PHL 441, Epistemology Dr. Poston

TR 11:00-12:15 HUMB 136 Fall 2008

mylastname@jaguar1.usouthal.edu

Office Hours: 12:15 to 1pm daily & by appt.

www.southalabama.edu/philosophy/poston/epistemology.htm

Course Description: Epistemology is a central area of philosophical inquiry. We shall seek to answer three questions. First, is knowledge possible? Second, if knowledge is possible, how can we acquire knowledge? Third, why care about knowledge? The first question focuses on the issue of skepticism. Skeptics argue that we lack knowledge because knowledge is inconsistent with some actuality; our evidence is underdetermined, our evidence doesn’t logically imply the truth of our belief, we can’t distinguish possibilities consistent with our knowledge and those inconsistent with our knowledge. Responses to skepticism raise interesting and difficult questions about successful human cognition. We shall carefully evaluate these responses. The second question focuses on the nature of knowledge. Does knowledge require reasons? What structure must those reasons form? Is there basic knowledge? How does inferential knowledge relate to non-inferential knowledge? Additionally, we shall focus on the nature of rationality: what is rationality and is rationality required for knowledge? The third question focus on the value of knowledge. Knowledge is more valuable than true belief, but what makes knowledge so valuable? How does this connect with our conclusions about skepticism and the nature of knowledge?

Objectives:

1. To explore epistemological issues arising from skepticism, the nature of knowledge and the value of knowledge.

a. List the major skeptical arguments and the basic responses to skepticism.

b. Explain the fallibilist move and its motivation.

c. Explain the Gettier problem and list several of its solutions.

d. Explain interest in the “defeater” condition.

e. Explain interest in closure principles and list a basic closure principle.

f. Write down the regress argument and the corresponding positions and list several problems for each position.

g. Explain the “internalist-externalist” debate in epistemology and its motivation.

h. Explain the problem of the value of knowledge.

2. To develop the students’ writing skills.

3. To develop the students’ critical thinking skills. Such skills include being able to understand complex issues, detect presuppositions, evaluate arguments, and form reasoned judgments in both philosophy and everyday life.

Text:

Epistemology: An Anthology 2^nd edition eds. Sosa, Kim, Fantl, and McGrath (Blackwell, 2008)

Evaluation: All written assignments should be emailed to me before class the day it is due. Please email the document in Word. I will return the document to you with comments, using Word’s comment function. It’s best if you have Word 2003 or above. If you don’t know how to display comments in Word, talk to me after class and I’ll show you how to do this.

Reading Summaries 30%
Quizzes 10%
Oral Midterm or Paper 10%
Written Final Exam 20%
Argumentative Paper 20%
Attendance & Participation 10%

Reading Summaries

A reading summary consists of (i) a statement of the author’s thesis, that is, what he is arguing for or against. Occasionally this may include more than one statement. Also, sometimes you will have to paraphrase the author’s thesis. Reading summaries also include (ii) a sketch of the author’s main argument for his thesis. In the remainder of the summary (remember you have at most 500 words) explain the rationale of the major premises and any problems you see with the author’s argument.

Many of our readings will be difficult. However, it should be fairly easy to get the main gist of the article. For instance, if an article is on skepticism you should be able to determine whether the author is in favor of skepticism or against it. In cases where you don’t know what the article is getting at, just say that and try to explain some of the reasons for your bafflement.

These summaries are intended to encourage you to wrestle with these readings. Each essay is central to the development of epistemology and deserves careful scrutiny. Writing on an article forces you to be clear about your reaction to the article and your sense of what the author has accomplished (or failed to accomplish). These summaries are also intended to improve your ability to write about and explain complicated issues.

There will be 10 article summaries (500 word limit). They will be graded as follows:

5 = excellent
4 = good
3 = so-so
2 = poor
1 = extremely poor
0 = no effort at all
40-50 total points correlates with an A
30-40 total points correlates with a B
25-30 total points correlates with a C
15-25 total points correlates with a D
0-15 total points correlates with an F

Quizzes

We will have 10 quizzes, some may be unannounced. The quizzes will cover aspects of our reading and lectures. For instance, I may ask you to explain the difference between fallibilism and infallibilism. Or I might ask you to repeat the underdetermination argument for skepticism. These quizzes are intended to test your comprehension of basic and central elements in the readings. If you do the reading, come to class, and get the basics then you should do well on these quizzes.

Oral Midterm (or short paper)

We will talk about this when the date approaches. I also give you the option of writing a short paper for the midterm (no more than 2000 words).

Final Exam (Thursday December 4^th 10:30 to 12:30)

The final exam will be cumulative. The exam will be a mixture of true/false, multiple choice, short answer, and essay.

Argumentative Paper (Due Sunday December 7^th by 11:59pm – Absolutely no late paper will be accepted)

You shall formulate a thesis statement, argue for it, and defend it from possible objections. Your discussion should manifest a good understanding of the relevant literature—you’ll gain this understanding from our readings and class discussion. I will give you a list of topics. Before you begin writing confirm your topic with me. If you would like to pursue a different topic than one I have given then discuss it with me. The paper shall be no more than 2000 words. Use footnotes with standard documentation practices (e.g., MLA).

Statement of Grading Criteria:

A : the essay adequately states and defends an argument, and answers the counterexamples and counter arguments suggested by the lectures and the readings; it shows knowledge of the topic, is well structured and well written.
B: the essay contains an argument, it shows a satisfactory knowledge of the subject, but it does not account for all the counter examples and counter arguments suggested by the readings and the lectures. The main claims are not adequately supported by textual evidence.
C: The essay states an argument or thesis, but its supporting premises are missing, or incorrect, or not sufficiently specific. It is not well structured and it is poorly written
D: The essay makes no serious attempt to frame an argument or defend a thesis. It simply describes the readings or lectures, and includes several errors. It fails to address the question posed, it lacks structure, and it is poorly written.
F: The essay completely ignores the questions set, or it contains very serious errors in reasoning, and shows no knowledge of the subject. /The essay is incomprehensible due to errors in language and usage./ The essay violates the requirements of academic integrity

Attendance & Participation

Attendance and participation are crucial. Each lecture will introduce new concepts. Moreover, this class is a mix of lecture and discussion. The lectures will not only set the context for the readings, but also explain the arguments and ideas supporting various positions. The task of evaluating these arguments and ideas, though, will be a joint venture. As a result, we will spend much of our time discussing the reasoning behind certain positions. The participation grade measures the quality of your input. But if you don’t attend you can’t participate. Additionally, I will adhere to the following attendance policy:

2 or fewer unexcused absences 10/10
3 unexcused absences: 8/10
4 unexcused absences: 6/10
5-6 unexcused absences: 4/10
More than 6 unexcused absences: 0%
Being late to class counts as ½ absence; after being late 4 times it counts as an absence

Course Outline (subject to change; the reading schedule is at best an approximation: follow the dates online)

I. Skepticism & Its Discontents

a. Understanding Skepticism

i. Reading

1. Stroud, The Problem of the External World (Tuesday 8/26) 1^st Article Summary Due

2. Barrow, Living in a Simulated Universe (Tuesday 8/26) [handout]

3. Moore, Proof of an External World (Thursday 8/28)

4. Moore, Four Forms of Skepticism (Thursday 8/28)

5. Moore, Certainty (Thursday 8/28)

6. Klein, How A Pyrrhonian Skeptic Might Respond to Academic Skepticism (Tuesday 9/2) 2^nd A.S. Due

7. Williams, Epistemological Realism (Thursday 9/11) 3^rd A.S. Due

b. Closure Based Responses to Skepticism (Epistemic Relevance)

i. Reading

1. Dretske, Epistemic Operators (Tuesday 9/16)

2. Stine, Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure (Thursday 9/18)

3. Nozick, Knowledge and Skepticism (Thursday 9/25) 4^th A.S. Due

4. Sosa, How to Defeat Opposition to Moore (Thursday, 10/2)

5. Vogel, Are There Counterexamples to the Closure Principle? (Tuesday 10/7) 5^th A.S. Due

MIDTERM 10/9 (IF YOU TAKE THE PAPER OPTION, THE PAPER IS DUE FRIDAY 10/17)

c. Contextualism & Skepticism

i. Reading

1. DeRose, Solving the Skeptical Problem (Tuesday 10/14 & Thursday 10/16)

2. Lewis, Elusive Knowledge (Tuesday 10/21)

3. Cohen, Contextualist Solution to Epistemological Problems (Thursday 10/23) 6^th A.S DUE (If you previously turned one in on the Lewis article you don’t have to write on this Cohen article.)

4. Stanley, Knowledge and Practical Interests (Tuesday 10/28)

5. Fantl & McGrath, Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification (Thursday 10/30) 7^th A.S. Due

6. Hawthorne, Sensitive Moderate Invariantism (Tuesday 11/5)

7. MacFarlane, The Assessment Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions (Thursday 11/7) QUIZ 7

II. Epistemic Value

a. The Value of Knowledge & Understanding

i. Reading

1. Zagzebski, Virtues of the Mind (11/11) 8^th A.S. Due

2. Greco, Virtues and Vices of Virtue Epistemology (11/13) QUIZ 8

3. Pritchard, Cognitive Responsibility and the Epistemic Virtues (11/18) QUIZ 9

4. Sosa, The Place of Truth in Epistemology (11/20) 9^th A.S. Due

5. Kvanvig, Why Should Inquiring Minds Want to Know? (11/25) QUIZ 10

1. Elgin, True Enough (12/2) 10^th A.S. Due

III. Regress & Reasons (Alas, we ran out of time)

a. Coherentism, Foundationalism, or Infinitism

i. Reading

1. Chisholm, The Myth of the Given

2. Sellars, Does Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?

3. BonJour, Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?

4. Haack, A Foundherentist Theory of Empirical Justification

5. Klein, Human Knowledge and the Infinite Regress of Reasons

b. Internalism & Externalism

i. Reading

1. Feldman & Conee, Evidentialism

2. Foley, Skepticism and Rationality

3. Goldman, What is Justified Belief?

4. Vogel, Reliabilism Leveled

5. BonJour, Externalist Theories of Empirical Knowledge

6. Goldman, Internalism Exposed

7. Fumerton, Externalism and Skepticism

8. Feldman & Conee, Internalism Defended