Knowledge and Understanding Research Paper

Your final paper for Theory of Knowledge is a longer paper (10 + pages) on some topic in the range of issues we have addressed during the semester. You may write your paper on one of the question/topics raised below, or on a topic/point of your own. This paper should be based directly upon important work done in epistemology in the last 25 years or so. You will need to do some significant outside research to acquire some expertise beyond the lectures and other assignments. And most of all, your paper should explain and defend an argumentative thesis. Exposition of some other authors' arguments concerning a topic is only the beginning.

Some Don’ts:

1. "In the last 25 years or so," means that historical sources such as Descartes, Kant, or even Quine are not suitable unless you address some more current literature concerning their work.

2. Furthermore, the paper should not be a reworking of lecture material from class, or a revamp of one of your shorter papers from class.

3. Book reports are not acceptable. An explanation of some position in epistemology or a summary of someone’s view on X are not acceptable. You must explain and defend an argumentative thesis of your own and that thesis must be stated clearly at the outset or the paper will not be graded.

Your final paper will be evaluated on several criteria:

a) how accurately and charitably does the paper explain and reconstruct the relevant arguments?

b) how well is the paper written? Does it follow the writing guidelines? Is it clear, well-constructed, and well-argued?

c) does the paper contain careful philosophical analysis, insight, and sensitivity to subtle and important distinctions?

d) does the paper contain a substantial philosophical thesis?

e) does the paper contain some original insights?

f) does the paper reflect a clear grasp of the concepts, issues, and questions we have considered this semester?

g) does the paper state and defend a clear critical thesis? Does it consider problems or objections to this thesis? How well does it answer possible objections?

Here are some topic suggestions and resources:

There are over 1,000 epistemology papers linked here: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~kak7409/EpistPapersBySubject.html

Some more specific topics (many of the readings mentioned in the following are in a WebCT folder marked “Some Research Paper Articles”)

1. In chapter 12 of Warrant and Proper Function, Plantinga gives a controversial argument that the two theses: naturalism and the view that human cognitive faculties are reliable belief producers cannot both be true. Reconstruct and explain this argument, consider some of the most serious objections that have been made to it by other epistemologists, and develop your own critical thesis concerning the question.

2. Richard Feldman, in “Epistemic Obligations” and William Alston in “Epistemic Obligations and Doxastic Voluntarism” give accounts of the epistemic “ought.” That is, they give explanations of how we can assert claims like, “Given the evidence, you ought to believe that Smith is guilty.” Consider their views, explain the arguments they present, and develop a critical philosophical thesis of your own about what “ought” and “should” mean in epistemic and belief contexts.

3. There are many recent works from empirical psychology about the ways in which humans reason poorly. Develop a philosophical and epistemological thesis about such empirical data that reveals our rationality shortcomings. What do these studies show? What do they suggest about philosophical accounts of knowledge? What can we learn? How should epistemology be developed in light of what empirical science is demonstrating about human reasoning. Bishop and Trout will be relevant here.

Gilovich, Tom. How We Know What Isn’t So?

Gilovich, Tom. “Biased Evaluation and Persistence in Gambling.”

Pronin, Emily. “The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others.”

Bishop and Trout. Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment.

Bishop and Trout. "The Pathologies of SAE," in Readings Folder, SacCT.

Dennett and McKay The Evolution of Misbelief

Nisbett and DeCamp Wilson: Telling More Than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes

4. What is Linda Zagzebski’s virtue epistemology position? That is, what is virtue epistemology according to her, what arguments does she give in its favor, and what are the liabilities or problems with the position? You’ll need to do some research on her most relevant papers and works.

5. In “Of Conspiracy Theories,” Brian Keeley argues that conspiracy theories, like the ones circulating about 9-11 being the result of an American government secret plan, aren’t obviously crazy. Reconstruct and explain his argument, critically evaluate it. Develop a critical philosophical thesis of your own.

6. In “Direct Realism and the Brain-in-a-Vat Argument” Michael Huemer argues that the brain-in-a-vat argument for skepticism is best formulated using the "Preference Principle," which states that in order to be justified in believing H on the basis of E, one must have grounds for preferring H over each alternative explanation of E. This BIV argument can be refuted using a direct realist account of perception. For the direct realist, refuting the BIV scenario is not a precondition on knowledge of the external world, and only the direct realist can give a non-circular account of how we know we're not brains in vats. Reconstruct, explain, and critically evaluate Huemer’s argument.

7. Foley and Fumerton present a theory of rationality in “Epistemic Indolence.” What is their view? What is their argument? What can be said in favor of it? Develop a critical thesis of your own concerning the issue.

8. In “Reliabilism Leveled,” Jonathan Vogel argues that the traditional justification requirement for knowledge cannot be supplanted by a reliability requirement, as many now are inclined to suppose. What is his argument? Develop your own critical thesis concerning the issue.

9. Quine gives an argument against Kant’s analytic/synthetic distinction in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (In our text). How does this argument intended to undermine Kant’s position? More importantly, what is Quine’s alternative to Kant’s view about the kinds of knowledge we can have? This will take some research into Quine’s work beyond “Two Dogmas.”

10. In “The Evolution of Rationality,” Sober argues against the view that it is a priori that sentient beings that are the product of evolution are rational. Rather it is a posteriori that evolution produces rational creatures, if at all. Explain his argument. Develop a critical philosophical thesis of your own concerning the question.

11. Paul Churchland has the view that we do not have beliefs (propositional attitudes). In “What happens to reliabilism when it is liberated from the propositional attitudes,” he explores the implications of this view for the epistemological position of reliabilism. What is his argument about the implications? What sort of epistemological theories are we left with in light of the developments in philosophy of mind that he is presenting? Develop a critical philosophical thesis of your own.

12. In The Structure of Empirical Knowledge (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1985), Lawrence Bonjour gives a coherentist argument against skepticism. What is that argument? Does it work?

13. There are a number of interesting and important arguments concerning whether evolution would have produced rational beings or creatures with reliable cognitive and belief forming faculties. Find some of these works by philosophers and develop a critical thesis in response.

14. Irrationality. Present, explain, and critically evaluate one of the argument in these or a related source. Consider at least one other source.

Stich, Stephen, "Could Man Be An Irrational Animal?" Synthese, 64, 1, 1985. Pgs. 115-135.

Conee and Feldman. "Stich and Nisbett on Justifying Inference Rules." Philosophy of Science, vol. 50, no. 2 (June 1983), 326-331.

Kornblith, Hilary. "The Laws of Thought," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 52, No. 4, (Dec. 1992), 895-911.

Foley, Richard. Fumerton, Richard. "Epistemic Indolence," Mind, New Series, Vol. 91, No. 361, (Jan., 1982), 38-56.

15. Scientific Method, Justification, and the Demarcation Problem. Present, explain, and critically evaluate an argument from an author in this section of the book. Consder challenges to the view and possible answers. Consider at least one other source.

Armstrong, D.M. "Is Introspective Knowledge Incorrigible?" Philosophical Review 72 (1963), 417-32.

16. The Cartesian Circle: Descartes has been accused of arguing in a circle. What is the Infamous Cartesian Circle? What evidence is there that Descartes commits it? Is there an interpretation of Descartes' position that can rescue him from the fallacy? Find 1-3 articles published in refereed philosophy journals that address the issue and consider their positions on the question. Offer your own analysis/critical evaluation of their positions or of Descartes. Here are a few references:

Murdoch,-Dugald, "The Cartesian Circle," Philosophical-Review. Ap 99; 108(2): 221-244

Weintraub, Ruth. "The Cartesian Circle and Two Forms of Scepticism," History-of-Philosophy-Quarterly. O 97; 14(4): 365-377

Jacquette, Dale, "Descartes' Lumen Naturale and the Cartesian Circle," Philosophy-and-Theology. 1996; 9(3-4): 273-320

Loeb, Lous, "The Priority of Reason in Descartes." Philosophical-Review. Ja 90; 99(1): 3-43

Lipson, Morris. "Psychological Doubt and the Cartesian Circle." Canadian-Journal-of-Philosophy. JE 89; 19: 225-246

Page, Carl. "Demonic Credulity and the Universality of Cartesian Doubt." Southern-Journal-of-Philosophy. FALL 89; 27: 399-426

Doney, Willis, ed. "Eternal Truths and the Cartesian Circle: A Collection of Studies.” GARLAND : NY, 1987