Winter
2005: MWF 1:15 – 2:30
Instructor: Dr. Ashley McDowell
Office: 202 Humphrey House
Office
phone: 337-7077
email: mcdowell@kzoo.edu
Office Hours: Mondays and Wednesdays 9 – 10, Tuesdays
and Thursdays 10:30 – 11:30
(unless a change is announced), and by appointment
Brown bag discussions: Fridays before class – 12:00 – 1:00 (these are informal discussion sessions with me and others in the class, about course material and related topics)
Texts: Landesman
and Meeks, eds., Philosophical Skepticism
Ernest Sosa and Jaegwon Kim,
eds., Epistemology: An Anthology
Articles on
reserve at the library
Description:
This is an upper-level seminar-style course
exploring some issues in epistemology – the study of knowledge – using
films as examples and discussion centers.
In particular, we’ll focus on a few key issues surrounding the
possibility and nature of knowledge.
Many films have explored
situations that cast doubt on characters’ knowledge. The worry can be a global one – what if nothing I believe
is really true? After all, I could be
having all of the experiences I am having now, while those experiences are not
reflecting reality. These so-called
“global skeptical scenarios” will be studied through the films The Matrix,
Total Recall, The Truman Show, and through academic philosophical works
dating back to Descartes, the father of the global skeptical scenario.
Even if we reject absolute
skepticism, there are still questions about our evidence for our beliefs, and
when we are reasonable in holding various kinds of beliefs. We will study various issues and theories
regarding philosophical “justification”: good reason for believing. Films that will help us here are Fight
Club, Memento, Rear Window, Rashomon, and Twelve Angry Men.
Course
Goals:
From our reasoned responses to such films, we can
learn a lot about the concepts of good evidence, rationality, assessment of
belief-forming practices, and other epistemological issues. We will continually read contemporary
academic philosophical articles presenting arguments regarding these issues as
well. The combination of our powerful
responses to examples and our intellectual struggle with theory should lead us
to deep and rewarding insights about thinking, knowledge, and how we should
conduct our mental lives.
We will meet outside of class
during the evening in seven of the ten weeks to watch the films required for
this class. Previous viewing of the
films will not count – you will be expected to watch the film again, in your
role as an epistemologist. Classes will
include a combination of lecture and discussion, and all students will be
expected to contribute. In-class discussions
will be conducted with respect and a mutual interest in solving these problems,
so that all views will be open to thoughtful criticism. We will be approaching
other views – and our own – with an open-minded but critical eye. The focus will be on providing and assessing
arguments for positions, to try to come to the most thoughtful position
possible on these questions. Students
will be evaluated on how well you have learned the views and arguments of the
authors studied, and how well you formulate original arguments for your own
positions.
This class will consist of a combination of lecture
and discussion. In general, I will
spend time every day taking your questions about the reading and the previous
class’s material, and we will then go over and talk about the current day’s
material. I may sometimes have you
break up into pairs or groups to work on an in-class assignment or
discussion. Since philosophical
learning is best done in an environment of discussion, attendance and
participation are expected.
You will be responsible for completing the readings
before each class, and being prepared to discuss those readings. You should be aware that some of the
readings in this course will most likely be quite challenging for you. Give yourself plenty of time to do these
readings carefully. Those who want to
truly excel in this class will most likely want to read each assignment at
least twice, and take notes on the readings. I will often provide study
questions to guide your reading. You
must bring with you to class whatever text(s) we are working on for that day.
In this class, we will be discussing issues that
most people find important, and on which many people have strong opinions. We will not be merely exchanging opinions,
but will be seeking the truth. In that
spirit, everyone’s contributions will be both respected and open to thoughtful
criticism.
Response
papers: 15%
Every Monday (excluding First
Week), you will write a response paper on an assigned topic related to the
material currently being covered. This
will be a typed, double-spaced short essay, and it should be a page or two in
length (a little over or under is okay).
Response papers will generally involve you thinking about the material
we’ve been discussing or reading in a personal way, either grappling with your
own view on a topic or applying the ideas to things in your own life. These response papers might be shared with
the class, unless you ask me (on the paper) not to do so – you may also ask me
to only share your paper with the class anonymously, if you like.
I will be assigning these papers either ü+, ü, or ü-. These
correspond approximately to grades of A, B, and C, respectively. (Papers straddling the borders between these
grades will have a grade indicating as much, such as “ü+ / ü”.) In extreme cases where the paper does not
approach answering the question asked, one may receive no credit for a reaction
paper turned in (an ×).
The point of the essays is to integrate your
academic learning of the material into your personal life and thinking, and to
have the experience of constructing statements of your own reactions to the
topics studied. They are meant to help
you see the material as relevant to your life, and to see yourself as able to
take a place in the ongoing debate about philosophical issues. I will grade these on the basis of how well
I see you trying to do those things, not on the basis of your ability to
regurgitate facts from the readings, or parrot back to me thoughts I or the
philosophers studied have expressed.
Long papers: 25% each
You will be writing three relatively long (about
10-page) papers for this course. Each
paper will defend an original thesis contributing to the arguments and theories
studied. At least one of these papers
will incorporate discussion of an additional film chosen by you.
Assignment
responsibilities:
I will be able to look at rough
drafts, either turned in or during office hours; I will let you know details as
the time gets nearer. I also encourage
you to run rough drafts by each other or your peers at the Writing Center. Whether I look at them or not, rough
drafts and outlines of each of your long papers will be due along with the
final drafts.
All assignments must be turned in as hard (paper)
copies – no emailed assignments will be accepted except by special
permission. It is your responsibility
to retain copies of all assignments you turn in, in a reliable format. An assignment that is between one hour
and 24 hours late will receive a ½ grade reduction. An assignment that is between one day and two weeks late will
receive a full grade reduction.
Assignments will not be accepted more than two weeks late.
You will be permitted one “freebie”: an assignment turned in as
much as two days late, no questions asked, as long as you let me know you’re
taking your freebie. Be mindful not to
use it lightly.
The formal requirements for all assignments will be
announced in detail well ahead of time in class, and most likely on the website
and through the email listserv.
A note on changing grades: if you feel you have been
assigned a grade unfairly or inaccurately, you should by all means talk to me
about it. My only requirement is that
you prepare an argument (a set of reasons and facts) before you do so.
A note on reading: don’t succumb to the misconception that in
order to read something you only have to move your eyes over the lines, or
“read it out loud in your head,” so to speak.
What I expect is that you will read the material in a more sophisticated
way, thinking as you go. You should be
asking yourself the main points, making sure you understand the structure of
the reading, thinking about how this reading relates to others you’ve done, and
otherwise working to comprehend the material, not just to complete a
technical “reading” of it. You might
try highlighting, underlining, making marginal notes, or outlining – whatever
helps you focus and understand.
Participation,
class conduct, and other assignments: 10%
Participation is expected. In a philosophy class of this kind, discussion is absolutely
essential, and may be the way you learn most about the material. I know that participation is difficult for
some people, but you can consider this a safe place to practice contributing to
a group discussion, which you will surely need to do throughout your life. I will require and ensure that conversation
in class, although probably critical of ideas, will not be critical of people.
I will keep general track of your contributions in
class. Keep in mind that contributions
can take various forms, including asking for clarification, participation in
group work, and giving helpful examples.
Keep in mind also that more does not necessarily mean better: those who
excessively dominate discussions, speak disrespectfully, or otherwise use their
voices in a negative way may be penalized for doing so. If you are in doubt, ask me.
Your
conduct in this class includes improvement and effort. It also includes issues of respectful
behavior, such as tardiness, distracting behavior, or disrespectful behavior
towards members of the class. We will
go over this in class.
I will occasionally give you
in-class or perhaps out-of-class assignments in addition to your papers and
response papers. I may have you turn in
answers to study questions I’ve given out, for example; or answer a short
question in class to help me gauge the level of understanding in the
class. These assignments will be
included in this portion of the grade.
Attendance:
Attendance is expected: three or more unexcused
absences will result in a full grade reduction for the course. Absences will only be excused for required
sports activities or practices or for a dire personal circumstance.
Academic integrity and the Honor System
“It
is always important to think of the intellectual world as a community of mutual
dependence, mutual helpfulness, mutual protectiveness, and common delight. We take ideas from others and we give them
to others. We are indebted to others,
and others are indebted to us. In
sharing and acknowledging the community, we define ourselves more certainly as
individuals. The ability to describe
our sources is also an ability to define our own originality and our own
selves. All communities depend on
generosity, trust, definition, and the proper use of sources is part of the
mortar that holds the community of the mind together.”
-
Richard
Marius, Expository Writing Program, Harvard University
In this class, as in all classes at Kalamazoo
College, we will be operating under the Honor System. It is important that you familiarize yourself with that
system. You should also familiarize
yourself with proper procedures for collaborating, doing research, and citing
sources. I expect each of you to visit
my webpage and read the essay there called “Plagiarism and How to Avoid It” (http://kzoo.edu/~mcdowell/Academic_integrity_and_plagiarism.htm).
Should you have any questions about citations, plagiarism, or honor system
issues, please visit or contact me.
Any assignment you turn in that I find to violate
academic integrity, either through dishonesty, plagiarism, lack of appropriate
citations, or unauthorized collaboration, will receive a grade of 0. Any further instance of a violation of
academic integrity will be punished by a failing grade in the class as a minimum
sanction.[1]
If you have any special needs that I can
accommodate, please let me know as soon as possible.
Office hours
My office hours are posted above. They will be conducted on a first-come, first-served basis, and by appointment, with appointments taking precedence. You should feel absolutely free to come to them and discuss the course, the material, the assignments, or philosophy.
This schedule is
tentative. Any changes will be
announced in class and by email. The
reading assignments listed for each day must be completed before that
class. All readings are found in your
textbooks or are on reserve at the library.
M 1/3 Introduction to Class and Epistemology
W 1/5 Diogenes Laertius, from Pyrrho; Cicero, from Academica; and Sextus Empiricus, from Outlines of Pyrrhonism (all in Philosophical Skepticism)
Thurs 1/6: Movie night: Total
Recall in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
F 1/7 Descartes, “Meditation I” (in Philosophical Skepticism); discussion of Total Recall
M 1/10 Hume, from An Enquiry
concerning Human Understanding (in Philosophical Skepticism)
W 1/12 Nagel, from The View from Nowhere; and Unger, “A Defense of Skepticism” (in Philosophical Skepticism)
Thurs 1/13: Movie night: The Truman Show in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
F 1/14 movie discussion: The Truman
Show
M 1/17 MARTIN LUTHER KING,
JR. HOLIDAY: NO CLASS
Other
Minds
W 1/19 Nagel, “Other Minds;” and Russell, “Analogy” (in Philosophical Skepticism)
Thurs 1/20: Movie night: Fight Club in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
F
1/21 Malcolm, “Knowledge of
Other Minds” (in Philosophical Skepticism); discussion of Fight Club
Religious Belief
M 1/24 de Montaigne, from “Apology for Raymond Sebond;” Pascal, from Pensees; Hume, from “Of Miracles” (in Philosophical Skepticism)
Responses and Reactions
W 1/26 Descartes,
from “Meditation VI” (in Philosophical Skepticism)
F 1/28 Moliere,
from The Forced Marriage; Hume, from A Treatise of Human Nature (in
Philosophical Skepticism)
M 1/31 Kant, from Prolegomena
and Critique of Pure Reason (in Philosophical Skepticism)
W 2/2 Quine, from “Two Dogmas of
Empiricism” and “Epistemology Naturalized” (in Philosophical Skepticism);
Chalmers, “The Matrix as Metaphysics” (online at http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/matrix.html);
discussion of The Matrix
Defining Knowledge
F 2/4 Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” (in Sosa & Kim) and Nozick, “The Experience Machine” (on reserve at the library)
M 2/7 Nozick, “Knowledge and Skepticism”
(in Sosa & Kim)
Contemporary Foundationalism and Coherentism
W 2/9 Sosa, “The Raft and the Pyramid” (in Sosa & Kim)
F 2/11 Haack, “A Foundherentist Theory of
Empirical Justification” (in Sosa & Kim)
Epistemic Justification
M 2/14 Feldman and Conee, “Evidentialism” (in Sosa & Kim)
Tues 2/15: Movie
night: Rear Window in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
W 2/16 Foley,
“Skepticism and Rationality” (in Sosa & Kim); discussion of Rear Window
F 2/18 Pollock, “Epistemic Norms” (in Sosa & Kim)
M 2/21 Kim, “What is
‘Naturalized Epistemology’?” (in Sosa & Kim)
Tues 2/22: Movie night: Rashomon
in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
W 2/23 Movie
discussion: Rashomon
F 2/25 Goldman, “What Is Justified Belief?” (in Sosa & Kim)
M 2/28 Fumerton, “Externalism and Skepticism” (in Sosa & Kim)
Tues 3/1: Movie
night: Memento in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
W 3/2 Alston, “An Internalist Externalism” (on reserve at the library), and movie discussion: Memento
F 3/4 Goldman, “Epistemic Folkways and Scientific Epistemology” (in Sosa & Kim)
Virtue epistemology and
Proper Cognitive Functioning
M 3/7 Plantinga, “Warrant: A First Approximation” (in Sosa & Kim)
W 3/9 Zagzebski, “Virtues of the Mind”
(in Sosa & Kim)
Thurs 3/10: Movie
night: Twelve Angry Men in lounge at 8:30 p.m.
F 3/11 Greco, “Virtues and Vices of Virtue
Epistemology” (in Sosa & Kim), and movie discussion: Twelve Angry Men