Final Exam

Just a reminder that the final exam is Monday, December 20th, at 11:00 a.m. in our normal classroom. You'll have 50 minutes to take it.

After that, we're done! Then, time to enjoy your break. COMMENCE WINTER-TIME ENJOYMENTATIONALIZING...NESS.

Faith & Reason: Strange Bedfellows?

For more on today's presentation:

• "The Ethics of Belief," William Clifford's classic argument for evidentialism
  
• "The Will to Believe," William James's nonevidentialist response to Clifford
  
• "Believing Without Evidence," a modern-day evidentialist's take on the Clifford-James debate

The Big Aristotle

Here is a trio of short audio interviews with philosophers talking about Aristotle's influence on philosophy (in particular, his virtue ethics). All three interviews come from the "Philosophy Bites" podcast.

• Aristotle's Ethics
  
  
• Aristotle on Happiness
  
  
• Virtues
  

And here's a funny clip related to Aristotle's idea that a good person has developed her character enough to do the right thing without thinking:

• Kyle Kinane: Everybody Thinks They're a Good Person
  
  

Nihilism, Like Life, Is Absurd

Here is one (mildly depressing) approach to the meaning of life that our group referenced:

• "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus
  
• "The Absurd" by Thomas Nagel

My Identity is Personal

Two cartoons on personal identity:

1. Does physical or psychological continuity matter? Let's think about teletransportation...
   
   


2. Perhaps our identity is all in the way we're arranged:
   
   

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)
  
  

Suffer-iness

Here's Stephen Colbert's take on evil:

Bad Things to Good People

Here are some links on the problem of evil.

• 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?
• Thoughts on everyday evil and the Holocaust.
  
• 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.)

More with the Creepy Guy

Here are some recommended videos on the design argument from Closer to Truth:

• 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.
  

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.

Group Presentation Research

Here are some helpful starter links on your topics for your group presentations. I don't expect you to read them all, but you should at least browse them to see what you might be interested in specifically regarding your topic.

Team Personal Identity (1st on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
[intermediate] [advanced] [summary of "A Dialogue on Personal Identity & Immortality"] [identity in general] [Ship of Theseus] [personal identity & ethics]
Anthony, Eric, Karly, Matt C., Richard, Viviana

Team Meaning of Life (2nd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
[intermediate] [religion links] [Camus's "Myth of Sisyphus"] [Nagel's "The Absurd"] ["Love and Death"] [42?]
Chloe, James, Kassandra, Kelsey, Sam, Sierra

Team Ethics (to be specified) (3rd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Alicia, Austin, William

Team Confucius (1st on Monday, 12/13/10)
[intermediate] [advanced] [The Analects (free online translation)] [What is De? (part 1) (part 2)] [Neo-Confucianism] [Chinese ethics] [Confucius from a Japanese perspective]
Brian, Delilah, Kevin, Matt E., Michael, Zach

Team Immortality (2nd on Monday, 12/13/10)
[death] [resurrection] [summary of "A Dialogue on Personal Identity & Immortality"]
Lisa, Melissa, Remy, Sung

Team Aristotle (1st on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
[read excerpts from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: pages 269-277 of the textbook] [intermediate] [advanced] [Aristotle's virtue ethics (intermediate) (advanced)] [virtue ethics] [Aristotle's ethics (audio)] [Aristotle on happiness (audio] [Aristotle on virtues (audio)]
Katherine, Lexis, Marissa, Olivia

Team Faith and Reason (2nd on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
[intermediate] [nonevidentialism] [evidentialism: intermediate, advanced] ["Believing Without Evidence"] ["The Ethics of Belief"] ["The Will to Believe"] [Flew, Hare (reply), & Mitchell (summary)] [lots of links]
Dana, Dawn, Josh, Nancy, Robin

Group Presentations

Here are the group assignments. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Personal Identity (1st on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Anthony, Eric, Karly, Matt C., Richard, Viviana

Team Meaning of Life (2nd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Chloe, James, Kassandra, Kelsey, Sam, Sierra

Team Ethics (to be specified) (3rd on Wednesday, 12/8/10)
Alicia, Austin, William

Team Confucius (1st on Monday, 12/13/10)
Brian, Delilah, Kevin, Matt E., Michael, Zach

Team Immortality (2nd on Monday, 12/13/10)
Lisa, Melissa, Remy, Sung

Team Aristotle (1st on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
Katherine, Lexis, Marissa, Olivia

Team Faith and Reason (2nd on Wednesday, 12/15/10)
Dana, Dawn, Josh, Nancy, Robin

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Wednesday (12/8/10), Monday, (12/13/10), and Wednesday (12/15/10). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Like a Machine, 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 the wacky arg for god's existence that we could've studied.
  
• 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?
  
• Well, recent research might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.
  

Midterm

Just a reminder: the midterm will be held on Friday, November 5th. It's worth 20% of your overall grade. There will be a review in class on Wednesday. It will cover the topics we discussed in class so far:

• philosophy in general
• doing philosophy
• understanding and evaluating arguments
• types of arguments: deductive, example, analogy, causal, authority
  
• what is knowledge?
• Plato on knowledge vs. true belief
  
• skepticism (specifically external world skepticism)
  
• Descartes battling skepticism
• Descartes's certainty: his arg that "I exist"
  
• Nick Bostrom's simulation arg for skepticism
• God stuff
• The cosmological argument, specifically:
• Aquinas's "first cause" version of the argument
  
• The abductive version of the "first cause" argument
  
• Aquinas's "contingency" version of the argument
  

BE THERE.

Religion Journal Guideline

Here is a guideline for the next big assignment: the journal you have to keep during our discussion of God.

Worth: 15% of your overall grade

Due Date: the beginning of class on Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Assignment: The assignment is to keep a journal during our section on philosophy of religion. I want you to write several short journal entries about the various arguments for and against the existence of God. We’ll be going over all these arguments in class during the next few weeks. Each entry should be around two paragraphs long.

This assignment is a chance for you to do philosophy. I want you to demonstrate that you understand what we are reading and discussing. (Present each argument in your own words.) In addition to this, I want you to critically evaluate each argument we read and discuss. (Are any premises questionable? Does the argument provide enough support for its conclusion?) It is also a chance for you to give your opinion on these arguments, and defend your opinion with good reasons.

You should have the following journal entries, in this order:

1) Your first entry on your thoughts about God before discussing any of this stuff in class. Do you think there is a God? Why or why not?

2) An entry explaining and evaluating the cosmological argument (Aquinas reading).

3) An entry explaining and evaluating the design argument (Hume reading).

4) An entry explaining and evaluating the problem of evil argument (Sober, Augustine, and Hick readings).

5) A final entry where you discuss your thoughts about God after reading these philosophers and discussing this in class. Has your opinion about God changed? Have your reasons for your opinion changed?

The journal does not have to be typed. There is no length requirement. (Again, the suggestion is around two paragraphs per journal entry.)

Why Is Anything Anything?

The website Closer to Truth has a ton of short interviews with modern-day philosophers (and other smart people) on their thoughts about god. For instance, there's an entire episode on the cosmological argument titled "Did Our Universe Have a Beginning?" and an entire section titled "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Here are some related videos:

• Theist John Leslie says God best explains why there is something.
  
• Theist Peter van Inwagen believes in God, but doesn't like this arg.
  
• Atheist Colin McGinn thinks it's a meaningless question.
• Physicist Steven Weisberg says we should wait for science's answer.
• Apatheist Master Shake uses it as an excuse to be lazy.
  

Speaking of silly jokes, here's one of my favorite responses to the cosmological argument (from Gerald Dworkin's list of philosophy quips:)

When a philosopher announced that the title of his talk was “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” Sydney Morgenbesser said to the man sitting next to him, “If there was Nothing he would still complain.”

And here's a video on the relationship between philosophy and religion:

• Does Philosophy Illuminate Religion?

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.

How should we approach our discussions about god? Here's one of my favorite essays on this:

• "Reasonable Religious Disagreements" [pdf] by Richard Feldman
  

The National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. (Since they're not trained philosophers, some of their arguments aren't the best. Try to spot their mistakes!) The conversations touch on a lot of things we'll be discussing in class.

• Richard Dawkins pushing atheism
  
• Francis Collins pushing theism
  

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

Virtual Dinosaurs

Here's a more advanced version of the Nick Bostrom article we've discussed in class about the potentially high probability that we're actually living in a Matrix-like virtual reality. If you get really into Bostrom's argument, there's a whole website devoted to debating it (including a FAQ written by Bostrom).

Of course, T-Rex has read this article, too:

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.

Skepticism and Other -isms

If you're looking for more stuff on external world skepticism for the first paper assignment, this entry on skepticism might be helpful. It's a bit more accessible than other entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and it includes several attempts to combat arguments for skepticism, including the fallibilist and contextualist strategies we discussed in class.

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 summary of a cool argument (pdf) for an interesting version of skepticism I call "unsettled debate" skepticism. 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.
  

Paper #1 Guidelines

(Want tips on writing a philosophy essay? Check out here and here!)

New Due Date: at the beginning of class on Wednesday, October 13th, 2010 Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

Worth: 50 points (5% of final grade)

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on external world skepticism: the claim that we do not know anything about the physical world beyond our immediate sense experiences. In particular, choose one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Write down the word count on the first page of the paper.

Possible Paper Topics
1. Criticize skepticism of the external world. Describe what you take to be the best argument for external-world skepticism. Then evaluate this argument. Exactly how is this argument bad? Be specific: what is/are its flaw(s)? How can we avoid giving in to the skeptic’s arguments that we don’t know anything about the world?
[NOTE: For this option, you don’t have to present a positive argument for the existence of the external world. Just explain why the skeptical argument you focus on is bad.]

2. Tell me why you’re not a skeptic: Present and defend an argument for the claim that we can know that there is an external world beyond our sense experiences. Be sure to consider and respond to objections to your argument that a skeptic would likely offer.

3. Defend external-world skepticism. Present an argument for external-world skepticism. Then consider and respond to objections to this argument. Pay special attention to your conception of knowledge: defend the conditions you believe are required for knowledge.

4. Explain and evaluate Nick Bostrom’s argument in “Do We Live in a Computer Simulation?” Do you think Bostrom makes a good case for external-world skepticism? Why or why not? Be sure to fully explain your evaluation of his argument, and defend your opinion.

5. Write something else on skepticism. (Sean must approve this topic by Wednesday, October 6th.)

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

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. If you're looking for FUN TIMES, ask me about the Gettier problem in class!

Quiz

The quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Wednesday, September 30th. You'll have 25 minutes to take it, and it's worth 10% of your overall grade.

The quiz is on our tiny textbook (A Rulebook for Arguments). There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, and a section on evaluating the other kinds of arguments (example, analogy, authority, cause). Basically, the quiz will look a lot like the group work we've done in class so far.

Evaluating Deductive Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we went over in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- valid
overall - sound

2) (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)
structure- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

3) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)
P2- true (each "Sean" in this handout refers to your teacher, Sean Landis)
structure- invalid (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

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

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

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

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

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

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

P1- true
P2- true
structure- 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 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- valid (same structure as in argument #1, just with an extra premise)
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) All students in here are humans.
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.

P1- true
P2- true!
structure- valid (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound

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
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 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
structure- 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 (bad 1st premise and structure)

13) 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
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

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- valid (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 (bad premises and structure)

Correlatious

Here's yet another stick-figure comic (for those keeping track, that's five total on the blog so far). This one's about correlation.

Correlation is a tricky concept. We tend to see the world in all-or-nothing terms, rather than in shades of probability.

Non-Deductive Arguments

Here are the answers to the group work we did in class on args by example, args by analogy, args from authority, and args about causes. Conclusions are in bold.

1. That Honus Wagner baseball card shouldn’t be that valuable. After all, it’s made out of cardboard, and cardboard boxes at Pathmark are super cheap.

Analogy
Bad - Material isn't always a relevant similarity to draw a conclusion about value: baseball cards are typically valued for their rarity, not what they're made of.

2. Canada, Mexico, USA, India, and Australia are all countries that border oceans on the east and west. Hence, most countries border oceans on both the east and west.

Example
Bad - 5 countries out of about 200 total nations is too small a sample. Also, the examples are cherry-picked, and so they're unrepresentative.

3. In a recent study, 100% of those who took a new birth control pill didn’t get pregnant. Only males participated in the study. Thus, the birth control pill must be very effective.

Cause
Bad - A better explanation of the correlation between taking the pill and not getting pregnant is that males don't get pregnant.

4. Oasis sounds just like The Beatles. We all know that The Beatles were one of the most influential rock bands ever. So Oasis must be one of the most influential bands, too.

Analogy
Bad - A similar sound isn't a relevant enough similarity regarding whether a band is influential.

5. Abortion is morally acceptable because renowned linguist Noam Chomsky has defended the practice of abortion, and he’s pretty smart.

Authority
Bad - Chomsky's expertise (linguistics) isn't relevant to the topic of abortion.
(Chomsky explains his view on abortion in the video to the right.)

6. Most people say the money it costs to go to law school is worth it, because lawyers earn a lot of money. So, since doctors also earn a lot, med school costs must be worth it, too.

Analogy
Pretty Good - The similarity (average money earned per profession) is relevant to whether med school is financially worth it. Assuming one thinks a large up-front investment is worth an even larger salary in the future, this arg is good.

7. My friend knows me better than anyone else, and he says I’m a decent guy. Therefore, I must be a decent guy.

Authority
Bad - Yes, my friend is a relevant expert, but he's likely to be biased in favor of me since he is my friend.

8. My sis usually keeps her car windows rolled down, though she always rolls them up right before it rains. Her car must be magical, then: rolling up her windows causes it to rain.

Cause
Bad - This is reversed! The rain probably causes her to roll up her window, not the other way around.

9. This guitar-shaped flyswatter costs $2 more than that normal one. Most of the expensive stuff I’ve bought in the past turned out to be higher quality than similar, cheaper items. Hence, the guitar-shaped swatter is higher quality than the normal one.

Example
Bad - While there may be a general correlation between expense and quality, it is not representative of this kind of novelty item. There is also a correlation between price and novelty: the more unique an object is, the more expensive it typically is.

10. Nearly every time I see Conan O’Brien on television, I wind up falling asleep. Thus, I guess Conan puts me to sleep.
Cause
Bad - Another way to explain this correlation between Conan and my sleep is the fact that his shows have been on late at night, a time at which I'm usually tired anyway.

How Myths Spread

Check the Source

-via GraphJam

An Expert for Every Cause

Looking for links on arguments from authority? This is your post! First, here's an interesting article on a great question: How are those of us who aren't experts supposed to figure out the truth about stuff that requires expertise?

Not all alleged experts are actual experts. Here's a method to tell which experts are phonies (this article was originally published in the Chronicle of Higher Education).

It's important to check whether the person making an appeal to authority really knows who the authority is. That's why we should beware of claims that begin with "Studies show..."

And here's a Saturday Night Live sketch in which Christopher Walken completely flunks the competence test.

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:

"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."

Our Inductive Minds

Here are some more thoughtful links on inductive reasoning (or arguments by example).

• What are the benefits and dangers of generalizations?
• What makes stereotyping illogical?
• Beware: we often make snap judgments before thinking through things. Then when we do think through things, we just wind up rationalizing our snap judgments.

Arguments by Example

Here are a few dumb things about arguments by example (also called inductive arguments, talked about in the book chapter titled "Generalizations"). First, a video of comedian Lewis Black describing his failure to learn from experience every year around Halloween:


Next, this stick figure comic offers a pretty bad argument. Why is it bad? (Let us know in the comments!)

The Full Moon Myth?

Scientific American has a nice article examining the widely-held belief that the full moon causes strange behavior. Research suggests the full moon doesn't have this effect:

"By combining the results of multiple studies and treating them as though they were one huge study—a statistical procedure called meta-analysis—[scientists] have found that full moons are entirely unrelated to a host of events, including crimes, suicides, psychiatric problems and crisis center calls. In their 1985 review of 37 studies entitled 'Much Ado about the Full Moon,' which appeared in one of psychology’s premier journals, Psychological Bulletin, Rotton and Kelly humorously bid adieu to the full-moon effect and concluded that further research on it was unnecessary."

One reason the belief persists is a set of natural human cognitive biases in which we perceive correlations where no such correlations exist:

"Illusory correlations result in part from our mind’s propensity to attend to—and recall—most events better than nonevents. When there is a full moon and something decidedly odd happens, we usually notice it, tell others about it and remember it. We do so because such co-occurrences fit with our preconceptions. ... In contrast, when there is a full moon and nothing odd happens, this nonevent quickly fades from our memory. As a result of our selective recall, we erroneously perceive an association between full moons and myriad bizarre events."

We'll be discussing these biases more when we study arguments about causes. Here's a cool video by psychological Dan Gilbert on our mistaken expectations:

Understanding Arguments

Here are the answers to the handout on understanding shorter arguments that was assigned as optional extra credit.

1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship

2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.

3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.

5. (P1) The past 3 women's U.S. tennis champions have changed to Wilson's new line of rackets.
(C) It's time to trade your racket in for a Wilson racket.

6. (P1) My doc said she'd be performing a blood test on me when I visit her today.
(C) I know I'll feel pain today.

7. (P1) Most of those who enjoy music play a musical instrument.
(C) If Maria enjoys music, she probably plays a musical instrument.

8. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.

9. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.

10. (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

11. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

12. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.

13.(P1) There are no pesticide controls in this county.
(C) There are no edible fish in the streams of this county.


14.(P1) This city's beautiful beaches are the most overcrowded beaches in the state.
(C) Beautiful beaches definitely attract people.

----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website , and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website .

Trying to Get Away Into the Night

If only everything were as wholesome as '80's era Tiffany videos:

Club Meeting

I'm the adviser for a school club called "Owning Our Ignorance" that's devoted to improving our learning through fun and reasoning. You know, nerdy cool stuff.

We're having our first meeting of the semester this Thursday at 1:00 p.m. in Madison 103. More info on the meeting is available here. More info on the club is available here.

If you're interested, come on out!

Philosophy: The Nagging 3 Year Old

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

Louis CK - Why?

Email Subscription

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

A blog (short for “web log”) 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 t0 http://2010cccphilosophy.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; slandis@camdencc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Introduction to Philosophy
Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 101, Section 01
Fall 2010
Monday, Wednesday, Friday: 11:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m.
Madison Hall, Room 311

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://2010cccphilosophy.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Texts
A Rulebook for Arguments, 3rd Edition, Anthony Weston (RA)
Classics of Western Philosophy, 7th Edition, Steven M. Cahn (CWP)

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? Do humans have free will? What does it mean to say that one thing is morally right and another is morally wrong?

In examining these issues, it is my hope that we can also develop the skills of doing philosophy—understanding philosophical arguments, evaluating the quality of such arguments, and developing good arguments of our own on philosophical topics. Our main goal is for each of us to come to appreciate the value of sitting and thinking. Long, careful, systematic, detailed thought is a great tool for increasing understanding on complex topics.

Grades
900-1000 points = A
800-899 points = B
700-799 points = C
600-699 points = D
below 600 points = F.

Quiz 100 points
Midterm 200 points
Final 250 points
Fun Fridays 50 points total
2 Short Papers 50 points each (100 points total)
Journal 100 points
Group Presentation 150 points
Attendance/Participation 50 points

Quiz: There will only be one quiz, held at the end of arguments section of the course. The quiz will last about 25 minutes, and be held at the beginning of class on the scheduled day.

Exams: There will be a midterm and a final exam. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last the full period (50 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—that is, it tests everything covered throughout the whole course. The final will last 50 minutes, and will take place during finals week.

Fun Fridays: There will be 4 in-class graded assignments scheduled on some Fridays during the semester.

Papers: There will be 2 papers (about 2 pages long each), the first on our section on knowledge, and the second on our section on ethics.

Journal: Each student will keep a journal during our section on the existence of God and free will.

Group Presentation: There will be a group project presented in front of the class toward the end of the semester. Each group of 3 to 6 students will research a topic in philosophy not discussed in class, and present a 10- to 15-minute lesson on it to the rest of class.

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 your 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—and possibly the entire class. FYI: I’m pretty good at catching plagiarists. I recommend not trying it!

Excused Absences: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (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.

Important Dates
August 31: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
September 15: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
September 22: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
December 3: Last day to withdrawal from Fall Classes.

Course Schedule

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

Sept. 1—3: Intro to Class/Arguments
Wednesday: Introduction to Class (no reading)
Friday: Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 6—10: Arguments
Monday: LABOR DAY (no class)
Wednesday: Understanding Arguments (RA Chapters 1 & 2)
Friday: Types of Arguments (RA Chapters 3 & 4); group work

September 13—17: Arguments
Monday: Evaluating Arguments (RA Chapter 4 & 5); group work
Wednesday: Deductive Arguments (RA Chapter 6)
Friday: Deductive Arguments (RA Chapters 6); group work

September 20—24: Arguments
Monday: Fallacies (RA Chapter 10)
Wednesday: Fallacies & Biases (handout: Metacognition); group work
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #1: Biases (no reading)

September 27—October 1: Knowledge
Monday: QUIZ #1; Intro to Knowledge (no reading)
Wednesday: Defining Knowledge | Plato’s Account (handout: Plato)
Friday: Skepticism (CWP 482-483, 490-496)

October 4—8: Knowledge & Existence of God
Monday: Skepticism | Descartes’ Meditations One and Two (CWP 482-483, 490-492); group work
Wednesday: Descartes’ Meditations Two (CWP 429-496)
Friday: God | Intro to Philosophy of Religion (handout: Lawhead)

October 11—15: Existence of God
Monday: Cosmological Argument | Aquinas: Summa Theologiae Question 2 (CWP 440-441, 450-453)
Wednesday: PAPER #1 due; Cosmological Argument (no new reading); group work
Friday: Cosmological Argument | Which Is Weirder? (no new reading)

October 18—22: Existence of God
Monday: Design Argument | Hume II & V in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (CWP 862-867, 873-875)
Wednesday: Design Argument | (no new reading); group work
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #2: Proof

October 25—29: Existence of God
Monday: Design Argument | Chance vs. Design (no new reading)
Wednesday: Review for Midterm (no reading)
Friday: MIDTERM

November 1—5: Existence of God
Monday: Problem of Evil | Intro (handout: Sober)
Wednesday: Problem of Evil | Augustine: Books 1, 2, & part of 3 in On Free Choice of the Will (CWP 357-369)
Friday: Problem of Evil | Hicks (handout: Soul-Building)

November 8—12: Existence of God & Free Will
Monday: Problem of Evil | wrap-up (no new reading)
Wednesday: Free Will | Freedom vs. Determinism (handout: Nagel)
Friday: Free Will | Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed
(CWP 434-439)

November 15—19: Free Will & Ethics
Monday: Free Will | Aristotle: Book III in On the Soul
(CWP 223-227)
Wednesday: Free Will | Determinism (handout: Hospers)
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #3 | Practical Ethics; Aristotle Book II of Nicomachean Ethics (CWP 269-275)

November 22—26: Ethics
Monday: Ethics | Virtue Ethics: Aristotle Book III, Chapter 1 in Nicomachean Ethics (CWP 275-277)
Wednesday: Journal due; Ethics | Utilitarianism: Mill part of Chapter 2 in Utilitarianism (CWP 1060-1063)
Friday: THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class!) (woo?)


November 29—December 3: Ethics
Monday: Ethics | Evaluating Utilitarianism (handout: Rachels)
Wednesday: Ethics | Kant 1st section in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (CWP 984-991)
Friday: Ethics | Evaluating Kantian Ethics (handout: Rachels)

December 6—10: Ethics/Group Presentations
Monday: preparation for presentations (no reading)
Wednesday: group presentations
Friday: FUN FRIDAY #4 | Importance

December 13—19: Group Presentations & Review
Monday: group presentations
Wednesday: group presentations
Friday: PAPER #2 due; review for Final Exam

December 22: Final Exam
Monday: FINAL EXAM (11:00-11:50 p.m.)