IB May 2026 (M26) TOK Title #1 Model Response
In the production of knowledge, does it matter that observation is an essential but flawed tool? Discuss with reference to the natural sciences and one other area of knowledge.
- The essay below is written as a teaching draft to illustrate the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected in a high-scoring Theory of Knowledge essay.
- It includes call-outs after each paragraph that explain why particular choices were made and how they align with the IB assessment criteria.
- The examples (e.g., Hooke’s cells, LIGO, Anne Frank’s diary, Vietnam War photography) are drawn from commonly cited TOK materials and general knowledge.
- In a formal submission, you would need to provide proper references and citations (using MLA, APA, or the referencing style your school/IB requires).
Introduction
Observation is the act of gathering information through the senses, often extended by instruments such as microscopes or telescopes. It is commonly seen as the foundation of empirical inquiry, particularly in the natural sciences. Yet observation is also inherently flawed: it is limited in scope, vulnerable to bias, and shaped by interpretation.
The question is not whether observation has flaws but whether those flaws matter in the production of knowledge. This essay argues that flaws in observation both constrain and enrich knowledge, depending on the area of knowledge (AOK). In the natural sciences, flawed observation matters profoundly because credibility rests on accurate data. In contrast, in history, the flaws of observation matter differently, sometimes undermining objectivity, but at other times generating richer interpretations that deepen understanding. Ultimately, observation matters not only because it enables knowledge, but because its flaws shape the character of knowledge itself.
Note- The introduction defines key terms (observation, flawed), anchors the essay in the AOKs required by the title (natural sciences + one other), and stakes out a clear thesis stance.
- Examiners look for clarity and direct engagement with the prescribed title right from the start.
Paragraph 1: Observation As Enabling In The Natural Sciences
Observation is indispensable to the natural sciences because it grounds knowledge in evidence. For example, Robert Hooke’s 1665 drawings of cork cells through a microscope allowed scientists to claim that living things are composed of cells. Similarly, the 2015 LIGO observation of gravitational waves confirmed Einstein’s century-old predictions and transformed theoretical physics into accepted knowledge.
Without observation, these claims would have remained speculation. In this sense, observation’s flaws do not negate its value; rather, its role as an enabler of knowledge production shows why it matters so much. If observation is the flashlight that illuminates reality, knowledge production cannot begin without switching it on.
Hint- This paragraph establishes the “enabler” side of the flashlight analogy with concrete, high-quality examples (Hooke, LIGO).
- Here you show why observation matters before addressing its limits, which builds logical flow.
- Your examiners want specific, real-world support instead of abstract claims.
Paragraph 2: Observation As Limiting In The Natural Sciences
However, observation also limits knowledge because it cannot capture everything. Astronomers cannot observe black holes directly; they infer their presence from gravitational lensing or radiation at the event horizon. Similarly, in quantum physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that the very act of observation disturbs subatomic particles, constraining what can be known.
Here flaws matter because they impose boundaries on knowledge: we cannot fully “see” the universe, and the knowledge we produce is always partial. The flashlight not only illuminates but also leaves much of the room in darkness.
