The Probe Probes the Broab

Brain science comedy!

Reading Response #3: Dualism

Here is the assignment for reading response #3:

Do you think dualism is a good theory of mind? Why or why not? In an approximately 500-word essay, explain and evaluate dualism. Be sure to discuss and evaluate criticisms for this theory. Furthermore, explain and defend your opinion of dualism. Don’t just explain what you believe; explain why you believe it, as well.

This assignment is worth 50 points (5% of your overall grade), and is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, April 30th.

Course Evaluation

The course evaluation for this class is now open.  Here are instructions on how to do this:

1. Go to http://www.rowan.edu/selfservice
2. Click "Access Banner Services - Secure Area - login Required."
3. Enter User ID and PIN.
4. Click "Personal Information."
5. Click "Answer a Survey."
6. Click on one of the student evaluations for your classes.
7. Complete the student evaluation.
8. Click “Survey Complete” to submit your completed student evaluation.
9. Repeat for other classes.

It Pays to Believe?

Here are some links on Pascal's Wager:

• Links to several articles on the argument.
• Here's an audio interview on the argument and Pascal's entire work Pensées.
• NOTHING TO LOSE? Is there really not much to lose in this wager? This cartoon thinks otherwise.
• WHICH GOD? With so many religions out there, which God should we believe in? This cartoon dinosaur has the most practical solution.
• More on decision theory, the branch of math Pascal uses to argue that belief in God is a good bet.
• Some related entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: evidentialism vs. nonevidentialism, religious versions of nonevidentialism (or fideism), other pragmatic arguments for believing in god, and Pascal's other contributions to philosophy.

Ethics and Society Student Conference

The Philosophy and Religion Studies Club, the Phi Sigma Tau Chapter, and the Philosophy and Religion Studies Department at Rowan University are running the 1st Annual Ethics and Society Student Conference. Students will present papers on animal rights, business ethics, Nietzsche, ethics of war and social revolts, biomedical ethics and more!

The conference is on Friday, April 11, from 9:30-12:30 in room 127 of the Student Center.

Hear No Evil

If you like to get philosophical on the treadmill, try downloading and listening to these podcasts on the problem of suffering:

• Well-known contemporary philosopher (and ordained priest) Marilyn McCord Adams offers some insights into the problem of evil in this audio interview. (Download)
  
• The NPR program Fresh Air has an audio interview with Bart Ehrman on the problem of suffering. (Download)
  
• Here's even more audio from a few philosophers on the problem of suffering. (Download)
  
  

Sufferiness

Here's Stephen Colbert's take on evil:

Bad Things to Such Good People

Here are some links on the problem of suffering.

• This is a great introductory article on the problem of suffering.
• There is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.
• I'd like to highlight one article in particular: a discussion of the "God works in mysterious ways" response: do we have enough evidence to believe that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world, but humans aren't smart enough to understand what that reason is?
• And here's a video talk on the humility response.
• Does everything happen for a reason? This cartoon dinosaur has an interesting take on that question. (T-Rex also occasionally wonders why bad things happen to nice people, and whether we're in the worst possible world.)

Random Comedy

As usual, The Onion nails it:

• "Realistic Announcer Shouting How Kevin Durant Making His Last 4 Shots Has No Bearing On Whether He Will Make Next Shot" (or does it?)
• "Cornell Drains Fun Out Of Cinderella Run By Explaining How On A Long Enough Timeline The Improbable Becomes Probable"

The Importance of Being Stochastic

Here is a bunch of links related to our natural tendency to misinterpret randomness as if it's an intentional pattern:

• Most of us are pretty bad at statistical reasoning.
• Here's a review of a decent book (The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives) on this topic.
• What was that infinite monkey typewriter thing we were talking about in class? Someone recently tried it! Well, sort of.
• A radio show I love recently devoted an entire episode to probability.
  
• Another radio show I love ran a great 2-part series on the screening for diseases called "You Are Pre-Diseased".
• What's up with that recent recommendation that routine screenings for breast cancer should wait until your 50s rather than 40s? Math helps explain it.

In Our Mind's Eye

Here's an interesting approach to explaining the seeming complexity, order, and functionality of the universe: maybe it's all in our mind.

Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that we see intentional design and patterns too much... including in things that are actually random. So things that seem so fine-tuned and unlikely from our perspective might not actually be. Here's a video dialogue on this topic:


Bloom has two great books (Descartes' Baby and How Children Learn the Meaning of Words) on how our minds develop from early childhood on.

Blind Watchmaking

Here are some more critical links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is an audio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg.
• One philosophers' take on the debate between evolution and intelligent design.
• Is our universe fine-tuned for life? Maybe not.
• Wait, can science even judge religious claims, or are they talking about different things? Maybe an inference to the best explanation can help us...
• What about all the "design flaws" in nature? Are they evidence against a supreme designer?
• In the video below, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson points to all kinds of "stupid design" in the universe.

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, March 26th.  The assignment is to write an approximately 500-word essay on the following prompt:

What do you think best explains the seeming complexity, order, and functionality of natural objects and aspects of the universe? In other words, explain and evaluate the abductive version of the design argument for God's existence.

• First, briefly explain the abductive version of the design argument. Describe the relevant evidence that needs to be explained. List the possible hypotheses that attempt to explain that evidence. And explain why proponents of the design argument believe that the intelligent designer hypothesis is the most plausible one.
• Then, evaluate this argument. Is an intelligent designer the best explanation of this evidence? Or is another explanation better? Tell me your opinion. Do you think the abductive version of the design argument is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

The response is based on the design argument section of the textbook (chapters 5, 6, and 7--especially the abduction section on pages 55-57 and chapter 6 on evolution and creationism) and on the discussions we have in class, particularly on October 16th.  Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion.  Reading response #2 is word 50 points (5% of your overall grade).

Like a Watch, Or an iPhone

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is a nice explanation of the design argument, along with an explanation of a wild arg for god's existence that we're not studying.
•  Here's an audio interview with Elliott Sober (the author of our textbook) on the design argument:
  
• Here's a long-ish video lecture on the notion of fine-tuning.

God Shtuff

If you've read a good article on god stuff, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post. In the meantime, I have some stuff for you.

The website Closer to Truth has a ton of short interviews with modern-day philosophers (and other smart people) on their thoughts about god.  Here are some recommended videos on the design argument:

• Philosopher Ernan McMullin likes the design argument.  
• Philosopher Bede Rundle is less convinced.

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? Oh, here it is!

• Nick Bostrom (the author of "Do We Live in a Computer Simulation?") argues for agnosticism

The McGurk Effect

Here's a neat video on an optical illusion called the McGurk effect:

My favorite illusions are the ones that still work even after you realize they're just illusions.

Philosocats!

Cute cats and philosophy captions? You know I can't resist:

Buddhism and Ecology Talk

There's a cool talk happening at Rowan on Wednesday morning:

Gereon Kopf from the Department of Religion at Luther College will be giving a talk entitled Meditation, Wisdom, and Compassion: A Zen Buddhist Vision of the Ecological Self for the theorizing at Rowan series on Wedenesday, February 26, at 10:50am in Westby Hall, Room 111.

I'm Certain I'm Doubting

Here are some links related to our discussion of knowledge and skepticism from class.

• What are the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix?
• Here's a that cool article (pdf) on "live skepticism" we read for class.  There's also an entire book on it.
• A few years ago, I interviewed the author of that book for the Owning Our Ignorance club. Here's the audio interview.
  

Test #1

Test #1 will be held at the beginning of class on Wednesday, February 26th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, and a section of short answer questions on the topics we discussed in class so far:

• philosophy in general
• understanding and evaluating arguments
• types of arguments: deductive and abductive (inferences to the best explanation)
• what is knowledge?
• Plato's account of knowledge
• skepticism
• Descartes battling skepticism

The test is worth 150 points (15% of your overall grade).

And a reminder: the first reading response is due Monday, February 24th.

We're All Skeptics Now

Here are some links related to our discussion of René Descartes and skepticism from class.

• Optical illusion time! Here is a pair of collections of Julian Beever's sidewalk art that looks three-dimensional when viewed from a certain angle. That's a picture of one of his creations above.
• The search for truth is tough. Let's get the FBI on the case!
• Here's an audio interview about Descartes's famous argument that he's certain he exists.
• Can we be abolutely certain of math claims like 2 + 3 = 5? This cartoon dinosaur says we can't.

By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.

Do I Annoy You Because I'm a Jerk, or Am I a Jerk Because I Annoy You?

Socrates has a reputation of being a bit of a jerk. The following robot reenactment of one of his dialogues does little to dispel this reputation:

K = JTB?

I wonder whether Plato would agree with T-Rex's analysis of knowledge:

In panel 5, Utahraptor is bringing up a Gettier case counterexample to the claim that knowledge = justified true belief that our textbook brings up.

Child Abduction

Psychologist Alison Gopnik gave a great TED talk recently on how children are natural abductive reasoners; playing and making pretend is often about coming up with and testing various hypotheses. Here's the talk:

Gopnik's book, The Philosophical Baby, is great.

Ockham Weeps

What do you think: is this woman's explanation the best? Or should Ockham take out his razor? Let us know in the comments to this post.

P.S. Remember when I was talking about Einstein's theory of general relativity having predictive power? This is what I had in mind.

Reading Response #1: Descartes

Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, February 19th Monday, February 24th. In about a 500-word essay, answer the following questions:

• What kinds of beliefs does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? Why does he believe he can't be certain of these?
• Hint: Descartes mentions 2 general categories of beliefs in Meditation I (pages 207-210). See also pages 159-160.
• What beliefs does Descartes say he can be certain of? Why does he believe he can be certain of these?
• Hint: Descartes mentions 2 specific beliefs in Meditation II (pages 210-216). See also pages 160-162.
• Evaluate his reasons: do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?

Please paraphrase Descartes's ideas in your own words. The response is based on the Descartes reading from pages 207-216 of the textbook.

Murder on the Abductive Express

Here's a paper that explains the importance of considering and testing multiple possible explanations rather than a single hypothesis:

• J.R. Platt's "Strong Inference" (pdf)  

 I think abductive reasoning is the most effective tool we have when faced with the myriad uncertain, ambiguous issues and decisions that everyday life throws our way.

Lastly, here's a dinosaur comic murder mystery.

 

P.S. I'm 75% through reading this book: Inference to the Best Explanation by Peter Lipton.

An Argument's Support

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure (or support) of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term (it's the same as the handout). If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises provide us with enough information for us to figure out the conclusion from them. In other words, the premises, if they were true, would logically show us that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures are such that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Deductive Arguments (Valid)
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for a deductive argument to have a good structure (to be valid). Notice we are only assuming the truth of the premises, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows will be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, are you able to figure out from the premises that the conclusion is also true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths gives you a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Deductive Arguments (Invalid)
An invalid deductive argument has a bad structure. You can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – the premises don’t give you enough information. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting dogs take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we did as group work in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mamammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

P1- true
P2- true
support- valid
overall- sound

2) Some dads have beards.
Some bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective) or true ("Some" makes it easy to find one or two)
support- valid (the premises say the bearded dads will be mean)
overall- unsound (bad support)

3) All males in this class are humans.
All females in this class are humans.
All males in this class are females.

P1- true
P2- true
support- invalid (the premises only tell us that males and females both belong to the humans group; we don't know enough about the relationship between males and females from this)
overall- unsound (bad support)

4) No humans are amphibians.
All frogs are amphibians.
No frogs are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
support- valid(the premises say frogs belong to a group that humans can't belong to, so it follows that no frogs are humans)
overall- sound

5) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
support- invalid (the premises only tell us one type of mammal has wings, not necessarily all mammals)
overall- unsound (bad support)

6) All Facebook posts are annoying.
Some Facebook posts are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
support- valid (the premises establish that some Facebook posts are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those posts] are false)
overall - unsound (untrue first premise)

7) Oprah Winfrey is a person.
Some people ate tacos yesterday.
Oprah Winfrey ate tacos yesterday.

P1- true
P2- true (you might not have directly seen anyone eat tacos, but you have a lot of indirect evidence... with all the Taco Bells, Don Pablos, etc., surely lots of people ate tacos yesterday)
support- invalid (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the people who didn't)
overall- unsound (bad support)

8) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

P1- true
P2- true
support- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad support)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
support- valid (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- unsound (untrue 3rd premise)

10) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great president or the greatest president.
Bush wasn’t the greatest president.
Bush was a great president.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
support- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (untrue premises)

11) If Sean sings, then students cringe.

Sean is singing right now.

Students are cringing right now.

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false
P2- false
support- valid
overall- unsound (untrue premises)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
support- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (untrue 1st premise and bad support)

13) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (untrue premises and bad support)

14) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- valid (the premises say Sean singing guarantees that students cringe; since we know students aren't cringing, we know Sean can't be singing)
overall- unsound (untrue 1st premise)

15) All students in here are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most students in here are shorter than 7 feet tall.

P1- true
P2- true!
support- invalid (the premises state a strong statistical generalization over a large population, and the conclusion claims that this generalization holds for a much smaller portion of that population; while it could be true that the humans in here are a statistical anomaly, given the strength of the generalization, it's likely that most students in here are, in fact, shorter than 7 feet tall)
overall- unsound (not perfect, since the support isn't perfect, but pretty good)

16) If there is no God, then life is meaningless.
Life isn't meaningless.
There is a God.

P1- questionable (that's not an obvious claim)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim)
support- valid (the same structure as argument #13)
overall- unsound (untrue premises)

Howard Sure Is a Duck

Howard the Duck is my favorite synecdoche for the 80's:

The 3 Year Old In Us All

Here's comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions kids ask.

Louis CK - Why?

Philosophers In Their Own Words

Photographer Steve Pyke has a cool series of portraits of philosophers. Many of the philosophers also provide a short explanation of their understanding of what it is they do. Here are a few of my favorites:

Delia Graff Fara:

"By doing philosophy we can discover eternal and mind independent truths about the ’real’ nature of the world by investigating our own conceptions of it, and by subjecting our most commonly or firmly held beliefs to what would otherwise be perversely strict scrutiny."

Kit Fine:

"Philosophy is the strangest of subjects: it aims at rigour and yet is unable to establish any results; it attempts to deal with the most profound questions and yet constantly finds itself preoccupied with the trivialities of language; and it claims to be of great relevance to rational enquiry and the conduct of our life and yet is almost completely ignored. But perhaps what is strangest of all is the passion and intensity with which it is pursued by those who have fallen in its grip."

Sally Haslanger (only available in the book):

"Given the amount of suffering and injustice in the world, I flip-flop between thinking that doing philosophy is a complete luxury and that it is an absolute necessity. The idea that it is something in between strikes me as a dodge. So I do it in the hope that it is a contribution, and with the fear that I’m just being self-indulgent. I suppose these are the moral risks life is made of."

Homework: Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://2014rowanphilosophy.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; landis@rowan.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Introduction to Philosophy
Rowan University
Philosophy 09121, Section 02
Spring 2014
Mondays and Wednesdays: 1:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Esby Gym, Room 111

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: landis@rowan.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://2014rowanphilosophy.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Texts
Core Questions in Philosophy, 5th Edition, by Elliott Sober

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophy. Throughout the semester, we will explore a handful of classic philosophical questions: What is knowledge, and what can we know? What evidence is there regarding the existence of a God? What is the relationship between the mind and the body? Do humans have free will?

We will also be developing various philosophical skills, including:

• Understanding: the ability to identify and explain an author’s main point in your own words, along with the ability to identify and explain an author’s argument in support of this main point.
• Evaluating: the ability to critically and charitably determine whether these arguments provide accurate, logical reasons in support of their main points, along with the ability to engage in critical and charitable dialogue with people who hold different views from your own.
• Defending: the ability to develop your own arguments in support of your opinions on the ethical issues we study, along with the ability to honestly assess your opinions and critically evaluate the quality of your arguments in support of them.

A broader goal of this course is to gain an appreciation for philosophical reflection. Hopefully, we will learn that careful, systematic, detailed thought is a great tool for increasing understanding on complex topics.

Assignments
Each assignment is created carefully, and designed to both measure and improve upon specific skills that students are expected to develop throughout the semester. I try to explicitly point out the educational importance of each assignment (both below and when I assign it), but if an assignment’s value is ever unclear, let me know! I value student feedback. Sometimes complacency makes me continue using an assignment that isn’t very helpful, or sometimes I haven’t explained an assignment clearly enough. 

Tests: There will be three tests, each one worth more points than the last. Tests are a chance to demonstrate your understanding of a wide variety of topics and skills that we’ll study throughout the semester. To this end, there will be a variety of question types on the exams. Test #1 will be on the logic and knowledge sections of the course. Test #1 will last about 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of class on the scheduled day. Test #2 will be on everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the first half of class (80 minutes) on the scheduled day. Test #3 is cumulative—that is, it will be on everything covered throughout the whole course. Test #3 will also last 80 minutes, and will take place during finals week.

Reading Responses: There will be four reading responses, which are to be handed in at the beginning of class the day they are due. Each assignment is an approximately 500-word essay response to a specific question about one or more of the week’s readings. The responses are a chance to do philosophy. To this effect, the focus of the responses will be on paraphrasing (demonstrating that you understand the reading by explaining it in your own words) and critically evaluating (presenting objections to the argument in the reading, or responding to such objections) the philosophical arguments being presented in the readings.

Fun Wednesdays: There will be 3 in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Wednesdays during the semester. These will be a chance to more casually discuss some issues more loosely related to the class, yet more closely connected to important practical concerns of our everyday lives.

Attendance/Participation: Most of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for your attendance grade. In addition, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester in which students get together to analyze the readings or philosophical issues being discussed in class. Group work can impact this grade. I value your attendance, and I expect you to show up each day. I also realize, though, that we sometimes need added motivation to attend each day, and I use this grade as a small carrot to motivate you.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.
 
Grades
A = 934-1000 total points
A- = 900-933 total points
B+ = 867-899 total points
B = 834-866 total points
B- = 800-833 total points
C+ = 767-799 total points
C = 734-766 total points
C- = 700-733 total points
D+ = 667-699 total points
D = 634-666 total points
D- = 600-633 total points
F = below 600 total points

Test #1: 150 points
Test #2: 250 points
Test #3: 300 points
4 Reading Responses: 50 points each (200 points total)
Fun Wednesdays: 50 points total
Attendance/Participation: 50 points

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarists. I recommend not trying it!

Excused Absences: Any assignment will only be rescheduled for an excused absence. Excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury (with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Expectations
Philosophy can be a difficult subject to master. I expect each student to put in a lot of effort on a variety of fronts.

Read the Textbook. The textbook is, in my opinion, well written, full of insights, and quite helpful. Still, the assigned readings are often dense. This means that you may not fully understand what you read the first time you read it. Do not despair; this is common. Philosophical writings are best understood upon multiple readings. You should develop the habit of reading the assigned pages a few times, including both before and after our class discussion of the relevant material.

Attend Class. While the book is informative, often time the assigned reading is only a launch pad, and the key skills or concepts we’re learning during a given section goes beyond the book. If you can’t attend class one day, that’s unfortunate, but OK (and outside excused absences, you need not tell me why—frankly, I don’t care why you’re not there). But don’t make a habit of missing classes.

Participate in Class. Our classroom is a judgment-free zone. I’m not concerned with students acting perfectly or seeming smart during class. In fact, effective learning involves discussing precisely the things we don’t fully understand yet. Learning is a process that involves lots of failing: getting it wrong, figuring out where we went wrong, and trying again. Lots of class time will involve this type of (helpful) failing. This goes against how many of your classes are run. Good. I think many assumptions in our current education institutions aren’t conducive to effective learning. In class we’ll engage in helpful discussions. If something confuses you, let me know! Chances are, it confuses other students, too. Sometimes, I think I’ve understood something I read, only to discover upon discussing it that I haven’t really grasped it. Getting feedback from a group of smart people who’ve read the same thing as you is invaluable to learning. I understand some students are shy (I was shy myself in college), but try not to be timid simply out of fear of looking silly or stupid.

Practice. In addition to guided discussions, class time will involve a lot of informal group work on philosophical problems. There will also be lots of optional extra credit assignments. These are chances to practice. We are mostly developing skills in this class, skills that cannot be picked up in five minutes. Skills take prolonged training and effort, like learning to play the piano or hitting a 90-mph fastball. Again, be OK with failing! Just try to fail better each time you practice.

Because of this, I try to measure students based on the progress they make throughout the course. A student who struggles early in the semester is not doomed to a low grade. Early struggles are merely a warning sign that more or a different kind of effort is required. On the other end of the spectrum, for a small percentage of students, getting a good grade in this class will be relatively easy. For such students, I encourage you to challenge yourself. Don’t settle for merely learning the most basic skills we’re studying. Try to develop the more advanced skills touched on throughout the course. Read the articles linked to on the course blog! Talk to me outside class! Commit yourself to taking full advantage of this class.

Care About Learning. This should be your primary goal of taking this class—not getting a good grade, or socializing, or impressing me, or whatever. While I understand that these other things are important (I care a lot about the social value of college, for instance), these should not supersede your devotion to learning.

Course Schedule

*This schedule is tentative and will probably change a lot*

Doing Philosophy

January 22
Wednesday: Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)
January 27—29
Monday: Doing Philosophy | What is Philosophy? (no reading)

Wednesday: Doing Philosophy | Understanding, Evaluating Arguments (pgs. 1-22)

February 3—5

Monday: Doing Philosophy | Abductive Arguments & Theories (pages 24-36)

Wednesday: Doing Philosophy | Wrap up (no new reading)

Knowledge February 10—12
Monday: Knowledge | What is Knowledge? (Plato handout; pages 147-156)
Wednesday: FUN WEDNESDAY #1; Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 156-160, 207-210)

February 17—19
Monday: Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism wrap-up (pages 160-163, 210-216)
Wednesday:  Knowledge | Other Forms of Skepticism (Bostrom, Frances handouts) (Reading Response #1 due)

Philosophy of Religion February 24—26
Monday: TEST #1; Does God Exist? | Intro to God Stuff (pages 37-38, 53-57)
Wednesday: Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Arg (pages 120-122)
March 3—5
Monday: Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Arg (pages 53-61, 123-128)

Wednesday: Does God Exist? | Design vs. Random (pages 61-83)

March 10—12

Monday: Does God Exist? | The Problem of Suffering Intro (pages 109-113)
Wednesday: FUN WEDNESDAY #2; Does God Exist? | The Free Will Defense (pages 113-117) (Reading Response #2 due)

March 17—19: SPRING BREAK (no class) (woo?)

March 24—26

Monday: Does God Exist? | The Soul-building Defense (no new reading)
Wednesday: Problem of Suffering Wrap Up and Review for Test #2 (no new reading)

March 31—April 2

Monday: TEST #2

Wednesday: Faith & Reason | Pascal’s Wager (pages 100-109, 136-138)

April 7—9
Monday: Faith & Reason | Verificationism (pages 92-100, 132-136)
Wednesday: FUN WEDNESDAY #3;  Faith & Reason | Pragmatism (pages 138-145)

Philosophy of Mind April 14—16

Monday: Philosophy of Mind | Dualism (pages 255-265, Descartes handout)

Wednesday: Philosophy of Mind | Criticisms of Dualism (pages 265-271, Elisabeth/Descartes handout)

April 21—23

Monday: Philosophy of Mind | Behaviorism, Identity Theory (pgs. 271-285)
Wednesday: Philosophy of Mind | Functionalism (pages 285-293) (Reading Response #3 due)

April 28—30

Monday: Philosophy of Mind | Functionalism continued (no new reading)

Wednesday: Philosophy of Mind | Consciousness (Nagel, McGinn handouts)

May 5

Monday: Philosophy of Mind Wrap Up & Review for Test #3 (Reading Response #4 due)

May 9
Wednesday, 12:30-2:30: TEST #3