Course Objectives

To introduce students to a variety of theories and arguments about the nature of human knowledge: about what knowledge is and how, if at all, it can be reliably acquired

To provide students with an opportunity to reflect on their own conceptions of knowledge and their own ways of seeking knowledge and evaluating knowledge claims

To learn and practice skills and methods that may be helpful in thinking about various sorts of knowledge claims

To introduce students to some critiques of traditional theories of knowledge -- critiques that raise questions about the role of race, class and gender (or, more generally, social context) in human inquiry

Course Materials

A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge by Adam Morton

Representing Reality by Jonathan Potter

Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate by Susan Haack

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

Supplemental articles-- photocopies will be handed out in class at least one week before they are to be discussed.

Please bring the assigned reading to class with you each week

Class website: I maintain a simple website where I post course handouts and information. The URL is http://www.users.qwest.net/~ac15/

Course Description

This course will raise and consider a number of questions about knowledge: First, what is knowledge? What is the difference between knowing that something is true and just believing (or being of the opinion) that it is true?

Second, What sorts of methods or modes of inquiry can reliably produce knowledge? This is closely related to another question: how can knowledge claims be substantiated or justified? (If I claim to know something, and you challenge my claim, what sort of evidence or argument must I produce in order to show that I really do know what I claim to know?) Here we will need to consider whether there are various methods for acquiring knowledge or whether instead there is really only one method (perhaps something called “the scientific method”).

A third question: How should we think about the structure of human knowledge? How, that is, are the various things we know related to one another? One historically prominent idea is that we should think of knowledge as being like a building – as having foundations. The foundations would be basic in the sense that they would not need any further justification, and all the rest of our knowledge would be built up on these foundations. Is this a good metaphor? If so, what sort of knowledge claims could count as basic in the required sense? Lately, many philosophers have criticized this metaphor and argued that no knowledge claims can be basic in the required sense. These philosophers have preferred to use the metaphor of a web wherein the strands offer each other mutual support, but no one strand is basic. If no beliefs are basic, though, does this mean that our knowledge as a whole is unjustified?

So far I have been using the words “we” and “our” as if they were not problematic. But one recent and, to my mind, very important development in philosophy has been a series of challenges to the idea that ‘we’ can talk about ‘our’ knowledge without worrying about who we are. Does it make a difference, when we are considering what to count as knowledge or as justification, whether ‘we’ are men or women? Middle-class or working-class? ‘White’ or ‘non-white’? ‘Western’ or ‘non-western’? Colonizer or colonized? What difference does it make to our understanding of knowledge when we notice that knowledge is largely produced by social institutions and that those institutions are part of a wider society in which some people’s voices are considered more authoritative than others? Do we need to consider not only the logic of inquiry but also its politics?

I cannot promise we will answer any of these questions to your satisfaction. They are, for the most part, very difficult questions. What we can hope to do is to learn something about how various historical and contemporary thinkers have answered them, and to become somewhat more careful and critical in our own efforts to answer them.

A note on the status of the textbooks:

In philosophy, unlike some subjects, textbooks are to be argued with, criticized and challenged, not simply learned or remembered. I would not have ordered these books if I did not think that they had some merit, but the merit that I think they have is that they are reasonably readable and provocative. I do not think that they are entirely correct, right, true, or illuminating. (And, even if I did think so, I would not expect students to agree or to pretend that they did.)

Conduct of the Course

Class time will be devoted largely to discussion, some in small groups, some all together. I will occasionally lecture, more often I will answer questions as they come up in discussion, and even more often I will try to help you figure out how to answer your questions yourself.

Much of our discussion will focus on understanding and evaluating the texts. This will work well only if you have done the assigned reading carefully -- often twice or three times -- and given it some thought. In philosophy we are interested not in the information that can be extracted from a text, nor simply in the conclusions or opinions that an author expresses; we are primarily interested in understanding and assessing the reasoning that an author uses to try to establish or support those conclusions. This requires a very careful sort of reading.

The point of reading these texts is not only to understand what some great minds have produced. A guided tour through the Museum of Great Ideas is a very good thing, but not the best thing that philosophy has to offer. Better is the opportunity to learn to think for yourself. The readings provide models of careful and/or creative thinking, challenges to our prejudices and assumptions, and starting points for our own reflections. But the only way to learn to philosophize is to enter the conversation yourself. In this way a course in philosophy is more like a course in drawing or sculpture -- a studio art course -- than like a course in art history or art appreciation. You can’t learn to draw by just watching other people draw, and you can’t learn to do philosophy by just listening and reading. You have to express your views and expose them to other people’s critical reactions.

Assignments and Grading

Reading assignments

I expect you to find time (several hours) to do the reading for each class and to come prepared to discuss it. Come to class ready to say what you found interesting, what you found confusing, silly, or just plain wrong, what seemed to you to be the most important claims made, and what arguments or justifications were offered for those claims.

Reading response papers

20 % of your grade will be earned by submitting brief (1/2 to 11/2 pages, typed, double-spaced ) responses to the readings for each class. These must be turned in at the beginning of the class period to be counted. (If you must miss class, send in your response paper by e-mail.) They can contain questions, objections, observations and/or reactions to the reading for that class. I will not grade these, but I will reject any that do not seem to be based on a reasonably conscientious reading of the assignment for that week. You can miss one of these and still earn an ‘A’ for this part of the course work, but missing more will be penalized on the following schedule: 90% completed = A; 80% = B; 70% = C; 60% = D; less than 60% = F. I will also notice and reward particularly perceptive or thoughtful response papers.

Class discussion

Most weeks we will have guided small group discussion projects. The purpose of these projects is to open discussion and to focus it on particular issues. They are also intended to be "mini-labs" in which to practice the skills of careful reading and evaluation of reasoning. The projects are done in class in groups of 3-5 and take roughly 20-45 minutes to complete. Each group should keep notes on its discussion, sign the notes and hand them in at the end of each class session. Often groups will also report orally on their discussions.

If you miss a discussion project, you should get hold of the instructions, write out responses to the questions on your own, and hand them in as soon as you can. 10% of your grade will be determined by the number of discussion projects you complete satisfactorily (on the same schedule as the response papers above.)

10% of your grade will also be determined by my evaluation of the quality of your participation in class discussions. Just showing up and paying attention earns a C for this component; occasionally making helpful contributions earns a B; regularly making helpful contributions earns an A. Helpful contributions include: asking pertinent questions, answering questions asked by the instructor or by other students, expressing your views about the texts or topics we are discussing, responding (relevantly and respectfully) to the views expressed by others.

Essays

You will be asked to write two short (3-5 page) essays during the semester. Each paper will count for 15% of your grade. Please keep copies of all the work you hand in.

Exams

We will have two one-hour, in-class exams -- one at mid-semester, one during the last class. Each exam will count for 15% of your grade.

I try hard to base my evaluation of your work on your understanding of the reading, the quality of your reasoning and questioning, and the clarity and effectiveness of your expression of your thoughts, not on whether I agree with your ethical theories, ideas, or opinions.

Time commitment outside of class

In accordance with Metropolitan State University guidelines, I've designed this course with the expectation that students will do 2-3 hours of course-related work outside of class for every hour spent in class. In other words, you should expect to spend 6-9 hours a week outside of class working on this course.

Needed reading and writing skills

Although there are no prerequisites for this course, it is an upper-division course. This means I assume you have the following reading and writing skills, and assignments are made with this expectation in mind:

Ability to read and summarize the main points of analytical, abstract material such as Supreme Court decisions;
Ability to include appropriate citations of quoted and paraphrased sources in academic writing;
Ability to construct short, analytical essays including stating and supporting a thesis, presenting and addressing objections to your thesis, and drawing conclusion
Ability to edit written work well enough to eliminate most errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling.

Course Policies

Attendance

I do not require attendance per se, but part of your grade is determined by discussion projects and general class discussion. So, when you are in class, contribute to the discussion and please be sure your name is on your small group's discussion report and that the report gets turned in. When you miss a class, get the instructions for the discussion project, write out answers on your own and turn them in. I strongly advise regular attendance (and prompt completion of missed discussion projects), because the material in this course is relatively difficult and confusing, and few students are able to do well on the exams and papers without the explanations and practice provided in class.

Rewriting

Students who are unhappy with the grade they receive on any written work for this class may rewrite that paper or exam. If you choose to rewrite an assignment, turn in the original version along with your revised version and mark or otherwise indicate which sections have been altered. I am very unlikely to raise a grade by more than one letter grade.