PHI 313: Theory of Knowledge, Fall 2017
Instructor: Adam Elga <http://www.princeton.edu/~adame>
Assistant in Instruction (AI): Alex Meehan <http://alexandermeehan.weebly.com/> (follow links for contact information).
Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULAs): Lila Abreu, Duncan Carson, Zoe Chazen, Fiona Furnari, Brighid Leach, Caroline Pritt
Class meets Monday, Wednesday 2:30-3:20p at McCosh Hall room 4 (entryway “B”, ground floor), plus a 50-minute precept (to be arranged). Class must be taken for a grade (no audit, no pdf).
This page: http://www.princeton.edu/~adame/teaching/PHI313_F2017
Motivating questions: What justifies your confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that you are not living in a computer simulation? Is it ever reasonable to believe something just because believing it will have good consequences for you? Is it possible to decide to believe something? Is the apparently fine-tuned nature of the physical constants evidence that there are multiple universes? Should you reduce your confidence in your political views if you find out that you would have taken contrary views had you been raised by different parents? Can two people with the same evidence rationally disagree?
Teaching method
The class will involve a combination of some lecturing and considerable in-class work with other students creating argument maps. You can get a taste of what argument mapping is all about at this page for a recent Freshman Seminar focused on argument mapping. If you’d like to try your hand at making a map, the argument visualization page for the mapping tool “Mindmup” is a good place to start (and includes a nice getting-started video tutorial).
Some portion of class time will be organized as follows. I will give a 10 minute mini-lecture introducing a topic or argument. Then I will hand out a short passage giving a related argument. You will work in pairs to come up with a map of the argument. While that is happening, I’ll be circulating answer questions and looking at your progress, along with several other expert mappers. Then we will all reconvene to consolidate ideas.
Since we will be mapping in small groups on many days, please always bring a charged, wifi-enabled laptop to class. When not using the laptop for mapping (for example during small-group discussions in class), please close your laptop lid (to increase conversational engagement).
Readings
The required readings will be unusually short for a philosophy class (for example, the last time I taught the class I assigned an average of less than 8 pages of reading per lecture). In particular, only short excerpts or excerpts/adaptations (to be distributed) will typically be required reading. I’ll let you know which portions are required as the class goes on, usually as part of the directions for each homework assignment.
The papers from which the readings will be drawn are linked below, organized by topic in the order in which the topics will be covered. To access the readings, use userid “guest”, and a password distributed in class. (If you are a prospective student in the course interested in looking at the readings, please email me a request for the password.)
In addition, you may wish to access a folder containing all of the papers (together with optional background readings).
- Reasons for belief
- Mapping setup/warmup
- Practical reasons for belief
- passages-2017-09-13.pdf
- Thomas Kelly. The rationality of belief and some other propositional attitudes
- Susanna Rinard. No exception for belief
- Homework #2 (Due 2017-09-27 Wed 11:00)
- Belief at will
- passages-2017-09-18.pdf
- Greg Egan. Axiomatic
- Bernard Williams. Deciding to believe
- Carl Ginet. Deciding to believe
- Epistemic demands of friendship
- Simon Keller. Friendship and Belief
- Friendship, belief and stakes
- Homework #3
- Mapping setup/warmup
- The problem of disagreement
- Steadfast views and conciliatory views
- Thomas Kelly. The epistemic significance of disagreement
- David Christensen. Epistemology of disagreement: the good news
- Homework #4
- Adam Elga. Reflection and disagreement
- passages-2017-10-09.pdf
- Group disagreement and the problem of spinelessness
- David Christensen. Disagreement and public controversy
- Homework #5
- Sarah McGrath. Moral disagreement and moral expertise
- Rishi Joshi. Epistemic costs of political polarization
- Michael Huemer. Why People Are Irrational about Politics.
- Homework #6
- Problem of contingency
- passages-2017-10-16.pdf
- Gerald Cohen. Paradoxes of Conviction. (Chapter 1 of If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re so rich?)
- Ronald Dworkin. Objectivity and truth: you’d better believe it
- Moral debunking
- passages-2017-10-23.pdf
- Joshua Greene. The secret joke of Kant’s soul
- Jonathan Haidt, Fredrik Björklund, and Scott Murphy. Moral Dumbfounding: When Intuition Finds No Reason
- Jonathan Haidt. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment
- Judith Jarvis Thomson. Turning the trolley
- how-to-spot-a-trolley-rationalizer-dual.pdf
- Reasonable disagreement and the uniqueness thesis
- Richard Feldman. Epistemological puzzles about disagreement
- Thomas Kelly Evidence can be permissive
- Roger White Epistemic permissiveness
- passages-2017-12-06.pdf
- Miriam Schoenfield. Permission to believe
- passages-2017-12-13.pdf
- Steadfast views and conciliatory views
- Skepticism
- Skepticism about the external world
- Michael Huemer. The lure of radical skepticism. (Chapter 2 of Skepticism and the veil of perception)
- biv-argument-with-map.pdf
- Ned Markosian. Do you know that you are not a brain in a vat?.
- Homework #7
- Susanna Rinard. Reasoning one’s way out of skepticism
- passages-2017-12-11.pdf
- Roger White. Problems for dogmatism
- Michael Huemer. The problem of memory knowledge
- Susanna Rinard. No exception for belief
- Homework #8
- The problem and new riddle of induction
- Bertrand Russell. On Induction
- passages-2017-11-20.pdf
- David Hume. Treatise on human understanding (Book I, Part III, section VI)
- passages-2017-11-27.pdf
- Nelson Goodman. The new riddle of induction (chapter 3 of Fact, fiction, forecast), sections 1, 2, 4
- passages-2017-11-29.pdf
- Michael Strevens. Notes on Bayesian confirmation theory. (Chapter 4: Bayesian conditionalization)
- Maher Betting on theories (chapter 4)
- Skepticism about the external world
- Anthropic reasoning
- Nick Bostrom. The simulation argument
- Homework #9
- Nick Bostrom. Are you living in a computer simulation?
- Nick Bostrom. The mysteries of self-locating belief and anthropic reasoning
Graded work
- Homework assignments (30%)
Approximately weekly there will be a homework assignment associated with that week’s reading. The core of the assignment will be to make a few maps based on selected argument from the reading. Later assignments may also involve short exercises; assignments I’ve given in the past include:
- Answering questions about an assigned passage
- Explaining why a particular reading of a passage misses the mark
- Writing a paragraph explaining a tricky argument using words of only one syllable.
Associated with each homework assignment will be a pre-precept submission, consisting of a good-faith attempt at each part of the assignment.
The homework assignments will each be given a grade of either “K” (OK/adequate) or “N” (needs serious improvement). Note that is possible to earn a “K” even if your work has some flaws or needs some improvement. Part of getting a “K” is getting an adequate pre-precept submission in on time.
We highly encourage you to get feedback from us on your work. Your overall homework grade will be mainly determined by how many assignments get a “K”. However, the grade may be slightly bumped down if too many of the assignments were marginal, or bumped up if enough of the assignments were stellar.
- Essay (25%)
There will be an essay (ideal length: 2100 words; maximum length: 2400 words) due Friday Dec 1 at noon.
- Detailed essay assignment
If you wish, you may make improvements to your essay (such as rewriting a few paragraphs to clarify or tweak a claim, addressing an additional objection, adding a qualification to your main claim, removing a few paragraphs, correcting grammatical and typographical errors, or making stylistic changes) after handing it in. If by the secondary due date of Friday Dec 8 at noon you hand in such a revised version, together with a “redline” version showing the changes you made, only the revised (and hopefully improved) version will be graded. Otherwise, the version submitted initially will be graded.
To clarify: the version submitted on the initial due date must be a complete essay containing the guts of your main argument. In particular, it is not ok to submit an incomplete, fragmentary or outlined essay on the primary due date, or to submit one essay on the primary due date and one containing a very different main argument on the secondary due date. In such cases, the second of the two essays will be graded and a grade penalty will be imposed based on the circumstances.
- Final exam (35%)
There will be a comprehensive final exam to be scheduled by the registrar during the final exam period. The exam will likely involve a mix of short-answer questions, essay questions, and questions that require you to create or evaluate argument maps.
- Participation (10%)
Since much of the class will consist in work done in pairs, it is important not to miss any classes or precepts, and to give good support to those you work with. That includes (in part) coming prepared, staying on task during class time, advancing group and pair discussions without monopolizing them, and bringing out the best in your partners.
- Use of work
The work you do for this course may be anonymously used for the benefit of other students. If you would prefer that your work not be used in this way, please email the course instructor at any time in the semester. No explanation is required: an email with subject line “I opt out of future use of my work” is sufficient. Students who opt out will not be penalized in any way. Also, if you are generally ok with such use but there is a particular assignment you’d prefer to be kept private, feel free to include a note saying so at the top of that assignment.
- Summary of minimal weekly responsibilities
- Do the relevant readings before class, which will usually be specified in the homework assignment instructions.
- Begin working on the upcoming homework (due Wednesdays) before your Monday precept, and submit your attempt using the pre-precept form (link to homework submission forms are distributed separately).
- Participate fully in classes and precepts.
- Submit your completed homework by the Wednesday deadline, using the homework submission form.
- [Highly encouraged] Sign up for a brief homework feedback meeting through the signup form (distributed separately), and attend it.
- Keep up with course announcements.
Course mechanics and policies
- Late homework
Since we may freely discuss the homework shortly after it is submitted, late submissions will not be accepted. When there are legitimate extraordinary excusing circumstances that have been supported by written documentation, the grading penalty for not submitting an assignment may be waived at the preceptor’s discretion.
- Late essay
The one essay for the class is graded on a percentage scale. Submitting the essay up to 24 hours past the initial deadline carries no penalty (though we ask as a courtesy that you not abuse this grace period). After the 24 hour grace period, essays are penalized 1% for each additional 24 hours (or portion thereof) late.
The same policy applies to the secondary essay deadline, if you choose to submit a revised essay late. In case both stages are late, the penalties are summed.
The above applies to essays handed in up to 7 days late. Essays will not be accepted more than 7 days after their due dates.
- If you miss a class or precept
If you miss a class or precept, it is your responsibility to from another student find out what happened and get copies of any notes or handouts. After doing that, if you have questions about what was covered, please meet with your preceptor to discuss them. Some material will only be covered in class.
- Collaboration policy
For at least the first few homework assignments, we encourage you to talk with other students about the assigned reading and the arguments contained in them, provided that:
- You meticulously document who you talked to.
The work you produce arises from your own understanding of the material. In other words, talk with others to help understand the argument, but create your own map (or short written assignment) based on that discussion rather than jointly creating a map (or piece of writing) with other students. Do not, under any circumstances, copy another person’s map. When in doubt, ask your preceptor for guidance.
Keep in mind, also, that need to read the arguments on your own before you begin discussing them with others.
We will let you know if the policy changes later in the semester.
- Facebook, texting, web surfing, doing other work in class or precept
Please don’t.
- Academic integrity policy
The policy for giving credit to others in your papers is the standard University academic integrity policy. When we ask you in a homework assignment to map a particular passage, it is ok to use language from that passage without special attribution. However, keep in mind that one can often produce better maps by putting things into your own words to simplify matters.
We do allow collaboration on the homework assignments as indicated in their directions. You should always detail what help you received from collaborators in the appropriate part of your homework submission form.
- Academic accommodations because of a disability
Students requesting academic accommodations must register with the Office of Disability Services (ODS) ods@princeton.edu; 258-8840) for disability verification and determination of eligibility for reasonable academic accommodations. If you are approved for accommodations and would like to discuss implementation with me, please make an appointment to meet in order to maintain confidentiality in addressing your needs. Requests for testing accommodations for this course should be made at least two weeks in advance, or as soon as possible for newly approved students, in order to make arrangements to implement the accommodations. No accommodations may be given without authorization from ODS, or without reasonable advance notice.