Fourth Paper-Theory of Knowledge
Some general advice about writing these papers here.
Fourth Paper Assignment
Theory of Knowledge
Professor McCormick
Part 1: What's My Problem
On a separate sheet of paper, attached at the front of your final paper assignment do this:
1) Write "In my previous papers, my problems were:" at the top.
2) Write a numbered list where you describe the kinds of mistakes that you made on your previous papers. Include every category of numbered mistake reference from the Writing Guidelines, e.g., 6A, 8B.
3) Fix every one of those mistakes as they occur in the current paper assignment.
4) Then write, "On this paper, I have tried hard, oh so very, very hard to correct these mistakes."
5) Then sign your name in blood.
Part II. Choose one of these topics:
1. Pojman gives an argument for commensurabilism concerning faith and reason in his chapter Epistemology and Religious Belief (325). What are commensurabilism and incommensurabilism? Reconstruct and explain Pojman’s argument for commensurabilism. Critically evaluate Pojman's argument.
2. Reconstruct and then critically evaluate Dennett and McKay's argument about one of the categories of evolved misbelief: positive illusion, self deception, emt, etc. Come up with at least two criticisms of their argument and consider responses. There are numerous criticisms and responses in the comments section after their paper. Be sure to cite your sources.
2. What does it mean to naturalize a priori knowledge, according to Maddy in
What does she mean by this comment on page 23:
So the trade-off is between a two-level view that provides an account of the a priori, but blocks a certain style of scientific inquiry into science, and a one-level view that fails to underwrite the a priori-a posteriori distinction, but encourages this style of inquiry into science. For my money, there is no contest.
3. In "What Happens to Reliabilism When It is Liberated from the Propositional Attitudes," Paul Churchland argues for a version of reliabilism without beliefs. That is, humans have knowledge, but they don't have beliefs. What is Churchland's arguments regarding the nature of knowledge? What is it if there are no beliefs? What are the implications for epistemology if Churchland is correct? The article is in the WebCT "Some Research Paper Articles" Folder.
Your paper should be typed, double-spaced, in 12 point font, and free of spelling and grammar errors. It should be at least 3 pages long. It is due in class on Tuesday, Dec. 6. Your paper should conform to the Philosophy Dept. Writing Guidelines.