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.

Past Futures Are the New Past Pasts

Do you find yourself obsessed with Hume's question of what could justify inductive reasoning? Boy, do I have a link for you:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Induction
If you're tired of that one, there's also a new problem of induction. Or, you could watch this video of Lewis Black describing his failure to reason inductively every year around Halloween:


In class, we talked about how attempts to justify induction beg the question. Here's a dinosaur comic on question-begging. (Click on the comic to enlarge it)


And here's the video for Mims's logically delicious song "This is Why I'm Hot":


Finally, here's a stick figure comic about scientists' efforts to confirm that the future will be like the past.

Innate Ideas? I've Had a Few

Here are a couple articles by Steven Pinker that offer some psychological insights on the innate ideas debate we've been discussing in class:

The Brain’s Versatile Toolbox (1997)

Grammar Puss (1994)

But hey, why read when you can watch a video? With that in mind, here's Pinker's appearance on The Colbert Report:


Pinker has a few books on this stuff, and a lot of other interesting articles, too. Not everyone agrees with Pinker, though. Here's an article about a South American tribe that might be a counterexample to the claim that there are innate aspects of language development.

The Interpreter
(The linguist researching the tribe explains his case more here. Steven Pinker and others respond to him here.)

One more link. Here's an advanced survey article on the rationalism/empiricism debate from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia.

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, October 14th for the Pemberton class, and Friday, October 17th for the Willingboro class. Here is the assignment:

Explain and evaluate your thoughts about God.

• First, explain what it is you believe about the existence of God. Do you believe there is a God? If so, what kind of God or Gods? Do you believe that there is no God? Do you not have a belief one way or the other?
  
• Next, explain why you believe whatever it is you believe about God. What reasons do you have for believing what you believe? Figure out your argument in support of your belief (even if you're belief is "I don't know," explain why you don't know!).
  
• Finally, evaluate your argument for what you believe. Do you think these are good reasons, or bad reasons? Why?
  

The response isn't based on any specific reading from the textbook. Instead, it's more of a chance for you to think about your own opinion before we discuss God stuff in class over the next several weeks. You won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you EXPLAIN and EVALUATE your reasons for your opinion.

Quiz Me Once, Shame on You

The quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 2nd for the Pemberton class, and Friday, October 3rd for the Willingboro class. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, and 4 or 5 short answer questions on the topics we discussed in class so far:

• philosophy in general
• doing philosophy
• arguments: inductive, deductive, abductive (inferences to the best explanation)
• what is knowledge?
• skepticism
• Descartes battling skepticism

The quiz is worth 15% of your overall grade.Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of taking a quiz.

Still Trust Your Senses?

Julian Beever creates sidewalk art that looks three-dimensional when viewed from a certain angle. Here's one of his creations:

More pictures of his stuff are available here and here. It's pretty hard to tell that these are two-dimensional drawings. Oh, senses! Why won't you stop deceiving me?!?

Link-Tested, Keanu-Approved

Here's a trio of links. The first one is a guide to reading philosophy that might help you if you're having trouble understanding the assigned readings.

Jim Pryor's Guide to Reading Philosophy

The next two relate to knowledge and skepticism. The first is about the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix. If Neo read it, he'd say "whoa."

The Matrix: Dream Skepticism

The last link is an interesting take on skeptical scenarios (or what our textbook fancily calls universal belief falsifiers). Most of us think it's pretty unlikely that we're in a computer simulation like the Matrix. After all, these skeptical scenarios seem so weird. But Nick Bostrom provides some compelling reasons to think that these scenarios may be highly probable, after all.

What's the Probability that We're Living in the Matrix?

(A more advanced version of Bostrom's argument is available here, and a dinosaur comic on this issue is available here.) By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.

Revised Schedule: 4th Edition

This is a revised schedule with the correct page numbers for the 4th edition of the textbook. Changes from the original schedule are in bold. Click here for the readings for the 3rd edition for the Pemberton class. Click here for the readings for the 3rd edition for the Willingboro class.


Week of September 1--5
-Some Logic | Deductive Arguments (pages 37—45)
-Some Logic | Inductive & Abductive Arguments (pages 4—11)

Week of September 8--12
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)

Week of September 15--19
-Knowledge | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
-Knowledge | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
(Reading Response #1 due)

Week of September 21--26
-Knowledge | Empiricism: Hume (pages 104—113)
-QUIZ; Knowledge | Hume Wrap-up

Week of September 29--October 3
-Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 321—332)
-Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 333—338)

Week of October 6--10
-Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 347—352)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 338—341)
(Reading Response #2 due)

Week of October 13--17
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 342—347)
-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 366—370)

Week of October 20--24
-MIDTERM
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 370—382)

Week of October 27--31
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 352—357)
-Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 396—409)
(Reading Response #3 due)
Week of November 3--7
-Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 411—423)
-Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 450—454) & Mill (pages 457—462)

Week of November 10--14
-Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 462—468)
-Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 468-482)
(Reading Response #4 due)

Week of November 17--21
-Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 486—494) & Aristotle (pages 495—500)
-Virtue Ethics Wrap-up

Weeks After November 21
-No readings!

Reading Response #1

Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Tuesday, September for 23rd for the Pemberton Class, and Friday, September 26th for the Willingboro class. In a 250- to 500-word essay response, answer the following question:

What does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? What does Descartes say he can be certain of? What are his arguments for these? Evaluate his arguments: do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?

The response is based on the Descartes reading from pages 65-71 of the textbook.

Understanding Args

Here are the answers to the handout on understanding arguments.

1. (P1) Fairdale has the best team.
(C) Fairdale will win the championship

2. (P1) The housing market is depressed.
(P2) Interest rates are low.
(C) It's a good time to buy a home.

3. (P1) China is guilty of extreme human rights abuses.
(P2) China refuses to implement democratic reforms.
(C) The U.S. should refuse to deal with the present Chinese government.

4. (P1) The results of the Persian Gulf War were obviously successful for the U.S. military.
(C) The U. S. military is both capable and competent.

5. (P1) Scientific discoveries are continually debunking religious myths.
(P2) Science provides the only hope for solving the many problems faced by humankind.
(C) Science provides a more accurate view of human life than does religion.

6. (P1) Freedom of speech and expressions are essential to a democratic form of government.
(P2) As soon as we allow some censorship, it won't be long before censorship will be used to silence the opinions critical of the government.
(P3) Once we allow some censorship, we will have no more freedom than the Germans did under Hitler.
(C) We must resist all effort to allow the government to censor entertainment.

7. (P1) I'm very good at my job.
(C) I deserve a raise.

8. (P1) Jesse is one year old.
(P2) Most one-year-olds can walk.
(C) Jesse can walk.

9 (P1) The revocation of the 55 mph speed limit has resulted in an increased number of auto fatalities.
(C) we must alleviate this problem with stricter speed limit enforcement.

10. (P1) The last person we hired from Bayview Tech turned out to be a bad employee.
(C) I'm not willing to hire anybody else from that school again.

11. (P1) Maebe didn't show up for work today.
(P2) Maebe has never missed work unless she was sick.
(C) Maebe is probably sick today.

11. (P1) The United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has a moral obligation to give assistance to people who are subjected to inhumane treatment.
(P2) The ethnic Albanians were being persecuted in Kosovo.
(C) It was proper for the U.S. to become involved in the air campaign against Kosovo.

----------------
Hat tip: I took some of the examples (with some revisions) from Beth Rosdatter's website, and some (with some revisions) from Jon Young's website.

Deductive Args

Here are the answers to the handout on deductive arguments that we went over in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

Valid, Sound

2) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

Invalid (what if a dog were a student in our class?),
Unsound (because it's invalid)

3) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush is either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush isn’t a great prez.
Bush is the greatest prez.

Valid, Unsound (questionable premises)

4) All BCC students are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most BCC students are shorter than 7 feet tall.

Invalid (there could be a lot of tall BCC students even if most humans aren't tall), Unsound (because it's invalid)

5) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

Invalid (only some are funny, so I don't have to be funny), Unsound (because it's invalid)

6) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

Valid, Unsound (false second premise: I'm not singing right now)

7) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

Valid, Unsound (questionable first premise)

8) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

Invalid (students could cringe for a different reason), Unsound (it's invalid)

9) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

Invalid (bad structure), Unsound (because it's invalid)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

Valid, Unound (first premise is questionable)

11) All dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
All dads are mean.

Valid, Unsound (premise 1 is false and premise 2 is questionable)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

Invalid (I don't have to sing for students to cringe), Unsound (it's invalid, and false second premise)

13) Mexico borders oceans on the east and west.
USA borders oceans on the east and west.
Guatemala borders oceans on the east and west.
Australia borders oceans on the east and west.
Most countries border oceans on the east and west.

Invalid (the premises don't guarantee the conclusion), Unsound (it's invalid)

(More on Sisyphus)

Definitions of "Philosophy"

Here are some videos on the definitions of the word "philosophy" that we discussed in class. First, the Bobby Brown definition: Nothing says "philosophy as a worldview" like 1988 Bobby Brown.

Bobby Brown - My Prerogative
Now for the 3-year-old definition. Here's comedian Louis CK's take on the broad, fundamental questions kids ask (the routine starts 2:40 into the video).

Louis CK - Why?
I couldn't find a video on doing philosophy. If you know of one, let us know as a comment to this post.

Email Subscriptions

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. I used a blog for this course last semester, and it seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go to http://philosophybcc08.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; slandis@bcc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Willingboro Course Schedule

August 29
-Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)
-Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 5
-Some Logic | Deductive Arguments (pages 37—45)
-Some Logic | Inductive & Abductive Arguments (pages 4—11)

September 12
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)

September 19
-Knowledge | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
-Knowledge | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
(Reading Response #1 due)

September 26
-Knowledge | Empiricism: Hume (pages 104—113)
-QUIZ; Knowledge | Hume Wrap-up

October 3
-Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)
-Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)

October 10
-Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)

October 17
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)
-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 356—360)

October 24
-MIDTERM
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)

October 31
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)
-Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
(Reading Response #3 due)

November 7
-Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)
-Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)

November 14
-Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)
-Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
(Reading Response #4 due)

November 21
-Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 490—498) & Aristotle (pages 490—504)
-Virtue Ethics Wrap-up

November 28
THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class)

December 4
-Final Exam Review

December 11
FINAL EXAM

Pemberton Course Schedule

August 28
Thursday: -Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)

September 2-4
Tuesday: -Doing Philosophy (no reading)
Thursday: -Some Logic | Deductive Arguments (pages 37—45)

September 9-11
Tuesday: -Some Logic | Inductive & Abductive Arguments (pages 4—11)
Thursday: -Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)

September 16-18
Tuesday: -Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)
Thursday: -Knowledge | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
(Reading Response #1 due)

September 23-25
Tuesday: -Knowledge | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
Thursday: -Knowledge | Empiricism: Hume (pages 104—113)

September 30 – October 2
Tuesday: -QUIZ; Knowledge | Hume Wrap-up
Thursday: -Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 306—316)

October 7-9
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 317—322)
Thursday: -Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 337—342)

October 14-16
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
(Reading Response #2 due)
Thursday: -Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)

October 21-23
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 356—360)
Thursday: -MIDTERM

October 28-30
Tuesday: -Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
Thursday: -Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)

November 4-6
Tuesday: -Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 400—402 & 408—415)
(Reading Response #3 due)
Thursday: -Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 415—427)

November 11-13
Tuesday: -Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 454—458) & Mill (pages 461—466)
Thursday: -Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 466—472)

November 18-20
Tuesday: -Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 472-484)
(Reading Response #4 due)
Thursday: -Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 490—498) & Aristotle (pages 490—504)

November 25-27
Tuesday: -Virtue Ethics Wrap-up (no new reading)
Thursday: -THANKSGIVING BREAK (no class)

December 2-4
Tuesday: -Ethics Wrap-up (no new reading)
Thursday: -Review for Final Exam

Week of December 8-15
FINAL EXAM (Date, time, and location to be announced)

Course Details

Introduction to Philosophy
Burlington County College
Philosophy 101, Fall 2008
Section 01: Pemberton Campus, Tuesdays/Thursdays: 2:00–3:20 p.m.
Section 82: Willingboro Center, Fridays: 6:00–9:00 p.m.

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@bcc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://philosophybcc08.blogspot.com

Required Texts
The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach, 3rd or 4th Edition, William F. Lawhead

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophy. Throughout the semester, we are going to explore a handful of classic philosophical questions: What is knowledge? Does God exist? What is the nature of good and evil?

In examining these issues, it is my hope that we can also develop the skills of doing philosophy—understanding philosophical arguments, evaluating the quality of such arguments, and developing good arguments of our own on philosophical topics.

Grading
A = 900-1000 total points
B = 800-899 total points
C = 700-799 total points
D = 600-699 total points
F = below 600 total points

Assignments
Midterm: 250 points
Final : 350 points
Quiz : 150 points
4 Reading Responses : 50 points each (200 points total)
Attendance/Participation: 50 points

Exams: There will be a midterm and a final exam. The midterm tests everything covered during the first half of the course, and will last about half of a class period (80 minutes) on the scheduled day. The final exam is cumulative—it tests everything covered throughout the whole course, not just the second half. The final will also last 80 minutes, and take place on the last day of class.

Quizzes: There will be a quiz at the end of the first sections on logic and epistemology. The quiz will last 20 minutes.

Reading Responses: There will be four reading responses, which are to be handed in at the beginning of class the day they are due. I will not accept homework at any other time, unless you cannot make class due to sudden illness/injury (again, with a doctor’s note), religious observance, or official university business.

Reading responses consist of an approximately one- to two-paged (typed, double-spaced, 12-point font, normal margins) response to a specific question about one or more of the week’s readings. The responses are a chance to do philosophy. To this effect, the focus of the responses will be on paraphrasing (demonstrating that you understand the argument by putting it in your own words) and critically evaluating (presenting objections to the argument or responding to such objections) the philosophical arguments being presented in the readings.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and Plagiarism will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment—and possibly the entire class. (Come to me if you are unsure what constitutes cheating or plagiarism.)

Excused Absenses: Make-up exams, quizzes, in-class projects, and oral reports will only be rescheduled for any excused absences (excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury – with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Important Dates
August 26: Last day to withdraw & receive a 100% refund.
August 27 – September 3: Late Registration and Add Period (with $35.00 service fee)
August 27 – September 10: Drop Period with name removed from roster and 50% refund
September 11 – October 31: Withdrawal Period (no refund/W grade)
September 19: Last day to request an audit