies. This making sense of things, or what people often call analysis (but have little idea of what it means) is the basis of understanding. As a historian, I am constantly questioning the purpose of things, the premises/assumptions embedded in them, the possibility of other viewpoints, the import of statements and the consequences in all that we do. Of course, emotion enables us to go deep into the past and perceive it through unique lenses or even experience it vicariously. Yet, emotion is something I remain guarded against. Historians must be dispassionate and must guard against becoming overly emotional in their conclusions. This is not to say that history is objective – it is not. It is perhaps the sum of all subjectivities and viewpoints – the dispassion merely cautions the historian and reminds him of the need to maintain a detachment, a distance between the subject he is studying and his personal beliefs. In a way, language remains the backbone of history. Without language, the historian’s tale cannot be told. Paradoxically, language might be the element that works against the historian who tries to remain dispassionate about his findings and conclusions. The choice of words used by a historian ultimately adds to or takes away from what he is trying to say about the past.
All these having been said, I would argue that a historian’s primary map is the chronology he has constructed. For without this cartographic reference, he would immediately find himself in unfamiliar terrain, utterly lost. Imagine, just imagine for a moment, your life story without any references to dates (or the calendar variety) and you will realise that you have had no life! The narrative flows from the chronology; you cannot narrate and then impose a chronology – there would be no flow reversed!
How do I tend check the validity of my claims or if my judgments are well grounded? To do so, the historian must constantly verify and check his evidence and his claims. If the historian attempts to revise the record, he must ensure that his claims are well-evidenced, that it stands up to scrutiny by other historians who examine the same set of data. He must make sure that his reasoning stands the tests of logic. He must make sure that his intentions from the outset are honest, that as a historian he is ethical and scrupulous in his narrative. In this day and age, when there are individuals who deny the existence of events like the Holocaust, the role of ethics in the historical profession remains more important than ever. Dishonesty has no place in any area of knowledge, let alone History.
No historian can claim to have written the conclusive narrative, the singular story. It is an act of intellectual arrogance and perhaps of the willful suppression of other historical maps out there.
Now I will take you through the mind of a chemist, though I am certainly not one and certainly not an alchemist – I have no wish to turn base metals into gold!
Someone once told me that chemistry was a central science (ACS) which sounded to me like a bad pun and chemical arrogance. According to this unknown person, a chemist uses the following tools – observation, pattern analysis, molecular hypothesis and experiment. Essentially, a chemist’s job is to make sense of chaos and randomness and in doing so, work towards order and usefulness. Drawing from my experiences in the laboratory eons ago, I make the following inferences. First, sense perception is of utmost importance to a chemist. Without it, the subtle changes in colour during the process of titration cannot be discerned and if they are not properly discerned, then the outcomes would be inaccurate. Second, reason provides the basis for pattern recognition and analysis. Third, I would suggest that a degree of intuition is necessary for hypothesizing to take place. Lastly, without the WoKs, experimentation as a method of proving, disproving hypothesis would be untenable.
I would also like to suggest that the chemist’s primary map is the periodic table. Dimitry Mendeleyev dreamt up a system which was immensely logical. It was a table based on the atomic weights of elements but which was arranged periodically, that is, elements with similar properties (metallic, non-metallic, gases) were put under each other. Gaps were left in place for elements that had not been discovered. This map, which was cartographically accurate and yet built with room for expansion in mind, can be said to be the cornerstone of advancement in chemistry.
I am no chemist, so forgive me if I sound uncertain or unsure here.
Are all the WoKs equally valid or useful across all the AoKs? Perhaps we should also ask ourselves in what ways the WoKs undermine our understanding of the AoKs.
With this, I come to the end of this short lecture and I trust that you will continue to critically examine the various AoKs as they are presented to you in the coming weeks.
