PHIL 3320: Theory of Knowledge
Dr. Timothy McGrew, Fall 2011
Required Text: Louis Pojman, The
Theory of Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary
Additional required reading
will be made available online at the course webpage:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/epi2011.htm
In addition, material may be
presented in class lectures or handed out in class that is unavailable in any
other form.
Course Description: Twentieth century epistemology is fragmented along a
number of definite fault lines. This course focuses on two of these: the
dispute over the adequacy of epistemic foundationalism in the face of two classical
skeptical challenges (Cartesian skepticism and the problem of induction), and
the recent controversy regarding epistemic internalism and the attendant move
to naturalize epistemology.
Using both classic statements
of the issues and some of the best recent articles, we will examine the way in
which one’s position on these issues shapes one’s entire philosophical outlook.
Along the way we will explore related controversies regarding the
analytic/synthetic distinction, semantic knowledge, and conceptual analysis. By
the end of the course, students should have not only an excellent feel for the
terrain in contemporary epistemology – the broad context in which other debates
may be located – but also a clear understanding of the considerations that pull
us in each direction on these critical matters.
Course Requirements: This course meets Tuesday and Thursday of each week from 12:00 noon to 1:40 p.m. except for the days noted on the course schedule. I expect you to arrive on time; a pattern of late arrival will be reflected in your course grade, since you may be counted as absent. Late assignments cannot be made up without a medical excuse except in very unusual situations. Because important material for papers and quizzes may be presented in class lecture that cannot be found elsewhere, it is imperative that you come to class and take careful notes. You are responsible to obtain notes and/or an audio recording of the class from another student in the class if you miss a day.
Attendance and quality (but not
necessarily quantity) of class participation are taken into account in the
determination of the final grade. In particular, I reserve the right to
lower the final course grade by one half of a letter grade for each unexcused
absence beyond the third. If you must miss class because of a medical or
family emergency, please let me know at the earliest possible time and provide
written documentation.
There is a fair amount of
reading assigned for this course. This includes a large number of primary
sources—documents that were written by philosophers and other thinkers rather
than simplifications written by journalists or popularizers. Most of them do
not require specialized knowledge beyond some elementary logic, but they do
require concentration. Any advanced logic, probability theory, or science
required for the understanding of the assigned readings will be developed in
class lectures as the course progresses. Students
are expected to come to class having already done the reading indicated on the
Course Schedule (below) and the associated assignments listed on the Course
Schedule and may be subjected to unannounced quizzes on that material.
General Education: This course may be used to satisfy General Education Proficiency 2:
Baccalaureate Level Writing.
Course Objectives: Students who successfully complete this course will be able to explain
and discuss the principal responses to the epistemic regress argument, the
philosophical questions surrounding the structure and justification of
deductive, inductive, and explanatory reasoning, the analytic/synthetic
distinction, the a priori/a posteriori distinction,
falsificationism, and elementary Bayesian inference.
Electronic Devices: The use of electronic communications and media devices, including but
not limited to CD players, iPods, handheld games, cell phones, and laptop
computers, is forbidden during class time. Digital or tape recording devices
may be used to record class lectures and discussion with the permission of the
instructor. Cell phones must be turned off. If
your cell phone rings during class, you will be required—without answering
it—to speak for five minutes regarding the assigned reading for the day, and
the quality of your presentation will be taken into account in the
determination of your final grade for the course.
Academic Integrity: You are responsible for making yourself aware of and understanding the
academic policies and procedures in the Undergraduate Catalog (http://catalog.wmich.edu) that pertain to student
rights and responsibilities. These policies include cheating, fabrication,
falsification and forgery, multiple submission, plagiarism, complicity, and
computer misuse. If there is reason to believe you have been involved in
academic dishonesty, you will be referred to the Office of Student Judicial
Affairs. You will be given the opportunity to review the charge(s). If you
believe you are not responsible, you will have the opportunity for a hearing.
You should consult with me if you are uncertain about an issue of academic
honesty prior to the submission of an assignment or test.
Accommodation for disabilities: Any student with a documented disability (e.g.,
physical, learning, psychiatric, vision, hearing, etc.) who needs to arrange
reasonable accommodations must contact Ms. Beth Denhartigh at 387-2116 or at beth.denhartigh@wmich.edu at the
beginning of the semester. A disability determination must be made by this
office before any accommodations are provided by the instructor.
Assignment
Weight Breakdown: There
will be four scheduled analytical essay assignments for this course. The various components of the course will count toward
your final grade according to the following weights:
|
Best
Analytical Essay Score: |
0.25 |
|
Other
Analytical Essay Scores: |
0.60 (0.20 each) |
|
Quizzes
and Class Participation: |
0.20 |
A moment’s calculation
will show that these weights add up to 1.05 (105%) rather than 1.00. This
provision builds in a small measure of extra credit. In addition, each
student’s best exam score is given slightly more weight than the other two
scores. There will be no other opportunities for extra credit.
Grading Scheme: All assignments will be graded on a 4 point
scale—that is, from 0 to 4 inclusive. While there is great variability in the
qualities that make for a particular grade on a given assignment, the following
guidelines will give you some idea of how the scale works:
A
4 indicates a performance of exceptional quality. The student has demonstrated
mastery of all the material necessary to complete the assignment.
A
3 typically indicates a consistently strong performance, though the work may be
lacking in some details or in a particular aspect of the assignment.
A
2 typically indicates minimal satisfactory performance. The student has
demonstrated some understanding of the core concepts, but there are significant
errors, gaps in comprehension, or flaws in the writing.
A
1 indicates an insufficient performance. The student has demonstrated a small
amount of understanding, but there are serious deficiencies in the work
submitted.
A
0 indicates a performance that has failed to demonstrate even a rudimentary
understanding of the material on which the assignment is based.
A
score of -4 indicates that the student did not complete the assignment or did
not complete the assignment in a minimally reasonable manner. (Anyone who makes
an honest effort to complete an assignment will find it very difficult to earn
this score.)
Grades
somewhere between two of the above marks may be given if, in my judgment, the
work falls somewhere between two of the levels above. For all written work,
both the content (clarity, completeness, argumentation)
and the mechanics (spelling, grammar, style) count toward the grade.
The
following grading scale will be used for this course:
|
≥ 3.75 |
A (93-100) |
1.75-2.24 |
C (73-77.9) |
|
3.25-3.74 |
BA (88-92.9) |
1.25-1.74 |
DC (68-72.9) |
|
2.75-3.24 |
B (83-87.9) |
0.75-1.24 |
D (60-67.9) |
|
2.25-2.74 |
CB (78-82.9) |
< 0.75 |
E (< 60) |
I
reserve the right to give a negative score (as low as -4) for assignments not
submitted or submitted but done in a manner demonstrating less than reasonable
effort.
Instructor Contact Information:
Email
(best): timothy [dot] mcgrew [at] wmich [dot] edu
Phone (269) 387-4364.
Course Schedule: The following schedule is tentative. Because the material is difficult, some of it may take longer than the indicated time. You are expected to do the readings in accordance with the sequence of topics even if we are off schedule. Any alterations in exam dates will be announced in class ahead of time.
Some of the links for
handouts will not become visible until the appropriate time in the semester.
This is not a bug: it is a deliberate feature of the syllabus. Therefore, you
should check the web address at least weekly. If a link is not working for you
and you think that it should be, you should email me immediately.
|
Date |
Topic |
Handouts
and Required |
Assignments |
|
|
Sep |
06 |
Introduction to the course The concept of knowledge: The traditional analysis |
Syllabus |
|
|
|
08 |
The traditional analysis, cont’d |
Plato, Theaetetus 196d –202c |
|
|
|
13 |
The Meno
problem |
Plato, Meno 96d – 98b |
|
|
|
15 |
The Gettier problem |
Gettier, “Is Justified True
Belief Knowledge?” in Pojman, 125-27 |
|
|
|
20 |
Skepticism: The pattern of skeptical arguments |
Bertrand Russell,
“Appearance and Reality,” in Pojman, 5-8 |
|
|
|
22 |
Cartesian skepticism |
Rene Descartes, “First
Meditation,” in Pojman, 22-24 |
|
|
|
27 |
Foundationalism and its rivals The regress argument Moderate foundationalism |
Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, 1-3 Rober Audi, “Contemporary
Modest Foundationalism,” in Pojman, 174-82 |
|
|
|
29 |
A critique of foundationalism |
|
|
|
Oct |
04 |
Coherentism |
Dancy, “A Defence of
Coherentism,” in Pojman, 206-15 |
|
|
|
06 |
A critique of coherentism |
McGrew, “A Critique of
Coherentism” (online) |
|
|
|
11 |
Immediate experience and direct acquaintance |
C. I. Lewis, “The Given Element in
Empirical Knowledge” (online) |
|
|
|
13 |
Foundationalism reconsidered |
McGrew, “A Defence of
Classical Foundationalism,” in Pojman, 194-206 |
|
|
|
18 |
Internalism and Externalism Reliabilist theories of justification |
Goldman, “Reliabilism: What is Justified Belief?” in
Pojman, 260-73 |
|
|
|
20 |
A critique of reliabilism |
BonJour, “A Critique
of Reliabilism” |
|
|
|
25 |
The case for naturalized epistemology |
Kornblith, “What is Naturalistic
Epistemology?” |
|
|
|
27 |
A critique of naturalized epistemology |
BonJour, “Against Naturalized
Epistemology,” sections I and II |
|
|
Nov |
01 |
Deductive Inference From the textbook to real applications |
The problem of
probable premises (online) |
|
|
|
03 |
Are the laws of logic revisable ? |
Quine, “Two Dogmas of
Empiricism,” in Pojman, pp. 401-02 |
|
|
|
08 |
The justification of deduction |
McGrew and McGrew, “The Justification of
Deduction,” selections |
|
|
|
10 |
Inductive Inference The problem of induction |
Hume, “The Problem of
Induction,” in Pojman, pp. 434-39 |
|
|
|
15 |
Russell on induction |
Russell, “On Induction,” in
Pojman, pp. 440-43. |
|
|
|
17 |
The connection to truth and the nature of rationality |
|
|
|
|
22 |
Bernoulli’s solution |
Barker, “The Statistical
Syllogism” |
|
|
November 23-27: Thanksgiving Break |
||||
|
|
29 |
Explanatory Inference The contrastive nature of explanatory reasoning |
Lipton, “Inference to the Best
Explanation,” pp. 1-9 |
|
|
Dec |
01 |
Explanation and theoretical virtues |
|
|
|
|
06 |
Cumulative arguments and confirmation |
|
|
|
|
08 |
Testimony and explanation |
|
|
|
Finals Week |
||||