History

Is it possible to have knowledge of the past?

Is knowledge about the past different from other kinds of knowledge?

Are all areas of knowledge concerned with knowledge of the past to some extent?

Why does history enjoy a privileged position as its own dedicated area of knowledge in the TOK curriculum?

Is all knowledge in some sense historical knowledge

Is truth the goal of all historical inquiry?

Is certainty about the past more difficult to attain than certainty about the present or the future?

What counts as a fact in history?

If it is difficult to establish proof in history, does that mean that all versions are equally acceptable?

Are historians’ accounts necessarily subjective?

Is empathy more important in history than in other areas of knowledge?

How might the existence of different historical perspectives be beneficial to historical knowledge?

Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material?

Is it inevitable that historians will be affected by their own cultural context?

How can we gauge the extent to which history is being told from a cultural or national perspective?

Are we more prone to particular cognitive biases (such as hindsight bias) in some disciplines and areas of knowledge rather than others?

What methods do historians use to gain knowledge?

What is unique about the methodology of history compared to other areas of knowledge?

On what criteria can a historian evaluate the reliability of their sources?

If our senses are sometimes unreliable, does this mean that eyewitness testimony is an unreliable source of evidence?

Have technological developments enabled us to observe the past more directly?

What challenges does archive-based history emphasize about how knowledge is shared and preserved?

Is there less emphasis on collaborative research in history than there is between researchers in other areas of knowledge?

How do the methods and conventions of historians themselves change over time?

Is it unfair to judge people and actions in the past by the standards of today?

Should terms such as “atrocity” or “hero” be used when writing about history, or should value judgments be avoided?

Do historians have a moral responsibility to try to ensure that history is not misused and distorted by people for their own ends?

On what criteria could we decide whether people in the past have a right to privacy in the present?

Do historians have an ethical obligation not to ignore contradictory evidence?