IB TOK Essay May 2019 - Nurturing Contrasting Perspectives To Assure The Health Of A Discipline

1. “One way to assure the health of a discipline is to nurture contrasting perspectives.”
Discuss this claim.
Imagine you crafted what you thought was a brilliant essay, but your teacher pointed
out multiple errors and mistakes that would show that your essay is actually failing. Aside
from this instance being a huge disappointment for you, it is also a chance to understand and
learn from your mistakes to polish your piece and come up with a more effective essay. As
the idea that “one way to assure the health of a discipline is to nurture contrasting
perspectives” suggests, promoting opposing points of view may very well be beneficial for a
set of ideas to become even stronger. The title of this essay uses as the subject the word
“discipline”, which, to me, indicates any set of belief, or simply, an idea or argument that was
produced as a result of critical thinking. The word “nurture”, on the other hand, gives me an
impression of support, care and endorsement. Abiding with these definitions, I feel stimulated
to ask the following question: To what extent is nurturing the contrasting perspectives of a
discipline a reliable way when attempting to assure its health? Through references to the
natural sciences, religious knowledge systems and human sciences, as well as reason and
faith, I am hoping to discuss that recognising and promoting contrasting perspectives within a
discipline is, indeed, helpful to add unique viewpoints that ultimately establish an overall
promoting debate, which would allow the shortcomings within the discipline to be uncovered
and perhaps, resolved, helping the discipline grow and sustain its health.
The natural sciences is an area of knowledge that builds on positivism, rationalism and
reason when attempting to understand the physical, chemical and biological mechanisms of
life. Positivism within natural science brings with itself interpretation of data, reasoning and
logic; all three of these aspects are chiefly human-related, and when human-related aspects
are included in a particular discipline, it is not difficult to predict that there will be diverse
points of view. One example to this mosaic character of natural sciences is the 1960s debate

2. on finding the correct model for the cell membrane. We learned in our IB Biology course that
the then widely accepted Davson-Danielli model was insufficient in fitting the newly-
appearing evidence, which led to its replacement by the more accurate and currently-accepted
Singer-Nicolson model (Goñi). During that time, the willingness of the scientists to accept
and support this different and contrasting biological model allowed cell membrane biology to
be regarded as one of the most significant, fundamental and accurate elements of molecular
biology today. Personally, I am very interested in biological sciences and hoping to pursue a
concentration on biology in college. Having been exposed to the positivist ideologies of
scientists during both the IB Biology course and my independent scientific readings, I
conducted a research project that was later published. During the course of my research, a
professor who assisted throughout the process pointed out that the data analysis methods I
followed were completely incorrect. This was totally a “contrasting perspective” to what I did
in my paper, but after employing the methods I was suggested, the conclusion I reached was
much more scientifically reliable and fit for publication. Although the research I conducted
cannot be classified as a discipline on its own, it is one instance where I appreciated the value
of respecting opposing viewpoints, which led me to craft an overall stronger and “healthier”
paper.
I feel that the natural sciences follow a liberal approach to contrasting ideas that are
aimed towards theories - predictions whose correctness has not yet been proven. However,
natural sciences also develops fundamental dogma that are not meant to be challenged, such
as the shape of the Earth. The majority of us would accept the photos taken from the outer
space and the accounts of the astronauts who travelled to space that claim the Earth is geoid –
a fundamental concept we were all taught in school. Currently though, a major organisation
called the “Flat Earth Society” is campaigning against this core element of science, suggesting
that the Earth is actually flat (Sarner). This is perhaps the most popular scenario where

3. scientists flat out reject a theory. I could perhaps reason that the vastness of conspiracy
theories in the society is also fuelled by the scientists’ rejecting and not recognising these
alternative theories. Nevertheless, the flat earth theory remains as a “contrasting perspective”
that was not “nurtured” by the world of natural sciences, but it is without a doubt that the
majority of human beings accept that the Earth is geoid. Therefore, it appears that promoting a
particular opposing idea is not always necessary when trying to ensure the health of a
discipline or a belief that became a truth in the field of natural sciences.
The area of religious knowledge systems is rather difficult to discuss, as there are
many different religions and systems of faith with unique regulations and sets of beliefs. I will
try to draw from my own experiences with Islam while trying to assess the reliability of
nurturing contrasting perspectives. The holy book of Islam, Quran, states that “there is no
compulsion in religion”, meaning that Muslims shall not force others to join Islam (The
Quran). The Quran also recommends Muslims to show tolerance, respect and care towards
non-Muslims. These references point out to the utmost respect that Muslims should possess
towards non-Muslims. Considering that the practices of other religions would be regarded as
contrasting perspectives, it could be concluded that Islam attempts to respect, and to some
extent, care for the different practices of other religions. In order to suit this example to the
core knowledge question of this piece, Islam would be classified as the discipline whose
health would theoretically be assured. It is highly debatable whether Islam is healthy today or
not, but its principles and supporters did not vanish. Overall, Islam’s still being around today
can also be attributed to the respect it holds towards those with opposing viewpoints, which, I
believe, ultimately led to the peace-promoting and tolerant image of Islam. This is one
instance where, I think, caring for contrasting ideas protected the health of a discipline.
Speaking of religious knowledge systems, I have to admit that I was intrigued by a
graphic novel we read in our IB English A: Language and Literature course. Marjane

4. Satrapi’s The Complete Persepolis builds on the Islamic Revolution in Iran and visualises the
extremist religious practices employed by the revolutionaries. Despite the aforementioned
suggestions of the Quran, the revolutionaries in Iran applied force, violence and oppression
towards anyone who opposed the new religious system in Iran (Satrapi). In other words, they
did not recognise contrasting perspectives, let alone nurturing them. Regardless, Iran is still
being governed by Islamic principles, and this is a great example of how nurturing the
opposition was totally unnecessary to ensure the health of the religious Islamic regime.
Human sciences houses various sub-areas ranging from psychology to political
science. The particular sub-area that I wish to focus on is political science, for it is one area
where an idea and its opposition often clash. I always witnessed fierce debates and loud
arguments that politicians participate in, and had the impression that the greatest aim of those
in the political arena is to beat their opposition and wipe out the contrasting perspectives. A
man that I highly respect, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, preferred
otherwise. When Atatürk founded the Republic of Turkey, he established the Republican
People’s Party, which followed a modern and westernised ideology, receiving strong
opposition from the conservationists in the country. Atatürk went on to promote the opposing
ideologies by personally endorsing the establishment of the Free Republican Party, which
would serve as an opposition to his own party. Clearly, he nurtured diversity in politics, and
this allowed his party, The Republican People’s Party, to remain solid in the years to come. I
feel that the way Atatürk endorsed a contrasting perspective is the best example on how the
health of an ideology can be assured effectively. Of course, in today’s politics, the increasing
popularity of patriotic and nationalist right-wing administrations around the world that aim to
impose bans on immigration and refugee acceptance, is a major counter-example to how
nourishing a particular opposition is irrelevant, since these administrations tend to go head-to-
head with any form of contrasting perspective, yet they manage to maintain power and

5. strength, as seen in the United States, Russia, Israel and other countries (Millman). Therefore,
I cannot resist succumbing to the dilemma formed regarding whether supporting and valuing
opposing ideas is actually necessary when trying to maintain the health of a discipline.
Nurturing contrasting perspectives in an attempt to ensure the health of a discipline is
in many ways helpful, but it is also often unnecessary and unreliable. The areas of knowledge
of the natural sciences, religious knowledge systems and human sciences are full of examples
that reflect the outcomes of promoting different ideas, ideas that are opposing the widely
accepted notions. Overall, my personal opinion leads me to conclude that if we, humanity, can
be successful in recognising and valuing our differences, we will have ensured that the ideas
and beliefs that we possess will be healthy as long as the universe exists. I feel that straight
out rejecting and alienating a contrasting idea is a very easy way of temporarily fuelling a
particular argument. In order to have that argument last for long, we should face our
opposition, support their ideas and find a common ground that would lead to the development
of a multi-perspective and widely-accepted new form of the initial argument.
Word count: 1599

6. References
Goñi, Félix M. “The Basic Structure and Dynamics of Cell Membranes: An Update of the
Singer–Nicolson Model.” Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes, vol.
1838, no. 6, 1 June 2014, pp. 1467–1476., doi:10.1016/j.bbamem.2014.01.006.
Millman, Noah. “Why Are Right-Wing Populists Winning Everywhere?” The Week - All You
Need to Know about Everything That Matters, The Week, 30 Oct. 2018,
theweek.com/articles/804453/why-are-rightwing-populists-winning-everywhere.
Sarner, Moya. “The Rise of the Flat Earthers.” Science Focus - BBC Focus Magazine, 21 Feb.
2019, www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-rise-of-the-flat-earthers/.
Satrapi, Marjane. The Complete Persepolis. Pantheon Books, 2007.
“The Quran - Muhammad M. Pickthall, Ed.” Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-
English Lexicon,
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2002.02.0006:sura=2:verse=256.