“Mathematicians have the concept of rigorous proof, which leads to knowing

something with complete certainty. Consider the extent to which complete

certainty might be achievable in mathematics and at least one other area of

knowledge.”

All ways of knowing, by definition are mediums through which we are able to

gain information. Each individual way of knowing is unique and is able to attain

information to different degrees of certainty. Through the use of reasoning alone,

complete certainty can’t be achieved in both mathematics and the natural

sciences. These two areas of knowledge use two different types of reasoning:

deductive reasoning in mathematics and inductive reasoning in the natural

sciences. Commented [JB1]: Clear enough, though should really

give a better idea of what is to come

Complete certainty can be achieved in mathematics. These certainties are found Commented [JB2]: Will need to be justified !

through the use of deductive reasoning, a form of logic that deduces new truths

from a set of statements or premises that are already considered to be true. An

example of this is the proof of the fact that all angles in a triangle add up to 180 Commented [JB3]: A very common example, good
enough for year 12
degrees. This is a certainty that is proven using other true mathematical

statements: that all angles on a line add up to 180 degrees1 and alternate angles

are equal across parallel lines. It must therefore be undeniable that this is a true

statement as all processes were valid and correct.

1 (Mathsisfun, 2010)
However, the use of deductive reasoning has some flaws. It relies on the

statements or premises that the reasoning is based on to be true. Some of these

premises can be as broad as the axioms of mathematics itself. Faith is needed in Commented [JB4]: Interesting

these axioms for mathematics to function. In the above example about triangles, Commented [JB5]: Though arguable

certain assumptions were made such as the fact that this occurred on a flat

surface. Triangles can in fact be drawn on curved surfaces with interior angles

greater than 180 degrees. However, this does not mean that the deductive

reasoning used to prove that triangles have interior angles that sum to 180

degrees is wrong, but merely limited. It means that some of the ‘true’ statements

that the logic was based on were not true in all scenarios. This does not mean

that complete certainty in mathematics is unachievable, but instead that

assumptions that were made need to be stated for a claim to be completely true. Commented [JB6]: Nice conclusion that fits with the
last paragraph
If we look back at the example given, that all angles of a triangle add to 180

degrees, given that the surface is flat, one can be completely certain that this is

true. In this example the limitations, or the axioms of mathematics have been

stated, meaning that we have accepted that they are assumptions that can

change. When referring to ‘axioms’, I do not just mean the fact that a surface is

flat but also some of the most basic assumptions made in mathematics, for

example that 𝐴 + 𝐵 = 𝐵 + 𝐴, or that the shortest distance between two points is

a straight line2. In calculations it is a given that these are assumed,

acknowledging their limitations yet we have faith in them being correct, as the

core axioms of mathematics cannot be proven. Therefore, all results deduced by

valid deductive reasoning in mathematics are completely certain and true with

2 (Wikipedia, 2015)
respect to the the axioms of mathematics due to the use of faith in the validity of

each axiom. Commented [JB7]: A really quite nice summary of TOK

ideas in maths. Just what we are looking for in year 12.

The main goal of the natural sciences is determining truths about our world with

complete certainty, but complete certainty is impossible to achieve in this area of

knowledge solely using inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a form of

logic that uses specific true statements to discover broad claims. In the natural

sciences it is assumed that there will always be a repulsive force between two

objects with the same charge. This has been proven through countless examples

of experimentation. As a group 4 learner I have conducted such experiments in

physics with tests involving a van der graaf generator causing people’s hair to

stick up. However, all these estimates about the behaviour of charged particles

have been made without the knowledge of what fundamentally causes particles

to be charged or why positive charges repel each other. Inductive reasoning in

the natural sciences has the ability to explain things without truly understanding

them through experimentation, which is a form of proof in itself. It shows that it

is possible to know something with close to complete complete certainty without

fully understanding why that given phenomenon may occur. Commented [JB8]: Interesting - arguable

Howbeit, no matter how many experiments take place, this claim: that particles

with the same charge repel each other cannot be known with complete certainty.

Because we do not fully understand the behaviour of charged matter we can only

make predictions based on a trend of infinite possibilities seen in the data from

experimentation. If we look at a graph showing the relationship between the

magnitude of the force exerted and the distance between two oppositely charged

particles, we see a trend like such:

Commented [JB9]: Students in yr 13 will not be allowed

any pictures, graphs etc in their essays, but it’s OK this
year.

Diagram showing the relationship between the repulsive force and distance of

charged particles as retrieved from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulsion_stabilization_using_polyelectrolytes

We see here that the trend line was drawn from a series of points gathered from

experimentation. The trend line is composed of an infinite number of points.

Anyone of these points (that is not one of the recorded data values) is an

estimate. Therefore we cannot be completely certain of the force exerted

between two particles of a distance of 82.56nm apart, as this specific distance Commented [JB10]: Not a consistent argument but we
can ignore it
was not tested. As measuring every scenario is impossible we can only make

predictions based on the trend

Although scientists cannot know for certain from this method alone they have

faith in their assumptions, allowing them to ignore the small degree of Commented [JB11]: Interesting but needs to be
explored.
uncertainty in their calculations. This is a way to overcome the lack of complete

certainty associated with any inductive reasoning. This raises an issue

questioning the validity of the scientific method, as science strives to know

something to be correct with complete certainty. However, through the use of

faith in conjunction with inductive reasoning, something can be known with

complete certainty, regardless of whether it is true or false. This use of faith can

contradict some of science’s basic principles, to not make assumptions and can

jeopardise the ‘correctness’ of a claim as the small level of uncertainty that is

assumed could be the difference between the correct and false answer. Commented [JB12]: Not clear – to me anyway.

To conclude, although complete certainty can be achieved in mathematics, the

usefulness of the claim can be limited as although the claim is valid, due to the

axioms, it may not be correct as axioms are merely believed to be true. Similarly, Commented [JB13]: Contradicts earlier conclusion

we see that in the natural sciences complete certainty cannot be achieved

through inductive reasoning, until faith is introduced. When faith is used in

conjunction to inductive and deductive reasoning complete certainty can be

achieved, but as a consequence of this the ‘correctness’ of the claim can be

compromised. This raises the question of how the certainty of a knowledge claim

can affect the correctness of that same claim in the explored areas of knowledge.

Although we must sometimes have faith in our assumptions, they can lead to the

wrong answer. Commented [JB14]: This is not a perfect essay.

However, it is well written, the arguments are clear and

easy to follow. It is all about TOK and includes much of
the standard arguments and counterclaims for both
maths and Science. It includes the standard ways of
knowing associated with those AOKs but also adds faith
which is interesting.

I wouldn’t ask any more of a year 12. 10/10

Works Cited
1. Mathsisfun. (2010, October 30). Interior angles of a triangle. Retrieved
June 1, 2015, from Maths is Fun:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/proof180deg.html
2. Wikipedia. (2015, August 29). List of Mathematical axioms. Retrieved
September 20, 2015, from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_axioms