|
Theory of Knowledge Philosophy 447 — Syllabus M 6:30-8:50 pm Fall 2006 Professor: Michael
O'Rourke, Morrill 411, 885-5997 or 885-7107,
morourke@uidaho.edu , http://www.class.uidaho.edu/morourke
Office
hours: 12:30-1:30 W and 11:30-12:30 R, or by appointment. Room: We will meet in TLC 246. Texts: Required: Epistemology, Richard Fumerton The Epistemology
and the Psychology of Human Judgment, Michael Bishop and J. D. Trout These
books are on sale at Book People in downtown Something about the Course: I
don't hunt, but I have friends who do. One day, one of these friends
approached me and began asking me about what I did for a living. During our
conversation he said, “Why do we need to worry about those things? Why do we
need an account of knowledge, for instance? I grant that knowledge is
important to a successful life, but consider this. When I'm out in the field
hunting pheasant, I don't need a “theory of pheasants” to succeed—all I need
is the ability to recognize one when I see it. The same thing is true of
knowledge and life: we don't need a “theory of knowledge” in order to succeed
at life; all we need is the ability to recognize knowledge when we have it.” My
friend was right that the ability to distinguish knowledge from opinion helps
one get along in life, but I disagree with his dismissive attitude toward a theory
of knowledge. Think about hunting for a moment. The ability to succeed as a
pheasant hunter certainly requires the ability to recognize a pheasant when
you see it, but this ability is not sufficient for success. You must also
know where to go to find pheasants; that is, you must know something about
the pheasant's habitat. Furthermore, you must know something about what to do
when you recognize the bird; in other words, you need to know how the recognitional ability fits into the larger context. We
might also be led to wonder about the nature of this ability; in particular,
how can we be sure that it works? What
justifies us in relying on it when we are out in the field? You may not need
a full-blown “theory of pheasants”, but some understanding of pheasants and
hunting seems like a must for consistently successful hunting. I think the
same is true of a more abstract quarry such as knowledge. Sure, we could get
by without a theory of knowledge, but our chances of consistently successful
knowledge acquisition are enhanced by increased understanding, and this is
gained through our attempts to characterize and explain it—that is, our
attempts to develop a theory of it. Given the centrality of knowledge in our
lives, it is all the more incumbent on us to pursue this sort of
understanding. Pheasant tastes good, but knowledge tastes better. Our
attempt to acquire understanding of this type will proceed in two nested
stages. First, we will begin by examining the concepts of knowledge and
justification, the most general epistemological inquiry. We will work through
the Fumerton book, supplemented by chapters from
the Moser collection. After introducing us to knowledge, Fumerton
explores the key components of the most successful of all analyses of
knowledge, viz., knowledge as justified true
belief. Of these, justification
will occupy most of our attention. We will spend three weeks with the theory
of justification, considering Internalism, externalism, and Inferentialism in
turn. He closes with a discussion of
skepticism, one of the most important dimensions of an epistemological
inquiry, given that one must respond to such a challenge if one is to know
anything. The balance of the course will be divided between an investigation
into externalism about knowledge, from the perspective of psychology and
psychological investigation, and the epistemology of interdisciplinary
research. These are related, in that both involve close scrutiny of how
‘knowledge’ is defined and employed in scientific circles. I hope that we can
make some progress toward assessing the conceptual character of this research
and also breathe some life into philosophical discussions of epistemology. Goals & Objectives: I
have three goals for this course. First, I want to make you think about the
thing that brought you to the university in the first place: knowledge. Over
the course of the semester, you will wonder how it is related to and
different from right opinion. In addition, you will ask questions like: what
sort of justification is required for knowledge? Can this justification be
achieved for beliefs about facts and events in the world? What is the logical
character of knowledge? In what relationship does it stand to our
consciousness and our psychological life more generally? While it is
certainly legitimate to be skeptical from time to time, should we be more
generally skeptical about claims to knowledge? Do investigators use the term
‘knowledge’ differently, and if so, what does this tell us about that concept
and about the project of epistemology more generally? Secondly, I want you to
begin developing sustainable views of your own about these matters. To this
end, I have sacrificed breadth in favor of depth to give you the opportunity
to engage in a sophisticated way with two research trends that are of great
contemporary significance to epistemology. We will carefully work through
three texts that explore the issues mentioned above, along with articles that
supplement and extend these works, and in so doing we will develop our own
intuitions about epistemological issues. Philosophy isn’t about memorizing
the positions of others or about mastering a vernacular. Philosophy isn’t
about memorization—it’s about growth. Finally, even though this isn’t a
survey course, I still want to expose you to cutting edge work in
epistemology so that you are aware of what is happening in the discipline as
we speak. All of these books are new, and all contain work by top flight
epistemologists. Further, I am currently working on two epistemology research
projects: one has to do with an introduction to the contemporary
lay-of-the-land, and the other with interdisciplinary epistemology. I hope to
advance these through the work I do in here, and I will look to you for aid. Class Structure: I
hope to move through a chapter or two a week of Fumerton,
on average, but I suspect we’ll choose to linger over certain of the chapters
we examine. The Fumerton book will be supported by
chapters from the Handbook. About midway through the course, we will turn to
Bishop/Trout, which will be followed by an examination of knowledge across
the disciplines. I plan to lecture on the chapters before I turn things over
to discussion. The lectures will be informal and you are encouraged to
interrupt me with questions, challenges, jokes, etc. The class periods are 140 minutes long, or
2 hours and 20 minutes. There will be
a 10-minute break somewhere in the middle.
I’ll try to restrict my lectures to the first part. The second part will be devoted to formal
class discussion of the reading. This will be launched by a 10 to 15-minute
presentation by a student on that reading.
This presentation requirement is described below. Requirements: Class
Participation: You will not be
required to contribute to the discussions, but you will be expected to
prepare by doing the readings and attending class, remaining attentive and
engaged while there. To this end, I will take attendance daily. You will
be allowed 3 unexcused absences, but every unexcused absence past the third
will result in the loss of one of your 10 class participation percentage
points (see below). If you have no more than three unexcused absences, you
will receive all 10 percentage points for class participation. Furthermore,
you will be expected to turn your assignments in regularly and on time. The
topics we will consider are complex and challenging—if we hope to acquire
understanding of them, we must work together. In some classes you are
encouraged to contribute only if you have knowledge; here you are asked to
contribute so that we can figure out what knowledge is. Papers: Aside from thinking so hard that you
develop headaches and lose all track of time, your principal responsibility
in this class is to write, and the most substantial piece of writing will be
a research paper on a topic in the theory of knowledge. You will be
responsible for selecting the topic. The paper should be no less than 10
pages and no more than 20 pages in length.
It will be a research paper, and I will require you to use at
least five recent sources (i.e., within the last two to three years). This
will mean that you will spend time in the library and on article databases
exploring current discussions of your topic. You will submit two
drafts of this essay to me for evaluation.
The first draft is due in class on November 6 and the final draft is
due in my box by 5 pm on Thursday, December 14. There will be no final exam.
Depending on the number of people who are enrolled by semester’s end, there
may be a 30-minute oral exam on your final paper during finals week. I
will schedule these meetings near the end of the semester. Essentially,
they are opportunities for conversation about the results of your
research. IMPORTANT: the
first paper you submit should not be your first and roughest draft. I would encourage you to think “paper
topic” from the get go in this class. I am happy to look at and comment on
rough notes, outlines, or early drafts prior to November 6. Late research
papers will be docked a letter grade for each class period they are late,
unless you contact me on or before November 6 and give me a compelling reason
for your late submission. In
addition to the research paper, you will produce about 10 weekly reading
essays over the course of the semester. These essays will be two to three
pages in length, and they will concern some argument or issue in the assigned
reading for each topic. I will give you topic ideas for the first two essays,
but then you will need to select the subject of each essay. (An important part of your philosophical
development is learning how to get puzzled by what you read.) You should
devote the first half of the essay to reconstruction of the argument or issue
you focus on and the second half to your comment. This comment can be
critical in nature, but it need not be. For example, if you focus on an
argument that you find compelling, you could devote the comment to
consideration of the argument’s implications. The first of these is due in
class on September 11. I will not accept late reading essays, where “late”
means submitted after class is over on the day the assignment is due. If you
know you will have a conflict, you need to speak with me in advance. (More
information on these will be forthcoming.) One
of the writings that will count as a reading essay will be a discussion summary.
These will be assigned at the same time that presentations are assigned. Each
time there is a presentation, one or two people will be asked to prepare a
2-page summary of the discussion that follows. You should submit a hard copy
of this to me, as well as an electronic copy in html format as an attachment.
I will put it on the web for the rest of the class. The
first written assignment is due by midnight this Friday, 8/25. You will need to compose an e-mail message
on the email account that you check most regularly and send it to me at morourke@uidaho.edu . In this message,
I want you to explain to me why you took this class, what your expectations
are for this class, and what you hope to get from it. Also, I would like a
paragraph in which you tell me what you think knowledge is. This is worth two
points and will be considered a part of your reading essay grade. Please put
the course number (Phil 447) in the subject line. There
will also be some in-class writing that will not be graded. This writing will be done in advance of
some discussions as well as after some discussions. You learn philosophy by thinking about it,
and you learn to think about it through writing. Presentation: You will be
responsible for kicking off discussion of one of the topics this semester.
This presentation should be at least 10 minutes in length and no more than
15. You may select any aspect of the relevant reading or lecture as your
focus, and you can approach that focus from any angle (e.g., analytical, critical,
etc.). You will need to write these
presentations out (they should be 4 to 5 pages in length) and meet with me no
later than two days before you are scheduled to give your presentation. When
you arrive for class on the day or your scheduled presentation, you will need
to submit a draft of the presentation to me and a handout to the class; you
will have until Friday of that week to submit the final draft to my box in
Morrill 407. The presentation write-up will count as your reading essay for
that week. The grade you receive for your presentation will be based
primarily on the written piece you present, although I will also evaluate the
effectiveness of the presentation itself (e.g., is it well-paced,
well-structured, accompanied by helpful supplements such as whiteboard work)
and your ability to direct the discussion that you kick up (e.g., did the
presentation provoke reaction, was the discussion well-facilitated,
well-organized, etc.). Together, the quality of the presentation and the
facilitated discussion count as much as the essay. Please begin thinking about what you would like to
present on today; I will distribute a sign-up sheet next Monday. Given the
size of this class, we may have to do tag-team presentations. Discussion
Group Postings. I’ve set up a threaded discussion group for our class
that can be accessed from the class web page at http://www.class.uidaho.edu/morourke
. This is your forum. It gives you a chance to pursue discussions
outside of class. I hope that you will use it to sound out ideas, blow
off reading-related steam, or just ask questions about issues that puzzle
you. Posting should be reasonably self-explanatory, but if you have any
trouble, just let me know. Grading: The
research paper and presentation will be assigned letter grades. The reading essays will be evaluated on a
scale of 0 to 3, with “0” indicating no credit, “1” adequacy, “2” high
quality, and “3” excellence. At the
end of the semester, I will drop your lowest score and add the points you’ve
received on the remaining essays, and then curve these totals to determine
what grade you will earn for the reading essay component of this course. You should expect an “A” to be around 20 to
22, a “B” around 17 to 19, a “C” around 14 to 16, etc. There is a
handout that describes my grading style available on the web page. The
final grade will be determined as follows:
Incompletes: I
do not give incompletes, except in the event of an emergency. If you
believe that your emergency qualifies you for an incomplete, you will need to
discuss it with me, probably at length. Accommodation for the Disabled: The
Department of Philosophy and my office are located on the 4th
floor of Morrill Hall, which is accessible by elevator. If you have a disability that you believe
might come into play in this class, please let me know. Academic Honesty: It
is the policy of the Department of Philosophy to refer all instances of
suspected academic dishonesty to the Student Judicial Council. Tentative Schedule: What follows is a rough
schedule. A more detailed schedule will be supplied in short order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||