PHIL 4: Human Knowledge

This page is for students enrolled in my class Human Knowledge and Its Limits. Here you will find the syllabus , homework assignments, important documents, and readings not found in the text.

Greetings and Logic Handouts

Hello, my fledgling epistemologists!

Below you will find the syllabus and the logic handouts for the beginning of the semester. Print out the logic handouts and keep them for your own reference. If they do not make too much sense now, do not fret, as they will make a lot of sense in the coming week.

For those of you who do not have the textbook yet, here are some recommendations. First, I encourage you to buy the textbook online from Amazon or any other book purveyors, since it will save you from getting gouged at the bookstore. A good used copy goes a long way. Second, when you order the book online, please make sure that the seller is anywhere in these states CA, OR, WA, AZ, NV, or ID because it will ensure that you will receive your book in 3 business days, five at the most (1-2 days if the seller is in CA). This is where the CCSF bookstore has the advantage: you can get the book here and now. Lastly, you may buy an earlier edition, but know that you run the risk of not having some readings and the page numbers will be off.

Homework 1, Homework 2, and Reading for Thursday Jan. 25

Hello, everyone!

We've been diving headlong into our crash course in Baby Logic, and to that end, you will now test your newfound knowledge of Sentential Logic with HW 1 and HW 2. These assignments are pure extra credit and can be a deciding factor for your grade toward Finals Week. There are instructions on each document. You are to write directly on the documents, and it is best if you use pencil, just as you would in mathematics. This may be difficult for some, but power through. We will go over the assignments in class.

As per the reading, you are to begin reading Plato's Phaedo in preparation for Thursday's lecture in the Moser and vander Nat text, pages 38-42.

For those of you who are still in need of the text, read Phaedo HERE. It is a different translation, but the points made by Plato should still be the same. This reading comes in two parts. The first part requires that you start on page 21 with the line that says "Then consider whether this is the case..." and read up to page 25, ending at the line that says, "..so in my view, it's been adequately proved " (about half way down the page). The second part of the reading begins at page 52 with the line that starts, "Well, this is what I mean: it's nothing new..." and reading to page 54 at the line that ends with "...but you, if you really are a philosopher, would, I imagine, do as I say" (about a third of the way into page 54).

Be ready for Thursday's lecture by reading the selections in Phaedo at least twice.

Reading for Next time and HW 3

Hello, my fledgling epistemologists!

For next time read all Aristotle's Posterior Analytics in the Human Knowledge text, as it is edited in such a way that you will read only the most pertinent parts for lecture. Most likely we will discuss Book I on Thursday and Book II next Tuesday.

Do not fret if you do not have the text. Use the attachment below, but do not read everything in its entirety because there are specific sections to read. And, also, I'm not trying to kill your weekend. So, from Book I you are to read sections 1-3, 9, 31, and 33. From Book II you are to read sections 1, 8, 11, and 19.

For HW 3, you are to write your first one-page paper. As I mentioned in class you are to write a critical summary of Plato's argument regarding the Divided Line Analogy and the Allegory of the Cave. In other words, you are to write the overarching argument in Plato's Republic Books VI and VII. This type of summary is not a synopsis of what happened in those books; rather, you are to summarize the major argument expressed. I made this task easier for you by laying out the major premises and conclusion on the board. So, you have all the parts to make a decent presentation of Plato's argument in form of one of the rules of inference.

Here are some important notes to keep in mind as you write:

1. Do not begin your paper with "Plato, one of the most famous philosophers of..." because that will tell me that you are trying to take up space. Remember: this is a one-page paper, so there is absolutely NO ROOM for any sentences that are not doing any work for you. In these one-page papers your first sentence must set the tone. For example, you could start this paper with "In Books VI and VII of Republic, Plato argues that _________________." The blank space indicates where you need to insert the main thesis. Next, say something like "Plato's argument is as follows." And then lay out his argument in the style of one of the rules of inference.
2. Margins are 1", font should be Times New Roman, size 11.5 or 12, 1.5 or double-spaced.
3. In the header should be nothing but your name and PHIL 4 HW3, single-spaced.
4. Papers are due by Tuesday before class via email as a Word document, not rtf or pdf file. If you do not follow these instructions, you get zero credit for the assignment.
5. Plagiarize anything from the internet and I will motion for your expulsion from CCSF, effective immediately.

Reading for next time and HW 4

Hello, my fledgling epistemologists!

I'd like to begin with an apology. I believe that in my haste to get through Aristotle, I missed some important information to impart with you all, even if I made a passing reference to the problem, and for that I apologize. Here I am referring to the strange puzzle on Aristotle's theory of perceptual knowledge. Allow me, if you will, to expound on what I did not in class. In Posterior Analytics, Aristotle is wrestling with a handful of issues. The first issue is on the universal/particulars debate. On this, Aristotle does not believe in the real existence of universals, meaning that he does not think there are these weird metaphysical entities that govern or are responsible the existence of things in material existence. For Plato the Forms are responsible for our understanding of the structure of sensible reality, but our everyday existence is messy and fleeting. Where the Forms exist is real reality. Where we exist is not entirely real. So, we cannot have true knowledge of the things we take from experience, only perceptual belief with some justification for the things we perceive in our everyday world. Aristotle is resisting this stance. Instead, as I noted during lecture, Aristotle thinks the forms are just in the particulars. By "particular" I mean everything particular thing we observe with our senses. Compare Aristotle with Plato in that Plato's scheme leads to skepticism of our understanding of the normal everyday world we experience, whereas Aristotle is not skeptical about the knowledge we derive from our experience. In other words, Aristotle believes that one can have true knowledge from our embodied existence.

This brings us to the other issue in Aristotle: how do we avoid skepticism, given our imperfect and often mistaken sensory apparatus? Aristotle recognized this tension in the claim that every claim to knowledge is derived from pre-existing knowledge. The tension being that every claim requires some prior justification/argument, which means we have to keep going backwards ad infinitum, providing arguments and justification for every claim by an infinite regress, something that our minds and our limited corporeal existence does not allow. Think of the problem as being akin to a child who keeps asking "why?" to every explanation provided for some event. Our minds are so limited that eventually we reach a point of saying "I don't know" to this child. Logically this is unacceptable because it means that we claim to have knowledge from something we do not know. To get a glimpse of the attitude I'm going for here, try recalling your attitude toward someone who is talking a lot of hot, smelly air on a topic, but upon close scrutiny, you find that they don't really know what they're talking about. Rightly, you would become skeptical of the claims being made by this person. Now, take that attitude and apply it more generally to even the things we think we know. You will find that even the most simple observations are not immune to doubt. Aristotle tries to fend off these skeptical worries by positing the archai. Like Plato, Aristotle believes knowledge is immutable. But unlike Plato, Aristotle thinks we arrive at scientific knowledge through reason and argument. We achieve demonstrative/scientific knowledge through argument and abstraction of the Forms in particulars (for Aristotle, the Forms are in the things we observe, not in some Platonic Heaven). For Aristotle, this abstracted knowledge is not only of "universals" but of the essence of things, i.e. knowing why something is the case. And this led Aristotle to develop his four-causal account of explanatory adequacy.

In Posterior Analytics, we saw Aristotle struggling with the problem of skepticism in ancient times, and his solution to the problem; namely, the first principles (the archai) are simply regress stoppers because there are things that can be known but not proven. For our discussion Tuesday, we will discuss Sextus Empiricus's argument for skepticism (or "scepticism" as it was once spelled) in Outlines of Pyrrhonism in the text, p.81-88 (do not read anything from Book II). For those of you still in need of the text, please go HERE for the reading (Book I: Chapters 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, and 15--don't worry, as the first four chapters are very short, meaning 14 and 15 take up most of the reading). And now you get to decide if Aristotle's attempt to avoid skepticism is successful.

For HW 4, you are to write a one-page paper on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, which will not be easy. More specifically, I am looking for you to respond critically to this quote from Posterior Analytics Book I, Ch. 33, 89a, ~lines 18-20 (p.67 in the text, right-hand column):

"If a man grasp truths that cannot be other than they are...he will have not opinion but knowledge."

To paraphrase this into one neat claim, Aristotle seems to be saying, "Grasping a necessary truth is knowledge" (you will use this paraphrase in your papers and use the citation from above). And if you will recall from lecture, for Aristotle, to grasp a necessary truth is to grasp the universal. Universal truths can be likened to the laws of science that we have today, which are based off of empirical observation. Empirical observation seems to flow from sense-perception, which he disavows on p. 66 right-hand column, line 31:

"Scientific knowledge is not possible through the act of perception."

So your task is to make an argument against the claim that grasping a necessary truth is knowledge. When I ask you to respond critically, I mean that you must provide an argument for your position. The purpose of this paper is to get you to start writing out your own arguments, but not just in any old form--I want you to choose to write your response in one of the valid argument structures from the Rules of Inference handout. Try either Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens. Don't worry about giving background information. Just start your papers out with these two lines:

"In Posterior Analytics, Aristotle argues that grasping a necessary truth is knowledge (Bk I,33, 89a,15-20). I will argue that [insert your thesis here]."

Remember, your thesis must be the conclusion of your argument. Follow the guidelines for HW 3 to do HW 4, which is to say that HW 4 will be due Thursday (2/8/2018) by email by 11AM. Pro tip: DO NOT WAIT UNTIL AN HOUR BEFORE CLASS TO WRITE YOUR PAPERS--START NOW.

Reading for 2/8/2018 and HW 5

Hello, everybody,

We explored the skeptical worries of Sextus Empiricus, as well as looking at the skepticism that became of Plato's Academy. Now we look at St. Augustine's response to the claims of the ancient skeptics. To that end you are to read Augustine's Contra Academicos and De Civitas Dei in the Human Knowledge textbook. For those of you without the text, I could not locate the reading for Contra Academicos anywhere. If you happen find it, do two things: (1) read Books I and II; (2) pass the link onto me so that I can share it with future classes. My apologies.

Augustine's excerpt of De Civitas Dei

And we indeed recognise in ourselves the image of God, that is, of the supreme Trinity, an image which, though it be not equal to God, or rather, though it be very far removed from Him,—being neither co-eternal, nor, to say all in a word, consubstantial with Him,—is yet nearer to Him in nature than any other of His works, and is destined to be yet restored, that it may bear a still closer resemblance. For we both are, and know that we are, and delight in our being, and our knowledge of it. Moreover, in these three things no true-seeming illusion disturbs us; for we do not come into contact with these by some bodily sense, as we perceive the things outside of us,—colours, e.g., by seeing, sounds by hearing, smells by smelling, tastes by tasting, hard and soft objects by touching,—of all which sensible objects it is the images resembling them, but not themselves which we perceive in the mind and hold in the memory, and which excite us to desire the objects. But, without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am.^[493] For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am[Pg 469] deceived, by this same token I am. And since I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am? for it is certain that I am if I am deceived. Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am. And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For, as I know that I am, so I know this also, that I know. And when I love these two things, I add to them a certain third thing, namely, my love, which is of equal moment. For neither am I deceived in this, that I love, since in those things which I love I am not deceived; though even if these were false, it would still be true that I loved false things. For how could I justly be blamed and prohibited from loving false things, if it were false that I loved them? But, since they are true and real, who doubts that when they are loved, the love of them is itself true and real? Further, as there is no one who does not wish to be happy, so there is no one who does not wish to be. For how can he be happy, if he is nothing?

For HW 5, due on Tuesday 2/13/18 and following the same guidelines from previous one-page papers, you are to present a critical summary of the overarching argument in the excerpt from De Civitas Dei. In other words, you are to present Augustine's argument in such a way that you try to make it for him. Consult your notes from lecture and the document "Writing For Morales' Class" for help.

Reading for 2/13 and 2/15/2018: Descartes

Hello, everyone!

I hope you remembered that I said there may be a time or two that I might not post readings here, but that the syllabus would help you figure out what reading to do. By now I assume that everyone now has the textbook and has read the first half of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. If you do not have the textbook, print out the pdf below. We will cover at least the first two Meditations tomorrow and the rest on Thursday. "Why? Why are we spending so much time on Descartes, professor???" you may ask. Well, it's because I hate you all.

Just kidding.

Rene Descartes is often regarded as the catalyst for what we call the Modern Period in philosophy. His methodical approach and intense scrutiny on theoretical frameworks set the stage for many debates still taking place today. In this book Descartes is taking on everyone: Plato, Aristotle, the skeptics, and he's even trying to square everything with God!

Reading for Tuesday 2/20/2018

Hello, everybody!

As I mentioned in class, we will be reading the excerpts in the textbook for John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. By this point in the semester, I assume everyone has the book.

Locke is the first of the three British Empiricists that will be discussed. George Berkeley and David Hume will follow, and you will see that even though they are all on the side of empiricism, they do not agree on how empiricism must be parsed out theoretically. This point is important to note because people tend to think that if you hold a view, then you must agree with anyone else who holds the same view, and that couldn't be anymore incorrect. The truth is that we can all hold or agree with a thesis, but differ greatly on how we are to understand that thesis. It's called nuance, and today more than ever, we must be aware of nuance through careful discourse.

Reading for Tuesday 2/27/18 and Thursday 3/1/18, plus HW 6

Hello, all!

My apologies for the late post. We are one session behind the syllabus. We will see how this affects our pacing leading up to the midterm. Right now I'm thinking that we will be done with Berkeley by Tuesday, Hume on Thursday and next Tuesday, and Kant next Thursday. Hint: start reading Hume on Tuesday afternoon.

Tuesday we will be going over George Berkeley's (pronounced BARKLEY) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (p.156-166). Berkeley will show us how to agree with a general position, i.e. empiricism, but disagree on how it should be carried out, or what it actually means. In other words, Berkeley agrees with Locke that our knowledge begins with experience, but differs greatly on what that entails. Pay close attention to sections 22 and 23, as this contains what many have called Berkeley's "Master Argument."

For Thursday, we will discuss Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. So, read at least half of it by then. Finish the other half over the weekend. We will finish Hume next Tuesday, and if time permits, I will dive into a preliminary discussion of Kant so that we can be done with Kant the following Thursday.

For HW 6, you are to take one of Descartes' major arguments discussed in class and attack it. In other words, provide a one-page critical analysis of one of his arguments. Specifically, attack one of his theses and state the reasons why the thesis of your choice fails. Follow the guidelines of previous one-page papers. This assignment will be due by email on Friday 3/2/2018 by 7pm. I will accept late assignments, but they will be graded with a more stringent eye, since you had more time to work on it

Remember: you don't have to lay out his entire argument--just start off with "In Meditations Descartes argues that [INSERT ONE OF HIS THESES]. I will argue that [INSERT YOUR THESIS]." Your thesis can simply be a negation of one of his theses. For example, Descartes claims that mind and body are two different kinds of things, so you can make your thesis: I will argue that mind and body are not two different kinds of things. That's the simplest approach, but if that feels too stiff and awkward, you can totally argue for some other thesis that achieves the same end. For example, you could say, "I will argue that there is a major problem for in claiming that mind and body are distinct kinds of stuff." And then build your argument for that thesis by putting into one of the rules of inference: a modus ponens, disjunctive syllogism, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, etc.

Reading for 3/7/2018 and HW 7 and 8

As I stated in class, this week we will be discussing at the whole of Kant's Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysics. Do the best you can to understand it. We will make sense of it in class. Just know that he's trying real hard to get past the skeptical parts of Hume's arguments.

I've been reading through your last assignments and I am a bit dismayed that some of you are not taking seriously the skeptical arguments that drive philosophers crazy. I have in mind the position that some of you take that Descartes dream argument is flat out false, but provide no real argument for your position. I would like to direct you to an article written on certain intellectuals, such as Bill Nye, who dismissed philosophy out of hand without really knowing what they were dismissing. You can find that article HERE. Since that article was written, Bill Nye has had a real change of heart. You can read that article HERE. I was also dismayed that many of you are still not laying out your arguments in proper form, even after all of the time I spent explicating these concepts to you in class and over email. My suggestion is simple: lay out your bare bones argument in one of the rules of inference, and then add your discussion to each premise and conclusion after.

HW 7 and HW 8 are interrelated. For HW 7, you are to write a one-page critical summary of one of George Berkeley's arguments (we covered several in class). This part should be easy since I laid out the bare bones arguments of each of his arguments for you on the board. The hard part is in explicating what those premises and conclusion mean. For HW 8, you are to write a one-page critical analysis of that argument you presented on in HW 7. You can make both assignments fit into one two-page paper. Just make sure that you title your email submission as "PHIL 4 HW 7 and 8". Again, HW 7 is just presenting on one of his arguments of your choosing. The important part of HW 7 is your discussion of each premise and the conclusion of the argument that you chose. In that discussion you should provide a statement of qualification for each premise and your own examples of what Berkeley means in each premise and his conclusion. That's what sits at the heart of what makes a summary critical: your ability to show in your way what someone else said, and to bring out the subtleties that the writer does not make explicit in their writing. The important part of HW 8 is showing how an author's conclusion simply does not follow from the premises, or how their premises (or just one of their premises) do not have the kind of veracity the author supposes. HW 7 and 8 will be due Friday by 10pm.

PHIL 4 Reading for 4/3/2018 and HW 9 and 10

Hello, everybody,

My apologies for the late post. At least we still have the week. For the reading for our next session is the excerpt of A.J. Ayer's book Language, Truth , and Logic (the textbook edited version is titled "Verification and Philosophy"). We are now (from a historical standpoint) fully into the linguistic turn of philosophy. Now, by philosophy standards Ayer is an incredibly clear writer, but to the uninitiated, his prose may still seem abstruse. To do HW 10 you will need to rely on the reading, but to help further your understanding of Ayer's position, please view the video below:

A.J. Ayer on Logical Positivism and its Legacy

For HW 9, please write on Russell's concepts of knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. More specifically, you must first state what knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description are as explained by Russell. Do not simply quote from the text. You must paraphrase Russell's words. In other words, you are to describe these concepts in your own academic words (no colloquial language allowed). Then, provide your own original examples of how each concept works. Lastly, you must discuss the weaknesses you find with Russell's conceptual scheme (i.e. problems with knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description and how they are related).

For HW 10, you are to write a critique of A.J. Ayer's principle of verification. As I stated in the last session, after the midterm all of your writing assignments will be on readings that we are about to discuss. The aim is to get you to wrestle with the material before we discuss the topics in class. Your papers can also serve as a great source of questions to bring up in class discussions. This is very much the approach to learning you will experience in your upper division courses and especially in graduate school. As such, I will walk into class with the assumption that you have completed the reading and know the terms to which I refer. As a point of discussion, it will also help you to bring up any terminology that seems esoteric to you. Do the work, especially because the final paper topics will be drawn from material we have read after the midterm.

For both writing assignments, follow all of the guidelines as before. IMPORTANT NOTE: for both HW 9 and 10, I would like to see you all employ either modus ponens or modus tollens structures in your argumentation. A good template to follow for modus ponens is Berkeley's critique of Locke's Causal Picture.

Reading for Tuesday 4/10/18 and HW 11 and 12

Hello, everybody,

For next Tuesday we are reading Quine's "Epistemology Naturalized." We will be omitting Kripke from the syllabus to get us back on track. Quine is regarded by many to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. He has a style of writing that is almost literary. That being said, this reading will still be challenging but manageable. Quine writes completely in the style of the analytic tradition, i.e. very logically and defines terms and concepts with an almost scientific air.

For HW 11 and 12 we will take a different approach. Seeing as how the reading might still be difficult for some, and because I would like to see more discussion in the class, write a two page paper asking four questions about the reading. You will get no credit for the assignment if you only write down five questions. What you must do is write the question and then give your reasoning for asking that question. Your reasoning should reflect your understanding of Quine in comparison to everything we have read thus far, as well as your own personal understanding of the issues discussed in the reading. I am implementing an approach that my professor (Justin Tiwald at SFSU) applied to our graduate seminar in moral psychology. Here is a sample of the type of response I gave to one of our readings ( and your responses do not have to delve as deep, although I will not count it against you if you give thorough responses which make your writing go past two pages):

1. What does McGreer mean by moral agency in persons with autism? Her main argument rests on the notion of disinterested concern. There are two problems that I find with this notion of disinterested concern in both “normal” persons and persons with autism. First, her argument seems to support the idea that moral agency obtains only if agents have or display disinterested concern. My objection is that her definition or categorization of moral agency is too narrow. It seems plausible, and perhaps true, that moral agency consists largely of disinterested concern. However, moral agency, I believe, is also self-interested in some respects. This issue is too large to illustrate here, but consider issues of reciprocity. In moral situations regarding loved ones, agents act morally to preserve some ends that are motivated by self-interest, e.g. helping an old woman cross the street because the agent hopes that someone will do the same when the agent is old and frail. Secondly, her examples of highly functioning persons with autism seem to exemplify just this point that I have raised. She effectively shows that autistic moral agency depends heavily on a predisposed desire to maintain order, order that serves nobody else’s ends except those of autistic moral agents. Furthermore, her arguments show that since autistic persons lack the emotional connection, their knowledge of what counts as moral is learned. This implies that autistic moral agency consists in nothing more than learned responses, responses that serve the intense autistic desire for order regardless of what motivates others in the moral sphere. In other words, it seems that her account moral agency for persons with autism is actually self-interested rather than disinterested.

Even though the homework assignment is one piece of writing it will count as two homework grades. ALSO, YOU MUST BRING A HARD COPY TO CLASS FOR DISCUSSION. NO EMAIL SUBMISSIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Reading for 4/12/2018

Hello, everybody!

Thursday, as I mentioned in class, we will be discussing Louise Antony's “Quine as Feminist: The Radical Import of Naturalized Epistemology” in the textbook. I love feminist philosophy. The stuff we have read so far can seem really stiff, and feminist philosophers often convey a certain passion that we don't see in their male counterparts. There will be no homework assignment, but I do hope for the sake of discussion that you all make a record of questions you have about the readings in the same way we did the last homework assignments. For anybody interested some background information on the discussion Antony is engaging feel free to read this article on analytic feminism. It will not only clarify the approach to philosophy we have been employing in class, but it will also illuminate how philosophical feminism operates.

Reading for 4/17/2018 and HW 13 and 14

Hello, my epistemologists!

We are treading deep into the waters of philosophy of science with the next reading. This is Carl Hempel's paper on scientific explanation. Hempel is a key figure because he helped philosophers better analyze the content of scientific theories with the use of the new logic that had been developed by Russell and Frege.

For HW 13 and 14 I would like to continue the same path that we did with HW 11 and 12. Pose four questions culled from the reading, and provide the reason behind why you ask those questions. Cite the page when you have a specific claim or passage in mind. Below is Hempel's paper. The homework assignment will be due as a hard copy in class.

Reading for 4/19/2018

Hello, junior epistemologists!

As we journey deeper into the realm of philosophy of science, we will see old philosophical problems arise once again, but this time we will see attempts at solving these problems once and for all. Sir Karl Popper is next in line with his paper "Conjectures and Refutations." In this edited version of his paper we find Popper staring down the problem of induction, seeking to eradicate it once and for all. But he doesn't start off with the problem of induction. Rather he finds the solution through what he perceives to be a backdoor problem: the problem of demarcation. As I mentioned in class, this is the problem of how to draw a definite distinction between real science and pseudoscience, and Popper believes that in solving that problem, one also solves the problem of induction in science. It's a short read, so give it a couple of passes before we discuss it on Thursday. There is no homework assignment, but by all means, please, write down any questions you have about the reading and bring them up in class!

Reading for Next time and HW 15 & 16

Hello, my philosophers of science!

The reading for next week is Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I have to say that this is perhaps one of my top favorite books in philosophy. The ideas expressed, the arguments presented, and the historical evidence is bar none. Kuhn is responsible for having made popular the phrase "paradigm shift". His writing style is clear and concise, perhaps the most accessible piece of writing you have read thus far, and his thesis powerful. Please read chapters I-IV for Tuesday and chapters VI, VII, and IX. Below is his book in pdf form. I would highly recommend reading the whole book when you have the time (I first read it over a weekend way back when I was an undergraduate--it was that fast of a read), but the above chapters should give you a good grasp on his thesis.

For HW 15 and 16, due Tuesday by email on Monday at 10pm, we will continue the format of asking four questions about the reading and providing the reasons why you ask those questions. Your reasoning for these questions should reflect your general understanding of the philosophical concepts and arguments at play, leaning on what we've discussed leading up to this point.

Reading for Thursday and HW 17 & 18

Hello, everybody,

Continuing some of the themes we started exploring with Kuhn, we have Nancy Cartwright's "The Truth Doesn't Explain Much." It's a short read, and it has some helpful annotations. So, the reading should not be too difficult.

For HW 17 and 18, we will continue the tradition of writing four questions with a discussion as to why you ask each question. Due Thursday before 10AM by email.

Readings for next week, Final Paper Topics, HW 19 & 20

Hello, everyone!

As discussed in class, we will discuss Paul Thagard's "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience" on Tuesday and David Chalmers' "The Puzzle of Consciousness" on Thursday. I believe this will be a great bookend to the semester. I'm looking forward to the discussion that will follow. Below are both papers.

Also, I claimed that I would provide you with the final paper topics so that the week after neext you would be able to have at least the first three pages of your final paper complete. Be sure to refer to the notes and sample paper I shared with you on how to set up your papers. These rough drafts of your final paper will count as HW 18 & 19. If you have any questions, email me.