The actions of human beings drive toward goals; the maps that knowledge provide help us to to identify and choose actions pursuant to those goals. So the biggest set of problems knowledge can solve is the one created by impediments to goals.
Historian Yuval Noah Harari points out several different problems addressed by different areas of knowledge. 'True' physical theory (as in science) will help you to hunt an animal, construct a bridge, etc., delivering a power which can manipulate objective reality and address impediments lodged in that reality. But, he adds, when it comes to power that manipulates human beliefs (the stuff described by history), a fictional story will achieve large-scale cooperation much better than the truth. We humans are tribal, says Harari, and outlandish stories help us to recognize members of our tribe, display loyalty to that tribe, and avoid painful truths about our past. Because the "advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big" he states, "fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history." In short, impediments lodged in beliefs respond to fiction rather than truth.
The implication of this argument is that knowledge (which requires truth, defined as accurate rendering of objective reality) helps solve problems in science, but not in history. For Harari, truth and fiction are opposites; truth is a map which describes reality for all and fiction is a map which distorts it for a few. But is fiction necessarily out of sorts with truth? Yes an artist may deliberately distort reality to manipulate your belief: on behalf of the state, via propaganda for instance. But don't our most treasured art works depart from actuality to better evoke a deeper reality? When I sing Handel in church choir, the sound is not 'true', but it lifts spirits and knits listeners up in their faith. The hash marks and paint globs in van Gogh's Parisian self-portrait do not accurately render his face, but they convey the truth of his despair. I argue that the map art provides can elevate us to see beyond tribe and embrace and confront truths that cut across all humanity.
Harari helpfully shows us that different sorts of impediment-problems exist in various Areas of Knowledge; I argue that actors in history and artists can choose dependable truth-linked maps. Perhaps he would respond that most of the goals of some Areas of Knowledge cannot be reached via these truth-linked maps; some Areas of Knowledge exist to serve the tribe, period. I think he may be right and that we should possibly rename them Areas of ... Influence and occasional Knowledge, perhaps? So, yes, knowledge, when it is produced, is produced to solve problems; however much of what we produce to solve problems cannot be called knowledge.
What other reasons might there be for producing knowledge?
Is problem-solving, then, the main reason for producing knowledge?
Word Count (so far): 483
Works Cited
Harari, Yuval Noah. "Why Fiction Trumps Truth." The Stone, May 24, 2019. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/opinion/why-fiction-trumps-truth.html
Questions students might ask:
1. How did you to start out with such a strong answer to your first question?
I didn't. I developed an answer after tangling with the Harari article. First I sought to understand Harari's point of view, then to challenge it. As a writer, I decided to state my 'strong' sounding answer for the reader first and then explain it, but this does not accurately reflect my process as a thinker. I don't usually come up with a great position, all on my own, without doing some back and forth work.
2. Did you ever find yourself wandering off topic?
Absolutely! At one point, I found myself side-tracking over toward the following conclusion: the maps of art and history are truth-tracking also! I asked myself: does this answer my question #1? No. The real conclusion to my first question is: knowledge can solve problems in history and art as well as science.
3. Could you wait until question #3 to tie this mini-conclusion back to the Prescribed Title?
I could have. But I felt it was important to stop and realize what I'd learned through the first exercise. I'd learned that: yes, knowledge, when it is produced, is produced to solve problems; however much of what we produce to solve problems cannot be called knowledge. It will be much easier to initiate my answer to #3 with this summary, and whatever summary I compose from investigation two, as starting points. Otherwise, I will have to rehash, wasting words, of which I only have 1600.
4. You use first person; is this advisable in a TOK essay?
Yes. The whole point of TOK is to show that you, the student, can reflect critically on the knowledge you have acquired thus far, hear others' points of view, and ready yourself to put knowledge to work in the world. First person can powerfully render your thoughts and help your reader 'see' you endeavoring to understand how knowledge works. This especially holds true for vignettes of personal knowledge & conclusions.
