TOK essay

Question: (2) For artists and natural scientists, which is more important: what can be explained or
what cannot be explained? Discuss with reference to the arts and the natural sciences.

A phrase we often hear is “there’s more than meets the eye”, beyond something we understand,
there is something that we do not. In everything explainable, surely there is an uncertainty or the
inability to explain. According to google, “explained” is defined as making an idea, situation, or
problem clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas. In this
case, the main purpose of explanation involves perspective and is the ability to make something
clear to someone else. For what cannot be explained, rather than something that is not explained,
the prompt discusses something that cannot be explained. Imagine being in a room with someone
colour blind and being asked to explain colour to them. Or perhaps being told to explain what sound
is to like someone who’s never heard? The inexplainable would mean the inability to make
something clear to someone else. So, is the explainable or inexplainable more important in the
aspect of artists and natural scientists?

In the field of natural science, I believe what cannot be explained is the reason that there are things
that can be explained. The curious nature of humans means that there is always something that we
want to find out and answers to conclude. For example, the famous scientist Thomas Edison is
known for making 1000 unsuccessful attempts before finally creating the lightbulb. Humans are
relentless and will try until it is possible. Due to this drive, we are able to discover knowledge that
can now be explained; the drive for these scientists is what seems to be inexplainable. It can be said
that scientists exist because of what cannot be explained; as defined online, the purpose of scientists
is to “systematically study the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through
observation and experiment”. Biology, chemistry and physics are all subjects that explore and
determine the knowledge of the world that we have gained today. In my opinion, the existence of
these subjects and professions originated from what could not be explained. Therefore, the
inexplainable is of utmost importance in the scientific field. However, a particular topic that science
is yet to provide a solid explanation to is the origins of the universe. Of course, a simple search will
lead you to the big bang theory and multiple other ideas that contradict each other. Religious values
greatly disapprove of discussions related to the creation of the world especially in natural science. In
my experience, many students especially in heavily religious countries are denied from learning
about these theories. Teachers are also prohibited from teaching about these theories so in a literal
sense, it is inexplainable. Perhaps a boundary to discovering more through something inexplainable
may be religion.

Oppositely, what can be explained in natural science is of significance as the ability to assign theories
or ideas to meaning and making it clear to other people is also a purpose of science; sharing
knowledge to the community. For scientists, what can be explained are established facts/theories
and knowledge that can be applied to multiple aspects of life. This knowledge is passed on from
primary schools to universities so that the whole world is able to learn. This aspect for scientists is
very important as it allows for useful inventions and life-saving treatments to be created. “Why
should we focus on the inexplainable when there is the knowledge that can be explained” The
knowledge that can be explained today is used to educate the younger generation and in the long
run will be useful as background information for future scientists to further attempt to explain what
may seem inexplainable. As learning is a process, learners must first understand all the explainable
theories in the present so they can later research the inexplainable and new theories in the future.
Conversely, it may be interpreted that due to the explainable, the inexplainable can be attained.
For the arts, I believe that what cannot be explained in art may have more significance in
comparison to what can be explained for artists. The sensation that one can receive through art may
be personal and sometimes cannot be expressed into words. For topics like music for example, what
cannot be explained is more important as the feelings that someone experiences through music are
usually what can move an audience. Same goes for abstract art, it is usually emotion and the
unexplained that can make art pieces prices soar. For example, Onement VI by Barnett Newman, a
painting, sold for $43.8 million even though it appears to be extremely simple. This abstract piece is
one that provokes certain emotions in the audience and has been described as a collection that
induced “spiritual awe”. Art correlates to emotion and emotion naturally ties in with something
intangible and difficult to explain. As art is subjective, the extent to which something can or cannot
be explained varies person to person. The type of art is also important as for abstract artists, what
cannot be explained may play more of a part whereas for architectural artists, what can be explained
is certainly of more significance.

For artists, in terms of what can be explained, there is the aspect of learning, in which techniques
and colours can be made clear to students and beginners. This explores the fact that definite things
have a clearer meaning; as techniques and styles are clearly distinguished and understood, meaning
can be derived and this means it can be explained. For music, lyrics are usually a big part of the
explanation and meaning; it can be understood in a literal, metaphorical or emotional sense and
explained to another person, but the true meaning is known by the writer. For art work, visually it is
possible to describe the image in a literal sense, but this is not as important for artists traditionally.
When discussing the actual meaning or purpose of a certain artwork, people often find multiple
interpretations. The deeper meaning especially in abstract art is often thought to be of more
significance. Oppositely though, in historical art such as in caves, what can be explained and made
out in the illustrations are of upmost importance as the purpose is to reveal what a specific time
period was like and explain historical elements within the drawings. It can be seen that there are two
perspectives to what can be explained for artists.

For natural science, the question is like a cycle as what can be explained and what cannot be
explained is somewhat intertwined. In natural science, both factors are balanced as what can and
cannot be explained are both needed for natural scientists to attain more knowledge. In the field of
art, the importance of what can be explained or inexplainable is rather ambiguous as it varies by
opinion and has a factor of emotion. Overall, for natural scientists or artists, there is a balance of the
explainable and inexplainable that must be combined as it isn’t just one dimensional and it is rather
a mixture of both factors that is of most importance.

A general interpretation of the question is that the truth is everything is explainable. That may sound
contradictory, however going back to the prescribed title, if the purpose of explaining is to make
something clear or understood to another person, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the explanation
has to be correct or true as long as the purpose is met. Everything can be explained or made up and
labelled as an explanation. This raises the question “Can anything truly be explained?” as it is defined
by the extent to which an idea can be delivered clearly to someone else, if something is understood
by a particular individual yet they are unable to explain it to someone else, is that considered
something unexplainable? Rather, I believe the focus of the prompt should be on what can actually
truly be explained within the fields of art and natural sciences. Furthermore, the question lacks
detail and is quite ambiguous in terms of the conditions or boundaries to which must be met for
something explainable/ inexplainable. It is unclear whether the question is talking about something
that cannot be explained ever or something that cannot be explained yet. There are several
instances to which the extent to which something can be explained is bound to time or place.