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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.