Theory of Knowledge: Epistemology, Epistemic Virtues, and the Disciplines

Philosophy 447/502 Syllabus TR 11:00-12:15 Spring 2012 Professor: Michael O'Rourke, Morrill 411, 885-5997 or 885-7107, morourke@uidaho.edu, http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke Office hours: 12:30-1:30 WR, or by appointment Room: We will meet in Albertson 112. Texts: Required: On Epistemology, Linda Zagzebski, Wadsworth Knowing Full Well, Ernest Sosa, Oxford These books are on sale at the UI Bookstore. Additional readings will be made available via ereservethese will be especially important during the second half of the class. I encourage you to look at these, especially when it comes time for you to give your presentation. I will put a link to e-reserve on the webpage, located at http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke. The syllabus, handouts, my lecture notes, and pointers to relevant philosophy sites will also be available there. If you miss class, you will need to print copies of the lecture notes and what handouts you missed off the website. Something about the Course: I don't hunt, but I have friends who do. One day, one of these friends approached me and began asking me about what I did for a living. During our conversation he said, Why do we need to worry about those things? Why do we need an account of knowledge, for instance? I grant that knowledge is important to a successful life, but consider this. When I'm out in the field hunting pheasant, I don't need a theory of pheasants to succeedall I need is the ability to recognize one when I see it. The same thing is true of knowledge and life: we don't need a theory of knowledge in order to succeed at life; all we need is the ability to recognize knowledge when we have it. My friend was right that the ability to distinguish knowledge from opinion helps one get along in

life, but I disagree with his dismissive attitude toward a theory of knowledge. Think about hunting for a moment. The ability to succeed as a pheasant hunter certainly requires the ability to recognize a pheasant when you see it, but this ability is not sufficient for success. You must also know where to go to find pheasants; that is, you must know something about the pheasant's habitat. Furthermore, you must know something about what to do when you recognize the bird; in other words, you need to know how the recognitional ability fits into the larger context. We might also be led to wonder about the nature of this ability; in particular, how can we be sure that it works? What justifies us in relying on it when we are out in the field? You may not need a fullblown theory of pheasants, but some understanding of pheasants and hunting seems like a must for consistently successful hunting. I think the same is true of more abstract quarry such as knowledge. Sure, we could get by without a theory of knowledge, but our chances of consistently successful knowledge acquisition are enhanced by increased understanding, and this is gained through our attempts to characterize and explain itthat is, our attempts to develop a theory of it. Given the centrality of knowledge in our lives, it is all the more incumbent on us to pursue this sort of understanding. Pheasant tastes good, but knowledge tastes better. Our attempt to acquire understanding of this type will proceed in three nested stages. First, we will begin by examining the traditional, analytic framework for epistemology. This is connected to three general questions: What is knowledge? What are its sources? Do we have any? This part of the course will be supported by a couple of historical readings and by e-reserve. Second, we will work through the Zagzebski and Sosa books. As we do this, we will retrace a few of the steps we took in the first stage, although both books are written from the perspective of virtue epistemology, and so their take on some of the more traditional concerns is somewhat different. The balance of the course will be devoted to contrasting Epistemology, understood as a subdiscipline within philosophy, with various disciplinary epistemologies, understood as ways of knowing appropriate to particular research worldviews. We will read essays that detail a variety of different disciplinary epistemologies with a view to making sense out of interdisciplinary epistemology, that is, the epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. Near the end of the semester, I will argue for a particular view of the epistemic landscape that draws on the virtue epistemology presented in the second stage and focuses on interdisciplinary epistemology in particular. Goals & Objectives: I have several goals for this course:

Reflect on the thing that brought you to the university in the first place: knowledge. Over the course of the semester, you will wonder how it is related to and different from right opinion. In addition, you will ask questions like: what sort of justification is required for knowledge? Can this justification be achieved for beliefs about facts and events in the world? What is the logical character of knowledge? In what relationship does it stand to our consciousness and our psychological life more generally? While it is certainly legitimate to be skeptical from time to time, should we be more generally skeptical about claims to knowledge? Do investigators use the term knowledge differently, and if so, what does this tell us about that concept and about the project of epistemology more generally?

Begin developing sustainable views of your own about knowledge and belief. To this end, I have sacrificed breadth in favor of depth to give you the opportunity to engage in a sophisticated way with two research trends that are of great contemporary significance to epistemology. We will carefully work through two texts that explore the issues mentioned above, along with articles that supply various perspectives on disciplinary epistemologies, and in so doing we will develop our own intuitions about epistemological issues. Philosophy isnt about memorizing the positions of others or about mastering a vernacular. Philosophy isnt about memorizationits about intellectual growth. Develop critical reading, listening, and writing skills. Good philosophers are charitable readers and listeners, and they are also cogent writers. Philosophical writing is difficult, but clear thinking and clear writing go hand in hand. You will be given the opportunity to exercise these skills in this class. Do work at the cutting edge work in epistemology. We will talk about the broad discipline of epistemology, but we will also have a chance to learn about what is happening in the discipline as we speak. Both of these books are new and are written by top-flight epistemologists. Further, I am currently working on an epistemology research project that concerns interdisciplinary epistemology, which must be understood in connection with what well study in the second half of the semester. I hope to advance this through the work I do in here, and I will look to you for aid.

Class Structure: I will begin with a couple of weeks of lectures and discussion designed to provide you with a general framework for thinking about epistemology as a philosophical sub-discipline. We will then read Zagzebski and Sosa in turn. All of this will be supplemented by e-reserve papers. We should have these in hand around Spring Break, at which point we will turn our attention exclusively to e-reserve when we begin discussing disciplinary epistemologies. I plan to lecture on the readings before I turn things over to discussion. The lectures will be informal and you are encouraged to interrupt me with questions, challenges, jokes, etc. I am thinking about conducting a few Socratic method sections, where I come in and guide the class through the material with questions. (Think law school.) If I decide to do this, you will be warned in advance, and you need to come to class prepared. During the week, my hope is to lecture on the readings on Tuesday and have student presentations followed by discussion on Thursday for those enrolled in 447. This presentation requirement is described below. For those enrolled in Phil 502, the second meeting will have a different structuresee below. Requirements: Class Participation: You will not be required to contribute to the discussions, but you will be expected to prepare by doing the readings and attending class, remaining attentive and engaged while there. I will take attendance daily. You will be allowed two unexcused absences, and every

unexcused absence after that will result in the loss of one of your ten class participation percentage points (see below). Furthermore, you will be expected to turn your assignments in regularly and on time. The topics we will consider are complex and challengingif we hope to acquire understanding of them, we must work together. In some classes you are encouraged to contribute only if you have knowledge; here you are asked to contribute so that we can figure out what knowledge is. Papers: Aside from thinking so hard that you develop headaches and lose all track of time, your principal responsibility in this class is to write, and the most substantial piece of writing will be a research paper on a topic in the theory of knowledge. You will be responsible for selecting the topic. The paper should be no less than 10 pages and no more than 15 pages in length. It will be a research paper, and I will require you to use at least five recent sources (i.e., within the last two years). This will mean that you will spend time in the library and on article databases exploring current discussions of your topic. You will submit two drafts of this essay to me for evaluation. The first draft is due in class on March 29 and the final draft is due in my box by 5 pm on Thursday, May 10. There will be no final exam. Depending on the number of people we have enrolled in 447, there may be a 30-minute oral exam on your final paper during finals week. Students enrolled in 502 will be expected to schedule a 30 to 45-minute defense of their paper during finals week. IMPORTANT: the first paper you submit should not be your first and roughest draft. I would encourage you to think "paper topic" from the get go in this class. I am happy to look at and comment on rough notes, outlines, or early drafts prior to March 29. Late research papers will be docked a letter grade for each class period they are late, unless you contact me on or before March 28 and give me a compelling reason for your late submission. In addition to the research paper, you will produce 9 or 10 weekly reading essays over the course of the semester. These essays will be two pages in length, and they will concern some argument or issue in the assigned reading for each topic. I will give you topic ideas for the first two essays, but then you will need to select the subject of each essay. (An important part of your philosophical development is learning how to get puzzled by what you read.) You should devote the first half of the essay to reconstruction of the argument or issue you focus on and the second half to your comment. This comment can be critical in nature, but it need not be. For example, if you focus on an argument that you find compelling, you could devote the comment to consideration of the arguments implications. The first of these is due in class on Thursday, January 26. I will not accept late reading essays, where late means submitted after class is over on the day the assignment is due. If you know you will have a conflict, you need to speak with me in advance and get the paper to me in advance. One of the writings that will count as a reading essay will be a discussion summary. This will be assigned at the same time that presentations are assigned. Each time there is a presentation, one or two people will be asked to prepare a 2-page summary of the discussion that follows the presentation. The point here is not to submit a transcript; rather, you are to think about the arguments put forward in the discussion and supply your take on their nature and quality. You should submit a hard copy of this to me, as well as an electronic copy in html format as an attachment. I will publish it on the web for the rest of the class. The first written assignment is due by midnight next Thursday, January 19. You will need to

compose an e-mail message on the email account that you check most regularly and send it to me at morourke@uidaho.edu. In this message, I want you to explain to me why you took this class and what you hope to get from it. Also, I would like a paragraph in which you tell me what you think knowledge is. This is worth two points and will be considered a part of your reading essay grade. Please put the course number (Phil 447 or Phil 502) in the subject line. There will also be some in-class writing that will not be graded. This writing will be done in advance of some discussions as well as after some discussions. You learn philosophy by thinking about it, and you learn to think about it through writing. Presentation Requirement in Phil 447: You will be responsible for kicking off discussion of one of the topics this semester. This presentation should be at least 10 minutes in length and no more than 15. You may select any aspect of the assigned reading as your focus, and you can approach that focus from any angle (e.g., analytical, critical, rhetorical, etc.). You will need to write these presentations out (they should be 4 to 5 pages in length) and meet with me no later than the Tuesday before you are scheduled to give your presentation. If you do not contact me before the presentation with drafts of your work, I will deduct a letter grade from the final evaluation. When you arrive for class on the day of your scheduled presentation, you will need to submit a draft of the presentation to me and a handout to the class; you will have until Tuesday of the next week to submit the final draft. The presentation write-up will count as your reading essay for the week in which you give the presentation. The grade you receive for your presentation will be based primarily on the written piece you present, although I will also evaluate the effectiveness of the presentation itself and your ability to direct the discussion that you kick up. (Together, the quality of the presentation and the facilitated discussion count as much as the essay.) Please begin thinking about what you would like to present; I will distribute a sign-up sheet next Tuesday and take volunteers for presentations on 1/26; all others will be asked to provide alternatives by the 1/24. Graduate Students in Phil 502. If you are enrolled in Phil 502, you will be expected to (a) attend class on Tuesdays at the scheduled time, (b) do the reading essays and research paper, and (c) do the reading assigned below. You will not be required to attend the scheduled Thursday session; instead, we will work out an alternate meeting time during the week. During this alternate time, you will each provide a one-minute presentation of the main argument of your paper, and then take turns presenting the material for the week in seminar-style. These presentations will be evaluated as your presentation grade, although you will not be expected to produce a lengthier essay for the weeks you present. In addition, you will be required to defend your revised research paper in an oral exam during finals week. The point of these additional requirements is to provide graduate students with an experience that enables them to exercise their research skills beyond what would be expected of them in an undergraduate course. Grading: The research paper and presentation will be assigned letter grades. The reading essays will be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 3, with 0 indicating no credit, 1 adequacy, 2 high quality, and 3 excellence. At the end of the semester, I will drop your lowest score and add the points youve received on the remaining essays, and then curve these totals to determine what grade

you will earn for the reading essay component of this course. You should expect to average a 2 on these to earn an A, with a B coming in at around 1.75, a C at 1.5, etc. There is a handout that describes my grading style available on the web page. The final grade will be determined as follows: Research Paper Reading Essays Presentation Class Participation Rough Draft Final Draft 15% 35% 25% 15% 10% 100% Students in 502 will be graded according to the following schedule: Research Paper Reading Essays Presentations Class Participation Rough Draft Final Draft + Oral Defense 10% 40% 25% 15% 10% 100% Incompletes: I do not give incompletes, except in the event of an emergency. If you believe that your emergency qualifies you for an incomplete, you will need to discuss it with me, probably at length. Accommodation for the Disabled: The Department of Philosophy and my office are located on the 4th floor of Morrill Hall, which is accessible by elevator. If you have a disability that you believe might come into play in this class, please let me know. Academic Honesty: It is the policy of the Department of Philosophy to refer all instances of suspected academic dishonesty to the Student Judicial Council. For more about academic integrity, visit and

review the University of Idaho Academic Integrity website, located at http://www.students.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=45708. Do your own work! Dont

plagiarize! Tentative Schedule: Here is a tentative schedule, which will likely be modified as we go. I will announce all modifications.

Topic Syllabus Introduction The Historical Context The Traditional Theory of Knowledge The Analysis Knowledge The Sources of Knowledge The Extent of Knowledge Epistemology and Virtues, Part 1 Epistemic Value Skepticism Epistemic Virtues Knowledge Analyzed Epistemic Good and the Good Life Epistemology and Virtues, Part 2 Knowledge and Agency The Value of Knowledge Four Views of Human Knowledge Knowledge and Experience

Reading NA

Plato, The Meno Descartes, Meditations Hume, Enquiry (Sects. 1-5, 12)

Campbell, ORourke, and Silverstein TBA TBA

Zagzebski, Ch. 1 Zagzebski, Chs. 2, 3 Zagzebski, Ch. 4 Zagzebski, Ch. 5 Zagzebski, Ch. 6

Sosa, Chs. 1, 2 Sosa, Ch. 3 Sosa, Ch. 4, 5 Sosa, Ch. 6

Instruments and Testimony The Problem of Circularity Interdisciplinary Epistemology What are Epistemologies? Knowledge and Ways of Knowing Disciplinary Epistemologies Interdisciplinary Epistemology Epistemic Integration Disagreement and Compromise

Sosa, Ch. 7 Sosa, Ch. 8

TBA on e-reserve TBA on e-reserve TBA on e-reserve TBA on e-reserve TBA on e-reserve TBA on e-reserve