Note: an earlier version of the topics incorrectly reported the due date--as indicated on the syllabus, the papers are due on Tuesday, February 24 in class.
Copyright © 2009 Bruce W. Hauptli
You are to critically respond to one of the following topics. Such a critical examination should: (1) indicate the nature of the position being examined; (2) clarify the argument for and/or against the position; (3) examine the strength of the argument by considering possible responses, counter-arguments, or counter-examples; and (4) offer your own critical assessment of where the arguments for and against the position being considered leave us—should we accept, reject, or remain neutral regarding this orientation, view, or position?
One of my purposes in having you write these papers is to offer you the opportunity to perfect your ability to describe carefully a complex position and argument to others. Toward that end, I require that you consider your intended audience for these papers to be other philosophy students who have not read exactly the material you have read or heard exactly the lectures which you have heard. They can not be expected to immediately know the intricacies of the positions you are discussing, and must first have the central aspects of the position which are relevant to your paper clarified to them. They must also be presented with carefully elaborated arguments for and against the position if they are to be able to follow your critical assessment of it.
Another of my purposes here is to provide you with the opportunity to push beyond the level of reading and mastering the required material for the course. Here my goal is to provide you with an opportunity to engage in critical reflection upon the readings (or upon related readings and issues), and to provide you with feed-back on your critical scrutinies. This goal can not be met if you confine yourself to a neutral exposition of the views under consideration. In my supplement Writing Philosophy Papers (available on the course web-site), I describe a number of different sorts of papers which might be submitted to fulfill this requirement (as well as a number of other points regarding composition and grader’s marks. The detailed characterization of such papers in that supplement should help you understand my expectations (those desiring high grades will endeavor to approach the highest ideal, while those who are not so motivated may choose to set their sights somewhat lower).
Your papers should be approximately 2000 words long (eight double-spaced typewritten pages of 250 words per page). This indication of length is meant as a guide to the student--papers much shorter than the indicated length are unlikely to have adequately addressed one of the assigned topics. Papers may, of course, be longer than the indicated length.
The papers should
address an assigned topic in a
manner that clearly displays its purpose, thesis, or controlling idea,
clarify the relevant elements of the philosopher’s theory so that they can be
understood by other students taking such philosophy courses,
support the thesis with adequate reasons and evidence,
show sustained analysis and critical thought,
be organized clearly and logically, and
show knowledge of conventions of standard written English.
The papers should be typed and are due in class on Tuesday, February 24. I am giving you the paper topics now so that you have at least two weekends to work on the paper. If you plan to wait till the last moment to write your paper, I recommend you review the Course Syllabus regarding penalties for late papers. Please review my policy on extensions, late papers, and plagiarism (contained in the course syllabus). Please also review my supplement Guide To Writing Philosophy Papers.
I will be happy to read rough drafts and to discuss your ideas for your papers with you (I will not read drafts after 3:30 on Friday, February 24 however).
**********************************************************
1. Critically examine Lehrer’s argument for skepticism. You may find the following useful:
Dan Turner’s “Why Scepticism?” which is on reserve in the Library in Essays on Knowledge and Justification, eds. George Pappas and Marshall Swain (Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1978), pp. 364-369
Stewart Cohen’s “Relevant Alternatives,” which is on reserve in the Library in A Companion to Epistemology, ed. Jonathan Dancy and Ernest Sosa (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 430-433
Of course, you may develop or build upon any of the criticisms of Lehrer’s argument offered in class or in the lecture supplements.
2. Critically consider whether Russell is able to defend representationalism against possible skeptical challenge in his “A Defense of Representationalism” (on pp. 115-119 of our text).
3. Critically consider the sort of response that Chisholm offers to the skeptical challenge. One version of such a critical consideration would consider whether or not he meets the sort of “burden of proof which Lehrer” claims dogmatists must meet (or whether or not he avoids the demands of such a burden which Lehrer would place upon his sort of orientation). You may find the following useful:
The arguments offered by G.E. Moore in his “A Defense of Common Sense” and/or “Proof of An External World” (in our text)
Matthias Steup’s “Problem of the Criterion” helpful—it is on reserve in the Library in A Companion to Epistemology, ed. Jonathan Dancy and Ernest Sosa (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 378-381
You may, of course, use or build upon any of the criticisms we developed in offered in class or in the lecture supplement class.
4. In discussing Gettier’s problem, I have contended that we want to avoid “lucky guesses” and “lucky truths,” but in his “Epistemic Luck and the Purely Epistemic,” Richard Foley contends that epistemic luck is not always bad. Read his essay and consider how his points apply to my discussion of Gettier’s problem (see the lecture supplement on Gettier for this). Foley’s article is available in the library in The American Philosophical Quarterly (volume 21, 1984, pp. 113-124, see especially p. 121.
5. Critically consider Alvin Goldman's causal theory of knowledge. In addressing his orientation, you might want to consider some of the criticisms discussed in class and the lecture supplement, or those offered by
Fred Dretske—see “Conclusive Reasons,” on reserve in the Library in Essays on Knowledge and Justification, eds. George Pappas and Marshall Swain (Ithaca: Cornell U.P., 1978), pp. 41-60 (esp. pp. 46-47)
Carl Ginet—see “Causal Theories in Epistemology” which is on reserve in the Library in A Companion to Epistemology, ed. Jonathan Dancy and Ernest Sosa (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), pp. 57-61
6. Critically consider Lehrer and Paxson's defeasibility theory of knowledge. You may find the comments regarding “misleading defeaters” in the lecture supplement helpful.
7. In his “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge” (in our Pojman text on pp. 142-154), Alvin Goldman develops and changes his approach from the causal theory we have studied. Read that essay, clarify his view and its differences from his earlier view, and critically consider whether you believe his later view constitutes an improvement over the earlier one.
8. In Part VI of our text there are a number of articles in support and in criticism of both externalism and internalism. Using one (or more) of these, clarify what the strengths and weaknesses of either internalism or externalism is (are), and indicate whether you find such an orientation viable.
NOTE: if you wish to write your paper on a topic which differs from the above, you must clear your topic with me before you turn you paper in.
File revised on 02/22/2009.