Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Enjoy your winter break!

I'll leave you with a little rant on that favorite topic of mine: intellectual honesty. A simple goal of this class was to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we did get better at that. But this doesn't guarantee that we'll care about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care was the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about evidence and arguments because they get 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 we are presented with decent evidence for some claim, but still stubbornly disagree with this claim, we are just being irrational. Worse, we're effectively saying that the truth doesn't matter to us.

Instead, we should be open-minded. We should be willing to challenge ourselves, and let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we've currently gotten something wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I read last year on this:

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.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

If any of this sounds cool to you, consider joining the "Owning Our Ignorance" club I run. (We even have a Facebook group!)

It Pays to Believe?

So we didn't wind up studying this in class, but in case you're interested here are some links on Pascal's Wager:

• Links to several articles on the argument.
• Here's an audio interview on the argument and Pascal's entire work Pensées.
  
• NOTHING TO LOSE? Is there really not much to lose in this wager? This cartoon thinks otherwise.
• WHICH GOD? With so many religions out there, which God should we believe in? This cartoon dinosaur has the most practical solution.
• More on decision theory, the branch of math Pascal uses to argue that belief in God is a good bet.
  
• Some related entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: evidentialism vs. nonevidentialism, religious versions of nonevidentialism (or fideism), other pragmatic arguments for believing in god, and Pascal's other contributions to philosophy.

Final Exam

Just a reminder: the final exam is Thursday, December 17th at 6:00 in our normal classroom. It should take about 90 minutes to finish it, but you'll have two hours to take it.

Hear No Evil

If you like to get philosophical on the treadmill, try downloading and listening to these podcasts on the problem of evil:

• Well-known contemporary philosopher (and ordained priest) Marilyn McCord Adams offers some insights into the problem of evil in this audio interview. (Download)
  
• The NPR program Fresh Air has an audio interview with Bart Ehrman on the problem of suffering. (Download)
  
• Here's even more audio from a few philosophers on the problem of suffering. (Download)
  
  

Suffer-iness

Here's Stephen Colbert's take on evil:

Bad Things to Good People

Here are some links on the problem of evil.

• There is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.
• I'd like to highlight one article in particular: 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?
• Thoughts on everyday evil and the Holocaust.
  
• 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, and whether we're in the worst possible world.)

More With the Creepy Guy

Here are some recommended videos on the design argument from Closer to Truth:

• Philosopher Richard Swinburne likes the design argument. (Part 2 of his interview is here.)
  
• Philosopher Bede Rundle is less convinced.
• Philosopher Colin McGinn tackles the issue of fine-tuning.

Her Stroke of Insight

This is indirectly related to what we're discussing in class. It shows the degree to which our mind actively constructs our understanding of reality around us. Here's neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk on her experience of having a stroke:


Bolte Taylor wrote a whole book on her experience. It's available in most book stores. Here's a more detailed audio interview with her.

I love TED talks. Here are some of my other favorites:

• The Story Bias by Tyler Cowen
• The Psychological Roots of Political Positions by Jonathan Haidt
  
• We Don't Know What Makes Us Happy by Dan Gilbert

Design in the Mind's Eye

Here's an interesting approach to explaining the seeming complexity, order, and functionality of the universe: maybe it's all in our mind.

Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that we see intentional design and patterns too much... including in things that are actually random. So things that seem so fine-tuned and unlikely from our perspective might not actually be. Here's a video dialogue on this topic:


Bloom has two great books (Descartes' Baby and How Children Learn the Meaning of Words) on how our minds develop from early childhood on.

Like a Watch, Only More So...

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is a nice explanation of the design argument, along with an explanation of another wacky arg for god's existence.
  
• Here is an audio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg.
  
• One philosophers' take on the debate between evolution and intelligent design.
• Is our universe fine-tuned for life? Maybe not.
• Wait, can science even judge religious claims, or are they talking about different things? Maybe an inference to the best explanation can help us...
  
• What about all the "design flaws" in nature? Are they evidence against a supreme designer?
  
• Well, recent research might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.
  

Reading Response #3

Reading Response #3 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 3rd. Here is the assignment:

In a 250- to 500-word essay, explain and evaluate the Design Argument for God's existence.

• First, briefly explain a version of the Design Argument--whichever version you prefer--in your own words.
  
• Then, evaluate this argument. Is an intelligent designer the best explanation of this evidence? Or is there another, better explanation? Be sure to consider objections to the argument. Tell me your opinion. Do you think this version of the design argument is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

The response is based on the design argument section of the textbook (section 4.2). Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion.

The Universe Began, Again

Still wondering whether the universe has a beginning or regresses infinitely? Here's an entire episode of Closer to Truth devoted to the question "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?" If you can get past the weird host, there are some nice explanations of the science of the origins of the universe by current cosmologists.

Wacka Wacka

When a philosopher announced that the title of his talk was “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” Sydney Morgenbesser said to the man sitting next to him, “If there was Nothing he would still complain.”

-from Gerald Dworkin's list of philosophy quips

Midterm

Just a reminder that the midterm will be held at the beginning of class on Thursday, November 12th. It's worth 25% of your overall grade. You'll have 90 minutes to complete it.

There are a variety of questions on the midterm: some multiple choice, some short answers, a variety of argument evaluation, a mini-essay, and extra credit. It covers everything we've gone over in class so far:

• Philosophy
  -Definitions
  -Doing philosophy
  
• Arguments
  -Evaluation: Check the structure and the premises
  -Types: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive
• Knowledge
  -Definition: True belief + ?????
  -Skepticism
  -Descartes: uncertain of childhood beliefs, senses, and reasoning; certain he's thinking and he exists
  -Rationalism: reason is the main source of our knowledge
  -Plato's rationalist arg for innate ideas
  -Empiricism: sense experience is the main source of our knowledge
  -Locke's empiricist arg against innate ideas
  -Hume's empiricism
  
• God Stuff
  -Evidentialism vs. nonevidentialism
  -qualities typically included in definitions of 'god'
  -Cosmological Argument: Aquinas's version, abductive version, Taylor's version
  

Also, I expect you to stick around after the midterm, because we WILL be learning stuff in class after it's done.

10/29 Class Cancelled

Class is cancelled for tonight (October 29th). Sorry for the late notice; I'm sick.

This means the midterm won't be next week, as originally scheduled. We'll have it in 2 weeks (on November 12th). We'll review for the midterm in November 5th's class.

Enjoy your night off... and GO PHILS!

Why Is Anything Anything?

The website Closer to Truth has a ton of short interviews with modern-day philosophers (and other smart people) on their thoughts about god. For instance, there's a whole section on the cosmological argument titled "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" Here are some videos from that section:

• Theist John Leslie says God best explains why there is something.
  
• Theist Peter van Inwagen believes in God, but doesn't like this arg.
  
• Atheist Colin McGinn thinks it's a meaningless question.
• Physicist Steven Weisberg says we should wait for science's answer.
  

And here's a video on the relationship between philosophy and religion:

• Does Philosophy Illuminate Religion?

God Stuff

If you've read a good article on god stuff, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post. In the meantime, I have something for you.

The National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. (Since they're not trained philosophers, some of their arguments aren't the best. Try to spot their mistakes!) The conversations touch on a lot of things we'll be 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.

Innate Ideas? I've Had a Few

Here are two articles by psychologist 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 again, 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.

The Philosophical Baby

Psychologist Alison Gopnik just wrote a new book called The Philosophical Baby. It's loaded with cool insights on the rationalism-empiricism debate. Here's an interview with Gopnik about the book, and here's a review. Below is her appearance on The Colbert Report.

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 15th. Here is the assignment:

In an essay of around 250 to 500 words, 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 your belief is "I don't know," explain why you don't know!).
  
• Finally, philosophically 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.

I'm Certain I'm Doubting

Here are some links related to our discussion of knowledge from class.

• What are the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix?
  
• Can we be abolutely certain of math truths like 2 + 3 = 5? This cartoon dinosaur says we can't!
• Here's an audio interview about Rene Descartes's famous argument that he's certain he exists.
  
• Most people don't take skepticism seriously because skeptical scenarios seem so unlikely. They're crazy, right? But Nick Bostrom argues that the probability we're living in the Matrix may be a lot higher than we think.
• (Here's a more advanced version of Bostrom's article, along with a dinosaur comic on it.)
• Here's my favorite argument for widespread skepticism. (pdf)
• The search for truth is tough. Let's get the FBI on the case!
  
• Optical illusion time! Here is a pair of collections of Julian Beever's sidewalk art that looks three-dimensional when viewed from a certain angle. Here's one of his creations:

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.

Lonely Quiz

The quiz will be held at the beginning of class on Thursday, October 1st. 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
• understanding and evaluating arguments
• types of arguments: deductive, inductive, and abductive (inferences to the best explanation)
• what is knowledge?
• skepticism
• Descartes battling skepticism

The quiz is worth 15% of your overall grade.

3rd Edition Pages

If you have the 3rd edition of the textbook, the assigned readings are the same, but on different pages. Here's the list of pages:

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

-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 322—325)
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 326—337)

-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro (pages 356—360)

-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 360—372)
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 342—347)

DaffyDuctive? Really, Sean?

Here's a few dumb things about the arguments we discussed in class this week. First, inductive arguments. Here's a video of comedian Lewis Black describing his failure to learn from experience every year around Halloween:


And here's a stick figure comic with a bad inductive argument. What's bad about it? (Let us know in the comments!)

Finally, in honor of abductive arguments, here's a dinosaur comic murder mystery.

Reading Response #1

Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, September 24th. In a 250- to 500-word essay response, answer the following question:

• What kinds of beliefs does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? (Hint: there are 3 kinds of beliefs he says he's not certain of.) Why does he believe he can't be certain of these?
  
• What beliefs does Descartes say he can be certain of? (Hint: there are only 1 or 2 specific beliefs he says he is certain of.) Why does he believe he can be certain of these?
  
• Evaluate his reasons: do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?

Please paraphrase Descartes's ideas in your own words. The response is based on the Descartes reading from pages 65-71 of the textbook.

Structure

(NOTE: This is one of the pages in the packet I handed out in class this week.)

One of the trickier concepts to understand in this course is the structure of an argument. This is a more detailed explanation of the term. If you've been struggling to understand this term, the following might help you.

An argument's structure is its underlying logic; the way the premises and conclusion logically relate to one another. The structure of an argument is entirely separate from the actual meaning of the premises. For instance, the following three arguments, even though they're talking about different things, have the exact same structure:

1) All tigers have stripes.
Tony is a tiger.
Tony has stripes.

2) All humans have wings.
Sean is a human.
Sean has wings.

3) All blurgles have glorps.
Xerxon is a blurgle.
Xerxon has glorps.

There are, of course, other, non-structural differences in these three arguments. For instance, the tiger argument is overall good, since it has a good structure AND true premises. The human/wings argument is overall bad, since it has a false premise. And the blurgles argument is just crazy, since it uses made up words. Still, all three arguments have the same underlying structure (a good structure):

All A's have B's.
x is an A.
x has B's.

Evaluating the structure of an argument is tricky. Here's the main idea regarding what counts as a good structure: the premises, if they were true, would provide good evidence for us to believe that the conclusion is true. So, if you believed the premises, they would convince you that the conclusion is worth believing, too.

Note I did NOT say that the premises are actually true in a good-structured argument. Structure is only about truth-preservation, not about whether the premises are actually true or false. What's "truth preservation" mean? Well, truth-preserving arguments are those whose structures guarantee that if you stick in true premises, you get a true conclusion.

The premises you've actually stuck into this particular structure could be good (true) or bad (false). That's what makes evaluating an arg's structure so weird. To check the structure, you have to ignore what you actually know about the premises being true or false.

Good Structured Deductive Args (Valid)
If we assume that all the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true for an argument to have a good structure. Notice we are only assuming truth, not guaranteeing it. Again, this makes sense, because we’re truth-preservers: if the premises are true, the conclusion that follows must be true.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
All humans have hair.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It is snowing right now.
It’s below 32 degrees right now.

3) All humans are mammals.
All mammals have wings.
All humans have wings.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is tall.
Yao is not tall.
Therefore, Spud is tall.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 are ultimately bad, they still have good structure (their underlying form is good). The second premise of argument 3 is false—not all mammals have wings—but it has the same exact structure of argument 1—a good structure. Same with argument 4: the second premise is false (Yao Ming is about 7 feet tall), but the structure is good (it’s either this or that; it’s not this; therefore, it’s that).

To evaluate the structure, then, assume that all the premises are true. Imagine a world in which all the premises are true. In that world, MUST the conclusion also be true? Or can you imagine a scenario in that world in which the premises are true, but the conclusion is still false? If you can imagine this situation, then the argument's structure is bad. If you cannot, then the argument is truth-preserving (inputting truths guarantees a true output), and thus the structure is good.

Bad Structured Deductive Args (Invalid)
In an argument with a bad structure, you can’t draw the conclusion from the premises – they don’t naturally follow. Bad structured arguments do not preserve truth.

EXAMPLES:
1) All humans are mammals.
All whales are mammals.
All humans are whales.

2) If it snows, then it’s below 32 degrees.
It doesn’t snow.
It’s not below 32 degrees.

3) All humans are mammals.
All students in our class are mammals.
All students in our class are humans.

4) Either Yao is tall or Spud is short.
Yao is tall.
Spud is short.

Even though arguments 3 and 4 have all true premises and a true conclusion, they are still have a bad structure, because their form is bad. Argument 3 has the same exact structure as argument 1—a bad structure (it doesn’t preserve truth).

Even though in the real world the premises and conclusion of argument 3 are true, we can imagine a world in which all the premises of argument 3 are true, yet the conclusion is false. For instance, imagine that our school starts letting whales take classes. The second premise would still be true, but the conclusion would then be false.

The same goes for argument 4: even though Spud is short (Spud Webb is around 5 feet tall), this argument doesn’t guarantee this. The structure is bad (it’s either this or that; it’s this; therefore, it’s that, too.). We can imagine a world in which Yao is tall, the first premise is true, and yet Spud is tall, too.

Evaluating Deductive Args

Here are the answers to the handout on evaluating deductive arguments that we did as group work in class. Perhaps I should have titled the handout "So Many Bad Args!"

1) All kangaroos are marsupials.
All marsupials are mammals.
All kangaroos are mammals.

P1- true
P2- true
structure- valid
overall - sound

2) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush was either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush wasn’t the greatest prez.
Bush was a great prez.

P1- questionable ("great" is subjective)
P2- questionable ("great" is subjective)
structure- valid (it's either A or B; it's not A; so it's B)
overall- unsound (bad premises)

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

P1- true (we might disagree over who specifically is funny, but nearly all of us would agree that someone is funny)
P2- true
structure- invalid (the 1st premise only says some are funny; Sean could be one of the unfunny people)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

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

P1- questionable ("annoying" is subjective)
P2- true
structure- valid (the premises establish that some email forwards are both annoying and false; so some annoying things [those forwards] are false)
overall - unsound (bad first premise)

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

P1- true
P2- true (if interpreted to mean "All bats are the sorts of creatures who have wings.") or false (if interpreted to mean "Each and every living bat has wings," since some bats are born without wings)
structure- invalid (we don't know anything about the relationship between mammals and winged creatures just from the fact that bats belong to each group)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

6) Some dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
Some dads are mean.

P1- true
P2- questionable ("mean" is subjective)
structure- valid (if all the people with beards were mean, then the dads with beards would be mean, so some dads would be mean)
overall- unsound (bad 2nd premise)

7) This class is boring.
All boring things are taught by Sean
This class is taught by Sean.

P1-questionable ("boring" is subjective)
P2- false (nearly everyone would agree that there are some boring things not associated with Sean)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

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

P1- true
P2- true
structure- invalid (the premises only tell us that students and humans both belong to the mammals group; we don't know enough about the relationship between students and humans from this; for instance, what if a dog were a student in our class?)
overall- unsound (bad structure)

9) All hornets are wasps.
All wasps are insects.
All insects are scary.
All hornets are scary.

P1- true!
P2- true
P3- questionable ("scary" is subjective)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 3rd premise)

10) All students in here are humans.
All humans are shorter than 10 feet tall.
All students in here are shorter than 10 feet tall.

P1- true
P2- true!
structure- valid (same structure as arg #1)
overall- sound

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

P1- questionable (since you haven't heard me sing, you don't know whether it's true or false)
P2- false (I'm not singing now!)
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad premises)

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

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know what happens when Sean is singing, not when he isn't singing; students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise and structure)

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

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- true
structure- valid
overall- unsound (bad 1st premise)

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

P1- questionable (again, you don't know)
P2- false
structure- invalid (from premise 1, we only know that Sean singing is one way to guarantee that students cringe; just because they're cringing doesn't mean Sean's the one who caused it; again, students could cringe for a different reason)
overall- unsound (bad premises and structure)

Also, here's Tiffany's big hit:

Club Meeting

So, I run a club called "Owning Our Ignorance" that's devoted to fun and reasoning, but more funning than reasoning. Shut up, "funning" is too a word.

We're having our first meeting of the school year Sunday night at the Barnes & Noble in Deptford. More info on the meeting and the club are available here.

If you're interested, come on out!

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.

Louis CK - Why?
And here's what springs to my mind when I think about doing philosophy:

Email Subscription

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. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's 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://gccphilosophy09.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@gccnj.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Buying the Textbook

Here are some ways to buy the textbook for this course, from cheapest to most expensive:

1. Buy the 3rd edition used from Amazon. (It's the same book, with just a few different page numbers I can tell you about.)
2. Buy the 4th edition used from Amazon.
3. Buy the 4th edition new or used from Half.com.
4. Buy the 4th edition new from Amazon.
5. Buy the 4th edition used or new from GCC's bookstore.
   

Course Details

Introduction to Philosophy
Gloucester County College
Philosophy 101-E1, Fall 2009
Thursdays, 6:00–8:30 p.m. in Instructional Center, Room446

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@gccnj.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367

Required Texts
The Philosophical Journey: An Interactive Approach, 4th Edition, William F. Lawhead
(buy used from Amazon or Half.com; or buy the 3rd edition)

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. Our main goal is for each of us to come to appreciate the value of sitting and thinking. Long, careful, systematic, detailed thought is a great tool for increasing understanding on complex topics.

Grading
A = 930-1000 total points
A- = 900-929 total points
B+ = 867-899 total points
B = 834-866 total points
B- = 800-833 total points
C+ = 767-799 total points
C = 734-766 total points
C- = 700-733 total points
D+ = 667-699 total points
D = 634-666 total points
D- = 600-633 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

Quiz: There will be a 25-minute quiz at the end of the first sections on arguments and knowledge.

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 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.

Reading Responses: There will be four reading responses, which are to be handed in at the beginning of class the day they are due. Each assignment is 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.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit points.

Classroom Policies
ACADEMIC HONESTY STATEMENT: Gloucester County College is committed to a learning environment that embraces the principles of honesty. Faculty, students, and administrators share responsibility for maintaining this environment of academic honesty and integrity, accepting responsibility for all actions, personal and academic. Each member of our community is expected to read and understand our Academic Integrity Policy. This policy can be found on the GCC Web site here. The policy gives faculty authority to impose an academic sanction which is reasonable and commensurate with the violation.

PLAGIARISM: GCC's Academic Integrity Policy defines plagiarism as "the unacknowledged use of another's means of expression and/or work product, whether published or unpublished, without proper credit through the use of quotation marks, citations and other customary means of identifying sources." Essentially, this means copying the words or ideas of another without the proper form of academic documentation.

There are two basic kinds of plagiarism: deliberate plagiarism and accidental plagiarism. One may sound more acceptable than the other, but they are equally serious academic offenses. The most common act of deliberate plagiarism involves copying another person's work and passing it off as your own. The most common act of accidental plagiarism involves failing to provide the proper internal documentation for quoted, summarized and paraphrased ideas from another person, even if you list the source in your Works Cited.

In this class, deliberate and accidental plagiarism will be treated the same. The first instance of plagiarism will at least result in a zero (0) for that assignment and require a student professor conference. A second offense will result in an F for the course. In addition, a second offense will be reported to the Dean of Arts and Sciences and the Dean of Students.

ELECTRONICS: Use of cell phones, MP3 players, pagers, and similar electronic devices is not permitted during class time. Approval must be gained from the instructor prior to student use of audio or video recording devices in class.

GCC ATTENDANCE POLICY: Students attain maximum academic benefit through regular class attendance. Nothing else has yet been discovered to replace in value the daily, cumulative, educational growth that results from regular participation in class. This is especially true where ideas, concepts, points of view, social developments, poise, confidence, knowledge and success derive from the interaction of students and faculty.

Therefore, students are expected to attend all class sessions for which they are scheduled. The effect of absences on student grades will be determined by each instructor, consistent with his or her stated policy provided in course outlines.

PHI101 ATTENDANCE POLICY: A key to taking any college course is time management. Therefore, each student is expected to attend every class. Significant emphasis will be given to unexcused absences at the time of the final grade. An unexcused absence from class is not an excuse for not taking an assigned quiz or assignment. Each student is responsible for all class work and assignments when absent from class. Quizzes and other in-class assignments may not be made up unless approved by your instructor.

Exceptions are rare and will be given only when the instructor is informed in advance. Do not wait until an assignment is late to inform the instructor of the reasons why it is late. Extensions – usually only a day or two – will be granted when the student has established a track record of attendance and meeting deadlines in the course.

Permission to arrive late or leave early must be obtained from the instructor as class attendance means being present for the entire class period. Consistent lateness will impact your final grade.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Help Desk provides assistance with network and portal log-in along with campus computer hardware and software use. The Help Desk office is located on the first floor of the College Center; the phone number is 415-2298.

WebCT assistance is provided in-person in IC435, by phone at 415-2241, and online here. Before entering your username and password to access WebCT from your home computer, review the Browser Check, Pop-up Blockers, and Java Security Certificate information at the right of the page. Having these technical aspects set up correctly at the beginning of the semester on your home computer will save you frustration and aggravation.

ACADEMIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Library: The GCC Library provides a wide range of materials and services to promote student learning and faculty instruction in a friendly and supportive atmosphere. Over 30 computers are available for students to use for research purposes. Your GCC library card also serves as your student ID.

Computer Lab: The Open Lab in IC438 provides over 25 computers for student use. Students must show their GCC student ID to access these computers.

Student Success Center:
Make-up testing, distance learning and telecourse testing: located in LRC608. Their phone number is 856-415-2238.
Tutoring: located in LRC601 and LRC602. That phone number is 856-415-2248. Access these two areas via LRC603.
Testing and Open Lab: Testing is in LRC603, LRC604 and LRC605.

CLOSING NOTIFICATION
The official College closure notification is: 814 – KYW 1060AM school closing number for day classes; 2814 – KYW 1060AM evening school closing number; GCC website; or call 468-5000 for a recorded message of school closure notification.

Course Schedule

September 3
-Check. Check One. Sibilance (intro to class; no reading)
-Doing Philosophy (no reading)

September 10
-Some Logic | Deductive Arguments (pages 37—45)
-Some Logic | Inductive & Abductive Arguments (pages 4—11)

September 17
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)
-Knowledge | Descartes vs. Skepticism (pages 50-53; 58-71)

September 24
-Knowledge | Rationalism: Plato (pages 71—82)
-Knowledge | Empiricism: Locke (pages 88—96)
(Reading Response #1 due)

October 1
-Knowledge | Empiricism: Hume (pages 104—113)
-QUIZ; Knowledge | Hume Wrap-up

October 8
-Does God Exist? | Aquinas & The Cosmological Arg (pages 321—332)
-Does God Exist? | Taylor & The Cosmological Argument (pages 333—338)

October 15
-Does God Exist? | Ontological Argument (pages 347—352)
-Does God Exist? | Paley & The Design Argument (pages 338—341)
(Reading Response #2 due)

October 22
-Does God Exist? | Hume & The Design Argument (pages 342—347, 382—388)
-Does God Exist? | Problem of Evil Intro & Review for Midterm (pages 366—370)

October 29
-MIDTERM
-Does God Exist? | Hick & The Problem of Evil (pages 370—382)

November 5
-Faith & Reason | Pascal (pages 352—357)
-Intro to Ethics | Plato (pages 396—409)
(Reading Response #3 due)

November 12
-Ethical Relativism | Herodotus & Benedict (pages 411—423)
-Utilitarianism | Intro (pages 450—454) & Mill (pages 457—462)

November 19
-Utilitarianism | Norcross (pages 462—468)
-Deontological Ethics | Kant (pages 468—482)
(Reading Response #4 due)

November 26 – Happy Thanksgiving
THANKSGIVING (no class)


December 3
-Virtue Ethics | Intro (pages 486—494) & Aristotle (pages 495—500)
-Virtue Ethics Wrap-up

December 10
-Catch-up (no new reading)
-Final Exam Review

December 17
FINAL EXAM

(This schedule is tentative and may be changed at the discretion of the instructor.)