Posts: 7
Joined: Sep 18,2017

Thu Mar 1,2018 04:30 PM

Did anyone else define “robust”? Could it be defined as well rounded view of a topic? In addition, do we need a citation for the definition?
Posts: 6
Joined: Dec 23,2017

Thu Mar 1,2018 05:22 PM

I defined it as knowledge that we consider true to the best of our abilities i.e what we can know with the most amount of certainty. It is therefore Robust, because the closer it gets to the truth, the less likely it is to be disproven by conflicting evidence. I don't think citation is necessary.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov 22,2017

Thu Mar 1,2018 10:27 PM

@I'm assuming this is for your ToK essay, in that case robust is how you define it as long as you are able to back it up with evidence. For me I defined robust knowledge as something that has evidence and is not able to be questioned. As a general definition robust is something that can withstand forces upon it well. You only need to cite something when it is not yours, such as another's idea or quote. For the ToK essay, you don't have to quote anything as it is an argument of your own, but it may help your case to cite a historical refrence, depending on which AoKs you use. Hope this helped.

Quick Reply


Return to Theory of Knowledge