TOK Blog – The Map is Not the Territory

By Jeff Robidoux

Hello Virtual Educators!

With the challenges of the week still fresh, I thought a little ToK break might be a salve for aching brains. So with a diversion in mind, but also keeping with the “virtual” theme, here is this week’s ToK blog entry.

One of the foundational tools in the Theory of Knowledge course is the “map metaphor”. In a nutshell, it suggests that subdividing knowledge into disciplines and smaller categories provides a guide to a specific type of knowing. A street map, for example, has a different use than a map of a subway system. Metaphorically, therefore, trigonometry is used to understand the world differently than theology is. But maps are inherently only approximations; they represent the territory, but they are not equivalent to the territory. This story about an artist deliberately manipulating Google Maps illustrates the point.

Simon Weckert dragged 99 smartphones down empty streets in Berlin to simulate a traffic jam. It worked. And it even caused snarls in other parts of the city due to people avoiding the “virtual” jam. Weckert’s goal was to highlight the role of technology in our world, suggesting, “I have the feeling right now that technology is not adapting to us, it’s the other way around.” 

What makes this idea especially interesting for us ToK geeks is that the data is valid, but the interpretation is misleading. It is true that an unusual number of devices was transmitting from the same location, but it is not true that the source was cars on the road. The problem is with the model, not the evidence. So a ToK student can ask many more questions after considering this story.

• What role do models play in shaping knowledge? 
• How reliable are data? 
• How is it justifiable for artists to negatively impact others? 
• To what extent should we investigate and contextualise empirical results? 
• How far is it plausible that data are neutral?

In our classrooms, one takeaway might be to ask students to consider the nature of evidence. If 9 year-olds are learning about the solar system, for example, we can ask them to find out how the model makers know that the model is true. When middle schoolers read a short story, we can ask them how we know that authors use symbolism intentionally. High School Economics students can investigate the extent to which the supply and demand curve is or isn’t a dependable model of real business practices. 

What other models do you use in your curriculum? How are students motivated to know their origins? How are the models justified? How are they challenged? Let me know some of your thoughts on this and I will share some responses next week.