Syllabus Instructor: Tom Atchison
Philosophy
303-01 3734 17th Ave. So.
Principles of
Inquiry: Ways of Knowing Minneapolis, MN 55407
Spring
Semester 2004 612-728-9421
tomatchison@bigfoot.com
How to Think About Weird Things
by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn
Contemporary
Philosophy of Social Science: A Multicultural Approach by Brian Fay
The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
Supplemental readings will be
available on the web or photocopies will be handed out in class.
Note: Some materials will
be available only on the Internet. If
you do not have good access to the Internet, it will be difficult to complete
the required work for this class. The
university provides free dial-up access for students and provides computer labs
with Internet access and free printing
Here you will find links to writing
assignments, on-line reading assignments, discussion projects, and other
websites with course-related information and discussion.
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”). Is science the only reliable ‘way of
knowing’, or are there others (faith or intuition or personal experience or
…?)? Should we accept claims that
non-Western cultures have distinctive ‘ways of knowing’? Or that there are (as a recent book title
suggests) ‘women’s ways of knowing’?
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?
These
questions are potentially quite abstract and theoretical (they are central to
the theory of knowledge or ‘epistemology’.)
But I want to treat them as practical questions, too. The world we live in is, in some ways, a
fairly confusing place. In the public
sphere of politics and the marketplace, as well as in our personal lives,
claims and counter-claims abound. Many
people claim to know one thing or another, and many others claim to know that
those claims are false or ill founded.
How can we sort through the spin and the propaganda and figure out
what’s really going on?
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.
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.
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 philosophical 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:
All work submitted for this course must be your own. Plagiarism is the academic ‘sin’ of presenting someone else’s work as your own. It is plagiarism if you copy something verbatim (word for word) from a published source, from the Internet, or from another student. It is still plagiarism if you rearrange, paraphrase, condense, or summarize someone else’s work without making clear to your reader what is your contribution and what is taken from your source. If the exact wording comes from your source, then use quotation marks. If the idea comes from someone else, give him or her credit for it. The way to do this is to cite your sources. There is a clear and detailed explanation of various forms of plagiarism and of proper citation practices at http://clover.slavic.pitt.edu/~tales/02-1/plagiarism.html. I will give a grade of ‘F’ to any student who submits plagiarized work for this course.