A Good Explanation 15 (5-5-5)
Assessor Responses
Domain Analysis
A Good Explanation 10 (3-4-3)
Assessor Responses
Domain Analysis
Introduction and Table of Contents
Assessor Responses
Reader A: A sound essay that leads the reader smoothly from point to point. Text reveals that critical thought preceded the final expression—the reader can be sure that the writer didn’t just wade in; it also reveals the writer’s awareness of the need to convince the reader. An intelligent introductory paragraph to set up the argument and then useful distinctions among different content areas as well as among various kinds of truth in order to ensure clear exposition. A coherent line of development covering many areas of the program. Strong analytic material deftly handled. Good use of quotes and examples in support of assertions; quotes not just stuck in and words strung between them. Insight into various forms of knowing and subject areas. Material beautifully handled and writer appears to take pleasure in creating his position and constructing a strong argument that is meant to express his insight, not hit someone on the head with the finality of it.
Reader B: A sophisticated and sensitive paper. A clear introduction. Sets out the distinction about explanation making in the arts and sciences well and follows it through with apposite examples. Control and balance of argument very good. Language always used at a superior level. I thought the truth and the doctor example, with the implication that there exists a gold standard of truth that we do not usually reach in everyday life, made a good point early in the essay. I also liked the appreciation that in literature truth operates at a different level from ‘scientific’ truth (e.g., there is no coastline in Bohemia and Keats’ conception of the Greek vase goes well beyond archaeological description).
Reader C: This paper takes one of the most challenging topics and contributes significantly to its clarification. It establishes a firm line of development, threading together complex ideas that reflect an appreciation for different ways of knowing. It distinguishes effectively between what a good explanation calls for in the sciences and what it calls for in the arts. This juxtaposition demonstrates the difficulty in formulating a generalization that holds true for what constitutes a good explanation consistently across the arts and sciences. The use of the closing quotation from Keats tends to pull away from the guiding contention of the paper, yet it does not significantly detract from the overall merit of thought, language control, and knowledge investigation that permeates the paper.
Domain Analysis
Clarity
Introduction. At the outset, the writer establishes two points: (1) any response to the topic must be complex because of three conditions which he succinctly states; and (2) to avoid too much complexity, the discussion that follows must be limited in scope and remain on a general level. The writer thus provides readers a strong sense of what to expect and what he actually delivers is faithful to this expectation.
Organization. After the introduction, the writer uses a doctor/patient vignette to distinguish four kinds of ‘truth’, which he relates to four levels of explanation. He then distinguishes between the ways in which “the humanistic disciplines and the sciences” relate “truth to explanation”. He first explains the scientific approach and then the humanistic one (the amount of textual space devoted to each is well-balanced). His final paragraph is slightly abrupt but it does restate the writer’s essential point: that the humanities and the sciences approach truth and explanation in such different ways that it is virtually impossible to provide a coherent description of what counts as a good explanation.
Individual paragraphs are rhetorically unified and logically ordered. Consider, for example, the paragraph that begins with line 74. The writer first sets up the notion that literary works may contain false as well as true statements. He then supports this claim with false statements in Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale and Swift’s Gulliver Travels. He ends with the point that although artists do not necessarily follow scientific standards, their attempts to “give coherence and meaning…to man’s existence” are effective means of pursuing a “good explanation” of human experience. (lines 83-84)
Control of language and material. The writer’s rhetorical skill is demonstrated at the end of the introductory paragraph (lines 5-6), where he observes that the constraints he has placed on his own discussion prevent it from being counted as a good explanation. Such a reflexive gesture establishes a modest and measured tone that he maintains throughout the essay. At the same time, it signals a rhetorical control that is reassuring to the reader.
The writer also shows firm control over syntax and discourse. He has mastered the cadenced pacing of a long sentence, as evidenced by the opening one: “The question ‘What counts as a good explanation?’ might have a simple answer if all branches of knowledge adhered harmoniously together, and if all people held similar values, and operated at similar levels of intelligence and understanding.” (lines 1-3) The fact that he follow this sentence with the pungent “This, of course, is not the case” shows equal mastery of pacing at the discourse level. It is as though he knows that readers, having worked through a complicated statement, need to stop and catch their breath before they take on the further complications that await them in the next two sentences. Throughout the essay, the writer continuously shifts syntax to reflect the rhythms of his own thinking.
One final note—the writer maintains a stylistic consistency that assures the reader that the language of the essay, sophisticated as it may be, is well within his control. This sense that it is his own language is strengthened by occasional infelicities such as the failure to use “in confirming” in the following sentence: “Science goes a long way to confirm this place in the world.” (line 34)
Content
Focus on problems of knowledge. At the heart of the essay are problems of knowing. The writer brings these problems into sharp focus in presenting the situation of a doctor communicating with a seriously ill patient. This situation is used to illustrate four kinds of truth—the ‘real’ truth that cannot be properly understood, the truth as understood by the doctor, the truth as communicated by the doctor, and the truth as understood by the patient. This example is especially useful because it places problems of knowledge within the context of human communication.
Support of main points. The writer makes effective use of both quotations and specific examples to support main points. The quotation by Richard Feynman in lines 37-42 provides strong support for the notion that science provides human beings with a sense of not only what goes on in the world but their own place within it. The writer effectively maintains the metaphor of the chess game that the quotation introduces.
As for specific examples, John Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn” is used to illustrate the contrasting ways in which science and art approach truth: the former views the urn as an archaelogical artifact, the latter as a “thing of beauty” (we described an effective use of the doctor/patient example in the preceding section).
Critical Thought
Implications and counterclaims. The writer is careful in developing the implications of basic points. Consider, for example, how he develops the point that an artist’s explanation of the world ‘counts’ as good “because it explores areas of experience or understanding that enable us to be uplifted. Since this kind of good explanation is contrary to what science has led us to believe, the writer calls into question the basic notion under consideration: “If there is no single formula which satisfactorily explains our responses, then either a different definition of a ‘good explanation’ must be devised, or the concept disregarded altogether.” (lines 71-73) At other points, the writer shows comparable skill in challenging certain common sense notions.
Throughout the essay the writer displays a sophisticated understanding of differences in scientific and humanistic ways of knowing. Given the strong focus on differences, he does not explore the common ground that they share. This lack of exploration could be viewed as a limitation in light of the descriptors’ focus on whether the essay evaluated counterclaims. I do not view it as a limitation since the writer informed his readers that he would “limit the scope of discussion” so as “to avoid being overwhelmed by complexity”. (lines 4-5) He prudently concentrated on differences between the two ways of knowing in order to highlight their strengths and limitations.
Personal thought and originality. Even though the essay is formal in tone, it consistently evidences personal thought. Such thought is present in the opening paragraph when the writer warns the reader that the essay will not itself count as a good explanation. It is also present at the end when the writer lets us know that his own sympathies ultimately lie with Keats’ notion that truth can be best understood as beauty. This declaration of a personal preference is pleasing in light of the neutral tone with which the writer has worked through the scientific and humanistic approaches.
Assessor Responses
Reader A: The paper offers a fairly weak introduction that impairs a clear line of development. The reliance on dictionary definitions is unfortunate; if they are going to be used, they should be responded to (i.e., accepted, revised, or rejected since part of the TOK enterprise is to have students form personal views around received ideas). In the body of the paper the writer makes links to different parts of the TOK program, but the result is more a jumble than a good inter-disciplinary comparison. Too often there were unsupported generalizations (really overstatements) such as “the truth that most humans are in search of is objective, uniform, and indisputable.” (lines 29-30)
Reader B: The essay is fairly well organised and follows a logical line of development. There are some weaknesses in the way concepts are used and the writer relies rather too heavily on dictionary definitions—again more ownership is needed. Her ideas can be rather limited and banal, as illustrated by statements such as “All of [these] ideologies are accurate, relative to each individual.” (line 21) Such a statement indicates a lack of understanding of the possibilities of finding objective truth, although later she makes statements such as “there would be no purpose for science if the laws did not lead to predictions.” (lines 54-55) This statement seems to err too much in the opposite direction.
On the whole, the writer had not thought through the implications of what she has written. The conclusion shows the inherent weaknesses in her approach. A new paradigm is not, of necessity, closer to the truth. She does, however, stick to the question asked and there is a certain order in her response. A 3-4-3 seems fair in the circumstances.
Reader C: This is a paper that might have been swallowed up by dictionary definitions, but instead the student is able to use them to execute a paper that achieves a strong, definitive finale. The paragraphs unfold with analytical links between topics, building up the qualities which, when taken together, form a good explanation. Throughout the paper, however, some claims are made that need substantiation but are not given it. The assertion that history repeats itself is one such claim. In terms of subject areas, the treatment of the natural sciences seems the more in-formed and systematic. Here the student is working with learned information, and yet she writes of it with understanding. There are comparatively weaker treatments of other subject areas, notably history and religion, and what constitutes a good explanation in them. The paper closes with a summary of required qualities. The conclusion, however, implies that a good explanation can really only be achieved in the natural sciences.
Domain Analysis
Clarity
Introduction. After opening with a dictionary definition of “explanation”, the writer introduces a number of abstruse notions in the next three sentences: for example, “an explanation must be based on a certain resolution.” (line 3) She then steadies herself and lays out two criteria for evaluating whether an explanation may be considered good: it must correspond to factual evidence and serve as a basis for prediction. Rather than stating that her essay will use these criteria to evaluate different kinds of explanation, she states that the second criterion was used more “in the ages of reason, and therefore it will be further analyzed in this paper.” (lines 12-13) She ends the introduction by adding yet another criterion—truth. This introduction is so jumbled that it provides no analytic framework within which she can proceed.
Organization. The writer begins the essay proper with another dictionary definition—this time defining “truth”. Rather than exploring that definition, she explores the variable notions of truth that can be found in religion, history, and morality (she does not take sufficient account of the overlap in these domains).
The writer then shifts to science and mathematics, presenting the first as error-prone because of its dependence on the senses, the second as error-free because of its freedom from the senses. She finally makes it back to the criterion of prediction, and uses it to contrast science with the religion, history, and morality introduced earlier. Having argued for the superiority of science, she then discusses its “three different methods of introducing the believed truth: principles, theories, and laws.” (lines 64-65) This discussion is rather long and rambling before she reaches a conclusion where she states that a good explanation is “one that offers the truth and proceeds to predict.” (line 99) In this conclusion she jumbles together a number of the points that she has made along the way.
Control of language and material. The writer tends to use a great deal of abstract language which she does not sufficiently control. This lack of control is evidenced in her use of causal connectives between sentences that have no discernible causal relation. It is difficult, for example, to know what the writer had in mind in using “therefore” and “consequently” in the following sentences: “Behind every action lay a design, therefore an explanation must be based on a certain resolution. Consequently, a good explanation is one that completely fulfills its purposes.” (line 4) Despite the language difficulties, the writer obviously understands a good deal of the material she introduces. For example, the distinction between science and mathematics described earlier is poorly worded but it is conceptually compelling. In fact, the ineffectual wording, when it does not interfere with comprehension, provides a certain evidence that the writer has struggled to make the material her own. I should add that the writer, judging from her name as well as textual evidence, is probably not a native speaker of English.
Content
Problems of knowledge. Throughout the essay, the writer remained focused on an important problem of knowledge: how do human beings evaluate explanations about what they know? She linked this question broadly to the TOK curriculum, bringing in history, religion, and morality as well as science and mathematics.
Support of main points. The writer provides reasonably effective support for certain key points. For example, in discussing Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm shift, she draws effectively on the historical example of Copernicus.. As she succinctly put it, “Inevitably his new science became the normal science.” (line 97) She also used the “butter-fly effect” effectively in explaining the difficulty that meteorologists have in long-range weather forecasting. Her odd use of language worked to good effect when she wrote about “the infinite amount of sources of change affecting everyday skies.” (lines 58-59)
Critical Thought
Implications and counterclaims. It is instructive to compare this essay with the first one in the packet, which was written on the same topic. In that essay the writer uses different domains of human knowledge to call into question what “good” means as a description of an explanation. In effect, the sheer diversity of what constitutes an explanation led that writer to a basic rethinking. Here the writer also deals with different domains of human knowledge, but rather uncritically transports the notion of a good explanation in the natural sciences to the other domains and then judges the explanations they offer as deficient. She never stops to challenge whether a criterion such as prediction is suitable for a domain such as religion.
The lack of critical thought is further evidenced in the writer’s failure to consider in any systematic way claims that run counter to her own. Even though a significant portion of the essay was devoted to Kuhn’s The Structure of the Scientific Revolution, she did not draw adequately on his own thinking about the limitations of any scientific explanation.
Personal thought and originality. Even though this essay displayed no real originality, the writer did manage to convey a certain amount of personal thought. It is satisfying to observe how her non-native idiom contributes a personal tone. In closing her essay, she writes: “until the world is functioning, there will always be room for improvement” (on certain bad days, I find myself in full sympathy with this distinctive use of “until”).