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.

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)
  
  

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.)