Exam #3

Just a reminder: we've scheduled two different times to take exam #3.  You can take it on Thursday, December 15th at 2:40 p.m.  We'll meet outside our normal classroom and see if it's empty.  If it's not, we'll find a different room.  Text me (609-980-8367) if you're late and don't see us in that room.

You can also take it on Tuesday, December 20th at 7:00 p.m. in our normal classroom. It should take about 60-90 minutes to finish it, but you'll have two hours to take it.

Last Chance

Just a reminder that the course evaluation for this class is only open two more days (today and tomorrow).  If you haven't done it yet, go do it!  Here are instructions:

1. Go to http://cp.rowan.edu/cp/.
2. Click "Student Self-Service" icon.
3. Click "Access Banner Services - Secure Area - login required"
4. Enter User ID and PIN.
5. Click "Personal Information".
6. Click "Answer a Survey".
7. Click on one of the student evaluations for your classes.
8. Complete the student evaluation.
9. Click “Survey Complete” to submit your completed student evaluation.
10. Repeat for other fall 2011 classes.

Reading Response #4: Consciousness

Reading Response #4 is worth 50 points (5% of your overall grade), and is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 20th (the day of our final exam).  The assignment is detailed below:

Consider the three following positions:

1. Tinkerism: The mind-body problem is all but solved. One of the current, commonly-held theories we have discussed in class (that is, a version of materialism or dualism) is basically correct. We may have to clean up the theory a little bit to make it fully correspond with the truth, but we’re pretty much finished.
   
2. Overhaulism: None of the current theories we have discussed is an adequate response to the mind-body problem. An adequate response is going to require a radical shift in our understanding of the world. We will have to reject at least one widely held assumption, and possibly more, though we should inevitably be able to uncover a satisfying solution.
   
3. Unpossiblism: Not only is none of the current theories we have discussed an adequate response to the mind-body problem, there is no theory we humans can come up with to adequately resolve the problem. It’s simply too difficult for us to figure out. We’re doomed to never uncover a solution.

Which position best characterizes your stance on the mind-body problem? In approximately a 750-word essay, explain and defend your stance.

First, explain each of the three positions in greater detail. Among the philosophers we read (including the Nagel and McGinn articles we’re reading this week), who is a Tinkerist? Who is an Overhaulist? Who is an Unpossiblist? Be sure to defend all your answers. Use support from the texts!

Second, explain why you did NOT pick the two positions you did not pick. For example, if you’re a Tinkerist, why don’t you think we have to reject any strong intuitions? Why is the problem solvable at all?

Third, defend the position you choose. If you’re a Tinkerist, explain which theory is basically right, say why you believe it’s correct, and defend it against criticisms. If you’re an Overhaulist, explain what’s wrong with the current theories out there (be sure to consider responses to your general criticism[s] of these theories), and defend the claim that it’s nevertheless still possible to find a solution. If you’re an Unpossiblist, explain what’s wrong with the current theories out there (again, be sure to consider responses to your critique), and defend the further claim that the problem is in principle impossible for us to figure out.

The Probe Probes the Broab

Brain science comedy!

Wittgenstein's Poker

Remember that book I referenced in class this week about the one philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who threatened another, Karl Popper, with a poker?

• It's called Wittgenstein's Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers.   
• If a book is a bit too long for you, there's also this short article on the incident.  
• Or if you're looking for even more, there's a second book by someone who was in the room at the time of the incident.

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 Tuesday, November 29th.

Course Evaluation

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

1. Go to http://cp.rowan.edu/cp/.
2. Click "Student Self-Service" icon.
3. Click "Access Banner Services - Secure Area - login required"
4. Enter User ID and PIN.
5. Click "Personal Information".
6. Click "Answer a Survey".
7. Click on one of the student evaluations for your classes.
8. Complete the student evaluation.
9. Click “Survey Complete” to submit your completed student evaluation.
10. Repeat for other fall 2011 classes.

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)
  
  

Test #2

Just a reminder that test #2 will be held on Tuesday, November 15th. It's worth 25% of your overall grade.

There are a variety of questions on the midterm: some multiple choice, some short answers, different types of argument evaluation, a mini-essay, and extra credit. It covers everything we've gone over in class so far:

• Philosophy
  -Definitions
  -Doing philosophy
• Arguments
  -Evaluation: truth and support tests
  -Types: deductive and abductive
• Knowledge
  -Definition: Plato says true belief doesn't equal knowledge
  -Skepticism
  -Descartes: uncertain of childhood beliefs, senses, and reasoning; certain he's thinking and he exists
• God Stuff
  -Evidentialism vs. nonevidentialism
  -Design Argument: Paley's version, the abductive version, Hume's criticisms of the analogy & inductive versions
  -Problem of Suffering: the logical (deductive) version, the free will theodicy, Hick's soul-building theodicy, evaluating greater good responses, the abductive (evidential) version

10/25 Class Canceled

I'm sick, so this week's class is canceled. This confuses a few things logistically, so here are the changes:

• Test #2 will be moved back to Tuesday, November 8th.  
• We'll be reviewing for Test #2 in class on Tuesday, November 1st.

Suffer-iness

Here's Stephen Colbert's take on evil:

Egg

Before class last week, Ben told me about a cool short story that's related to the stuff we're studying.  Here's a link to it:

• The Egg

Bad Things to 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"
• "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.

Design in the 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 "design flaws" in the universe.

Reading Response #2: Design Argument

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 18th.  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 there another, better explanation? 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) and on our discussion in class on October 11th.  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, Only More So

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 Richard Swinburne likes the design argument. (Part 2 of his interview is here.)
• Philosopher Bede Rundle is less convinced.
• Philosopher Colin McGinn tackles the issue of fine-tuning.

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

McGurk

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.

Philosophical Cats

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

I'm Certain I'm Doubting

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.

Test #1

Test #1 will be held at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 4th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, a section of short answer questions on the topics we discussed in class so far:

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

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

We're All Skeptics Now

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 shorter, more accessible summary of that cool article (pdf) on "live skepticism" we read for class.  There's also an entire book on it.
  
• I recently interviewed the author of that book for the Owning Our Ignorance club. Here's the audio interview.
  

Do I Annoy 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.

Ockham Weeps

What do you think: is this woman's explanation the best? 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.

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.

Reading Response #1

Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, September 28th. 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.

That Beyoncé Video WAS Great...

Why doesn't Kanye give a toast to the tools?

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 Arguments
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion will also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, 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 Arguments
In an argument with 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.

Howard Sure Is a Duck

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

Evaluating Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating 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- good
overall- good

2) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- good (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - bad (bad first premise)

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- bad (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- bad (bad support)

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

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

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- bad (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- bad (bad support)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
support- good (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- bad (bad 2nd 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- bad (the 2nd premise only says some ate tacos; Oprah could be one of the  people who didn't)
overall- bad (bad support)

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

P1- true
P2- true
structure- bad (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- bad (bad structure)

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)
structure- good (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- bad (bad 3rd premise)

10) 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
structure- good
overall- bad (bad premises)

11) 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
structure- bad (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- bad (bad 1st premise and structure)

12) 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- so-so (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- so-so (not perfect, since the support isn't perfect, but pretty good)

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

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

14) 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- bad (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- bad (bad premises and structure)

15) 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- good 
overall- bad (bad 1st premise)

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 to prove or disprove)
P2- questionable (again, that's not an obvious claim to prove or disprove)
support- good (the same structure as argument #13)
overall- bad (bad premises)

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."

Philosophy: The Annoying 3-Year-Old

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

Louis CK - Why?

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://rowanphilosophy.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
Fall 2011
Tuesdays: 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Robinson Hall, Room 202

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: landis@rowan.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://rowanphilosophy.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.

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: 350 points
4 Reading Responses: 50 points each (200 points total)
Attendance/Participation: 50 points

Tests: There will be three tests, each one worth more points than the last. 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.

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.

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.

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!

Attendance: I take attendance each class, and you are expected to attend all of each class.

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.

Course Schedule

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

Doing Philosophy
September 6
-Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)
-Doing Philosophy | What is Philosophy? (no reading)

September 13
-Doing Philosophy | Understanding & Evaluating Arguments (pages 1-22)
-Doing Philosophy | Abductive Arguments & Theories (pages 24-36)

Knowledge
September 20
-Knowledge | What is Knowledge? (Plato handout; pages 147-156)
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 156-160, 207-210)

September 27
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism wrap-up (pages 160-163, 210-216)
-Knowledge | Other Forms of Skepticism (Bostrom, Frances handouts)
(Reading Response #1 due)

Philosophy of Religion
October 4
-TEST #1
-Does God Exist? | Intro to Philosophy of Religion (pages 37-38, 53-57)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 120-122)

October 11
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 53-61, 123-128)
-Does God Exist? | Design vs. Random (pages 61-83)

October 18
-Does God Exist? | The Problem of Suffering Intro (pages 109-113)
-Does God Exist? | The Free Will Defense (pages 113-117)
(Reading Response #2 due)

October 25
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Suffering (handout)
-Review for Midterm (no new reading)

November 1
-TEST #2
-Faith & Reason | Pascal’s Wager (pages 100-109, 136-138)

November 8
-Faith & Reason | Verificationism (pages 92-100, 132-136)
-Faith & Reason | Pragmatism (pages 138-145)

Philosophy of Mind
November 15
-Philosophy of Mind | Dualism (pages 255-265, Descartes handout)
-Philosophy of Mind | Criticisms of Dualism (pages 265-271, Elisabeth/Descartes handout)

November 22
-Philosophy of Mind | Behaviorism & Identity Theory (pages 271-285)
-Philosophy of Mind | Functionalism (pages 285-293)
(Reading Response #3 due)

November 29
-Philosophy of Mind | Functionalism continued (no new reading)
-Philosophy of Mind | Consciousness (Nagel, McGinn handouts)

Free Will
December 6
-Free Will | Hard Determinism (pages 293-303, 344-348)
-Free Will | Libertarianism & Compatibilism (pages 303-322)

December 13
-Catch-up (no new reading)
-Final Exam Review
(Reading Response #4 due)

Tuesday, December 20th, 7:00-9:00 p.m. in Robinson 202: Test #3