Join the Club!

Still subscribed to this old course blog? Nice.

So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.

Check it out. Please join if you're interested.

Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Enjoy your winter break, Pemberton!
So long, Willingboro!

Final Exam

The final exam for the Pemberton class is Tuesday, December 9th, at 2:00 in our normal classroom.

For the Willingboro class, our final is 6:00 on Friday, December 12th, in our normal classroom.

Extra Credit

The extra credit assignment is optional. It's due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, December 2nd, for the Pemberton class, and at the beginning of class on Friday, December 12th, for the Willingboro class. Your assignment is to write a reading response (about 250-500 words) on the following topic:

Explain and evaluate Pascal's Wager.

• First, briefly explain the argument Blaise Pascal gives that we should believe in God.
  
• Then, evaluate the argument. Are his reasons true, false, or questionable? Do they give us good support to buy his conclusion?
  
• Finally, tell me your opinion. Do you think it is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

The assignment is based on the Pascal reading from the textbook. Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion. This assignment is potentially worth the value of half a reading response (up to 25 points).

Also, just a reminder: the 4th reading response is a freebie. You don't have to write one, and everyone will get full credit for it.

You're welcome!

Bad Things to Good People

Here are some links on the problem of evil.

The first link is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.

The NPR program Fresh Air has an audio interview with Bart Ehrman on the problem of suffering.

Next is a discussion of the "God works in mysterious ways" response: do we have enough evidence to believe that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world, but humans aren't smart enough to understand what that reason is?

Finally, does everything happen for a reason? This cartoon dinosaur has an interesting take on that question. (T-Rex also occasionally wonders why bad things happen to nice people.)

Reading Response #3

Reading Response #3 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, November 20th for the Pemberton class, and Friday, November 21st for the Willingboro class. Here is the assignment:

Explain and evaluate the Design Argument for God's existence.

• First, briefly explain whatever version of the Design Argument you prefer to explain: Paley's argument by analogy, the inductive version Hume criticizes, or the abductive version we discussed in class.
  
• Then, tell me your opinion. Do you think it is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

The response is based on the William Paley and David Hume readings from the textbook. Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion.

Like A Watch, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence. First is a radio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg. Second is an article on evolution versus intelligent design.

Third is the article about all the "design flaws" in nature. Fourth, here's an article on the recent research that might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.

I also have a little music for you. Here's the source of the "more so" phrase:

John Gorka - I'm From New Jersey
"I'm from New Jersey | It's like Ohio | But even more so | Imagine that"

Finally, the National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. The conversations touch on a lot of things we've been discussing in class.

Richard Dawkins pushing atheism

Francis Collins pushing theism

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

If you've read a good article on intelligent design, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post.

Think [Tap-Dance] God

There's a philosophy comic strip that ran a whole series on the ontological argument that god exists. Here are links to the comics:

Comic #1: The argument

Comic #2: Existence is better? Huh?

Comic #3: So the greatest possible pizza exists?

Comic #4: The perfect girlfriend!

If you're still jonesing for the a priori, there's also this entry on ontological arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or maybe you like modal logic? If so, try Godel's version of the ontological argument.

Finally, here's what Guanilo said to Anselm after he presented Anselm his "Greatest Possible Island" criticism:

Midterm on Tuesday

This is just a reminder that the midterm is on Tuesday, November 4th for the Pemberton class, and Friday, November 7th for the Willingboro class.

Also, CONGRATS TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF BASEBALL!

Easy on the Stubborn

So I left the Pemberton class today a little worried about stubbornness.

One of the goals of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we're getting better at that. But it's not clear that we're caring about the difference once we figure it out.

We should care about good evidence. We should care about it because it's what gets us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If someone likes an arg, but still stubbornly disagree with its conclusion, she or he is just being irrational.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong.

Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I just read:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

The full article is available here (you have to wait for an ad to play, then click 'Enter Salon' at the top right, to see the article).

I think that most of the time, stubbornness is unwarranted. Psychological research has repeatedly shown that most Americans overestimate their own abilities. This is one of the biggest hurdles to proper reasoning: the natural tendency to think that we're smarter--or more powerful, or prettier, or whatever--than we really are.

This may sound insulting, but one of the goals of this class is getting us to recognize that we're not as smart as we think we are. All of us. You. Me! That one. You again. Me again!

So in the upcoming weeks, at least, I hope you'll join me in my campaign to end I'M-SPECIAL-ism.