TOK Essay Title #2 (May 2026)

Natural Sciences Evidence

​

Doubt is Essential to Science

This is an amazing article: Why Doubt is Essential to Science. I wonder if the examiners read this article to come up with this title. I would approach this title with the expectation that examiners assume you have read this article. In this article we learn that doubt is essential for confirming knowledge.

 

​Is Doubt Reasonable or Not?

American Scientist also has a killer article about Reasonable vs Unreasonable Doubt. This is so applicable and relevant I assume that the examiners want you to read this. It covers kinds of doubt, and when doubt can be good and bad. As you read the examples, how central was doubt to knowledge production? Also, you can use this article to show how doubt isn’t central (as it can be harmful). Great counterclaim here!

 

How Disproven Theories Are Great for TOK!

​The Natural Sciences are filled with times in which scientists made huge, ground-breaking claims that were doubted and then proven wrong. Take your pick. Cold Fusion. Spontaneous Generation. FTL Neutrinos. Check out this list for even more! I’d avoid the classics that tempt you with criticizing religion – this gets preachy and annoying (Galileo and Darwin).

 

How Incorrect Theories Create Knowledge

I like this list from Wikipedia that can show different implications from the above. Just because something is wrong and doubted doesn’t mean that we don't gain knowledge. Instead, the doubt can interact with the incorrect claim and create new knowledge! Check out this list to read more.

 

Does Perfect Prediction Imply Falsehood?

It’s important to think about both sides: what happens when scientists don’t doubt at all. One one hand, Popper says that this could be what constitutes pseudoscience. On the other hand, there wasn’t much doubt in the creation of the Higgs-Boson. There was a theory and they believed it…so they proved it right!

 

​​

 

Human Sciences Examples

 

How Metaknowledge Interacts with Truth 

A recent study looked at the level of “metaknowledge” of experts – how much they know about what they don’t know (doubt???). Read this summary article, then read the real article here (and quote from it, too).

 

The Importance of Doubting Methods & Tools

Another article about the importance of doubt explores the reasons why we don’t just doubt results, but also the methods used for gaining knowledge. Read it here.

 

Scientists Must Doubt When Conducting Research

It’s important for scientists to doubt the data that they gather. Read this study and learn about why scientists can’t really believe the things that the test subjects told them. They were making up their own opinions! Get an overview of this specific example here, before you read.

 

​The Replication Crisis and Its Effects

By now your TOK teacher should have told you about the replication crisis in the sciences. But what is the result of all of this doubt? This article explores the idea that all of the doubt that inspired the replication of famous experiments did nothing but create more doubt! This shows that doubt isn’t central, instead it’s only one aspect. Read about ManyLabs2, as well – is doubt central? I’m not so sure.

 

​Doubting Results That Used to be Right

I shared this for Title #1, but I love it so I’m going to share it again. What happens when a study’s results (in either science) get weaker over time? And what if you are the one who did that study? Read this fantastic article and figure out how central doubt is.

 

​

 

​

 

History Research

 

​The Annales School Doesn't Need Doubt to Produce Knowledge

Doubt is a part of everything in History, so look at this school of historical research that sought to find structures and environments that made doubt less a part of learning about the past. You’ll have to learn about the Annales School in order to relate it to doubt, but this is a great way to disagree with the title. Remember – you want to focus on a specific study by a historian who followed these guidelines, not report about the school itself.

 

Knowledge Supported by Statistics Don't Rely on Doubt

​Here’s an example of when doubt wasn’t central, but research and statistics were. If you don’t like this example, choose literally any historical study that used statistics (a census, here) to gain knowledge of the past. Though doubt would still be involved to a minor extent, it doesn’t really enter the equation here. Another article. And a map.

 

Is Doubt Central for Archaeologists?

How central is doubt in the discipline of Archaeology? Read about this situation in which doubt was not as central as physical tools. Though there was doubt in the findings, was the doubt central to the pursuit? Another account of this discovery demonstrates that personal experience and observation may be more central in the AOK of history.

 

​The Centrality of Doubt in the Hitler Diaries

The classic TOK Essay example of the Hitler Diaries shows that all historians should possibly have doubt as their central belief system. Why was Trevor-Roper not focused on his doubt? Why did he do what he did and cause an international scandal?