tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22958989796093405152024-03-07T19:01:37.300-08:00Philosophy 180: Knowledge and UnderstandingG. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-16157036253287086292016-12-08T10:41:00.006-08:002016-12-08T10:41:40.828-08:00Ok, that's a wrap!<br />
<br />
Here's how we finish:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. Final draft of Analysis 3 due Sunday December 11<br />2. Upload your finished Google Doc to Turnitin per the instructions in the syllabus.<br />3. Final exam: Tuesday December 13, 10:15 - 12:15<br /> </blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-14807883043176829202016-12-06T16:32:00.003-08:002016-12-06T16:32:35.274-08:00We'll finish the explanatory co-existence paper on Thursday.<br />
<br />
Last thought question:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>What, if anything, that we studied this semester do you expect to find yourself thinking about later when you don't have to anymore?</li>
</ul>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-38939601322855177062016-12-04T14:57:00.001-08:002016-12-04T14:57:08.071-08:00The final exam questions are now posted on the top of the schedule page and <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByEWimmpVQfWQTQtS0J4ZndvQ2c/view?usp=sharing">here</a>.<br />
<br />
See previous post for Tuesday's thought question.G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-25956730676506115302016-12-02T10:04:00.000-08:002016-12-02T10:04:11.603-08:00Be sure to read the previous post if you missed it.<br />
<br />
Thought question for Tuesday<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Identify a phenomenon for which you find yourself inclined to accept multiple but mutually incompatible explanations. Do you regard this tendency as irrational or otherwise undesirable? Why or why not?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(Note: This should not be one that you simply can't make your mind up about because of inadequate evidence, but something more of the kind considered in the current reading.)</blockquote>
<br />G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-47768740565973929832016-12-02T07:54:00.003-08:002016-12-02T07:54:44.703-08:00<div>
Please note that you have all received invitations to evaluate this class in your Saclink email. I would personally appreciate it if you would do so, but you will note that there is a significant incentive provided as well. The incentive is:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul style="background-color: black; color: #12ae50; font-family: "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans Unicode", sans-serif; font-size: 13.3333px;">
<li style="list-style: disc outside url("li.gif");"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.25;">As an incentive to participation, all students will receive 5 extra points if 95% of students who take the final exam participate in the survey.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since there are only 12 people enrolled in the class, we will need everyone to do the evaluations for the incentive to kick in. Feel free to encourage each other.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
We will move on to our last reading on Monday <a href="http://www.concepts.dreamhosters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/shtulmanlombrozo.pdf">Bundles of contradiction, by T. Lombrozo & A. Shtulman</a>. I will have all the relevant materials up by today or tomorrow. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Note that the first draft for your last analysis is due on Tuesday night.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since you are all working on it, I will make the test due Wednesday night.</div>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-7855666693894224682016-11-30T08:04:00.001-08:002016-11-30T08:04:08.161-08:00Thought question for Thursday:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Can a belief discordant alief ever be the target of rationalization? If so, provide an example showing how. If not, explain why.</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-4378849696003594632016-11-22T17:44:00.002-08:002016-11-22T17:44:42.509-08:00Thought question for Tuesday:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. Do you think rationalization, as Ellis and Schwitzgebel define it, is irrational?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2. Do you think it is ever to our benefit to rationalize in this sense? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
3. Are your answers to the above questions compatible with your answer to the question from last week? It was:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Do you think it can ever be to one's benefit to behave in a way that is unequivocally irrational? Why or why not? Be clear about the sense of irrationality you are employing.<br /> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-83226411411378194712016-11-18T09:52:00.001-08:002016-11-18T09:52:34.194-08:00The target article for your final paper is "<a href="http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/BelPrag-161003.pdf">The Pragmatic Metaphysics of Belief</a>," by Eric Schwitzgebel. This article is in draft form and has not yet been published. You will find the topic familiar.<br />
<br />
We will not meet on Tuesday so that people can attend the Ethics Symposium. The thought question below must be turned in to me at the Symposium during the session that corresponds to our classes. I'll hang around outside of the room until it starts. Note that you can get extra credit for this class for attending and writing on the content of any particular session in the designated place in your journal. <u>Study the syllabus carefully</u> for the correct way to do this and for the due dates. If you do it incorrectly or submit it after the due date you won't get credit.<br />
<br />
There are two weeks left in the semester after Thanksgiving. We will only cover two more of the essays on our list. The first one will be "Rationalization in moral and philosophical thought," by E. Schwitzgebel and J. Ellis. The second one will be "Bundles of contradiction," by T. Lombrozo & A. Shtulman.<br />
<br />
In the syllabus I guaranteed 15 tests but we are only doing 13 articles. My view is that what is essential is the number of points available, rather than the number of tests, so the final two tests will be worth 20 points rather than 10. If anyone finds this to be an unreasonable solution, please let me know right away and we can discuss it.<br />
<br />
I will have the study questions, test and the discussion questions link available by this Sunday, but nothing will be due until the Monday after Thanksgiving.<br />
<br />
Thought question<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Do you think it can ever be to one's benefit to behave in a way that is unequivocally irrational? Why or why not? Be clear about the sense of irrationality you are employing.</blockquote>
<br />G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-60393252755275319382016-11-15T10:42:00.003-08:002016-11-15T10:42:45.101-08:00We'll do Nagel's reply to Gendler on Thursday. Thought question:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nagel defends the Platonic view that knowledge is a commanding force against Gendler's argument that the reality of implicit bias, aversive racism etc. implies that it is not. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Question: Is this really an argument about the power of knowledge or something else (belief, rationality, etc.)? In other words, is there some sense in which the truth of the things we believe (rationally or not) figures essentially into either Nagel's or Gendler's perspective?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-73724218613415856582016-11-11T11:32:00.002-08:002016-11-11T11:32:52.897-08:00Here is the thought question for Tuesday. You may recognize it as a variation on a previous thought question but it may provoke a different response:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Consider the following statement: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Everyone does what they believe to be right. Hitler and Stalin may have been profoundly evil men, but they believed in the rectitude of what they were doing. When people do what is wrong, it is because they lack moral knowledge. That's just what it is to be evil. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By the same token, anyone who really knows what is right, will <i>do </i>what is right. Jeremy didn't stop and help that old lady by the side of the road. Today he is feeling all guilty and says he knew he should have. But that's not correct. If he knew he should have, then he would have. That's just what it is to have moral knowledge.</blockquote>
<br />
Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Do you think this is more intuitively compelling than the same sort of argument made with respect to non moral contexts? For example, if someone were to say: If you really knew your glasses were on your head, you wouldn't have been looking for them just now in the drawer. Why or why not?G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-84959880584944476632016-11-11T08:35:00.002-08:002016-11-11T08:35:47.073-08:00Tuesday we'll be on Nagel's "Intuition, Reflection and Command of Knowledge." I'll post the usuals by today or tomorrow and quiz will be due Monday night. This paper is actually a response to Tamar Gendler's essay "The Third Horse." Gendler's paper is also available on BB, but <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByEWimmpVQfWQllRLVJqOS16eUU/view?usp=sharing">here</a> are my notes on it as well (in the form of answered study questions.) It is worth reviewing these at least.<br />
<br />
<br />G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-86434590687355427042016-11-09T11:58:00.002-08:002016-11-09T11:58:24.346-08:00We're on Gendler's "Alief and Belief" on Thursday. Thought question:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Identify one of your belief discordant aliefs and explain how you deal with it. Do you think the alief has any value to you despite the fact that you don't believe it? Why or why not?</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-79316901210403367322016-11-07T09:55:00.003-08:002016-11-07T09:55:55.367-08:00There are two talks tomorrow. One right after class, the other at 1:30. Good chance to do one or two extra credit colloquium analyses. See CPPE or FB for details.G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-6220706569323872262016-11-03T14:00:00.001-07:002016-11-03T14:00:23.021-07:00On Tuesday we will finish the Cassam article. I will post the study questions, and quiz over Tamar Gendler's paper "Alief and Belief" by tomorrow, but they will not be due until Wednesday.<br />
<br />
Final draft of Analysis 2 due Sunday night!<br />
<br />
<br />
Thought question for Tuesday<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
What do you think of the following claim? Although there are clearly times when people simply do not exercise rational control over irrational impulses, reason does have the power to take charge of impulsive behavior and redirect it according to its own light; it is just a matter of our choosing to do so. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
After you have written your answer to the above comment on the significance of your answer for <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h33Z1FqqfDI">this</a> video.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-154113283013477382016-11-02T11:45:00.002-07:002016-11-02T11:45:11.934-07:00Thought question for Thursday<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Mika is a Christian. Her friend Aaron is an agnostic. Mika often tells Aaron that one of the wonderful things about being a Christian is the knowledge that when she and her loved ones die they will be going to a far better place. Hence there is no reason to fear death or to grieve for them when people you love die. God is infinitely wise and loving. He has a plan for all those who accept Jesus into their lives. One day Mika's mother, a school teacher and also a devout Christian, is killed in a school yard shooting along with many elementary school children. Months later Mika grieves her mother's death intensely and she tells Aaron that she is having a crisis of faith.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Did Mika believe the things she told Aaron prior to her mother's death? Explain.</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-7345725756326380802016-10-29T12:12:00.000-07:002016-10-29T12:13:44.451-07:00All class materials for the Cassam article have been posted.G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-2521234980575944922016-10-28T11:52:00.000-07:002016-10-29T12:13:26.528-07:00We will finish Schwitzgebel on Tuesday and move on to Cassam's "Knowing what you believe," which you will find on BB. Study questions, quiz and discussion questions on the latter will be available by Sunday, but not due until Wednesday.<br />
<br />
Remember rough draft for Analysis 2 is due Tuesday and final draft is due Sunday.<br />
<br />
Thought question for Tuesday:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Jim sincerely expresses the following opinion: Jury duty is a huge pain in the rump and if people don’t feel like doing it they should just ignore the summons because the county can’t enforce it anyway. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Marie sincerely find Jim's opinion repulsive and expresses strong disagreement, arguing that jury service is a very strong civic responsibility and Jim's view is positively shameful. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Interestingly, Jim has served on many juries and has never failed to respond to a summons. On the other hand, the three times Marie has received a summons, she has not shown up. Once she called in sick when she thought she might be coming down with a cold, and once she just couldn’t because she got a last minute chance to go to Disneyland for free and once she just somehow, sort of, you know forgot. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Does Jim know what he believes in this case? Does Marie? Explain.</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-4558757837286561072016-10-25T13:54:00.000-07:002016-10-25T13:54:07.499-07:00Finish the following dialogue in light of your current thinking on the reliability of introspection. Does your completed dialogue tend to support or deny Schwitzgebel's views on the reliability of introspection?<br />
<br />
Thought question for Thursday:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Sahar</b>: Is that a sheep out there in the field?<br /><b>Sherman:</b> Uh...yep. Appears to be.<br /><b>Sahar:</b> Are you sure? Maybe it's just a rock that looks like a sheep.<br /><b>Sherman:</b> What? No. It appears to be moving.<br /><b>Sahar:</b> Hmmm, well it could be like a little motorized decoy sheep or something.<br /><b>Sherman:</b> Is there something wrong with you? Look, it could be a lot of things. But it <u>appears</u> to me to be a sheep. I am quite certain of that.<br /><b>Sahar:</b> Interesting. Why are you more sure that it appears to be a sheep than that it is a sheep?</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-80638766658994586412016-10-24T12:20:00.003-07:002016-10-25T12:42:29.426-07:00I've moved the analysis due dates back a week. (See schedule) Sorry for the late notice. It is partly to accommodate my schedule but I think most of you wont' mind the extra time. We've got room so that the last one won't be rushed.<br />
<br />G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-83526734818949952442016-10-20T12:32:00.000-07:002016-10-20T12:32:00.566-07:00We'll finish up Sartwell the first 10 minutes of Tuesday, then move on to Schwitzgebel's "The unreliability of naive introspection." Study questions will be posted by Friday and test/discussion link by Sunday, due Monday night.<br />
<br />
Thought question for Tuesday:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />Can you be happy or unhappy without knowing about it?<br /> If not, why not? If so, how?<br />Write an answer that shows a reflective awareness of whether you are answering as an internalist or as an externalist. </blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-20306047564447696712016-10-18T13:37:00.001-07:002016-10-18T13:37:09.230-07:00We'll finish Sartwell's piece on Thursday. Don't forget to do the test and post a discussion question by Wednesday night. <br />
<br />
Thought question for Thursday:<br />
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.3in; margin-top: 18pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
Most philosophers agree that it is possible to choose to do (or not do) something, such as get out of bed or order a pizza, and, as consequence, do that thing. This is not the claim that such actions are free as opposed to determined, but simply the claim that our actions do often arise from our choices.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.3in; margin-top: 18pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
Far fewer philosophers agree that it is possible to choose to believe (or not believe) something. We often say "I choose to believe ___," but this does not appear to be a realistic description of the phenomenology of belief. For example, if you currently believe that Guyana is in Africa, and then you notice on a map that it is actually in South America, you do not choose to change your previous belief. It just happens.</div>
<div style="direction: ltr; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.3in; margin-top: 18pt; unicode-bidi: embed; word-break: normal;">
<ul>
<li>Question 1: Produce a counterexample to the claim that you cannot choose to believe something.</li>
<li>Question 2: Do you think it is possible to choose to have a particular thought? e.g., Can you choose to think about bacon?</li>
<li>Question 3: You will now perform a task. Your task is to choose not to think about bacon for as long as possible. Imagine that as soon as you think about bacon you will receive a very painful shock to a sensitive area. Clear your mind and begin in 15 seconds. Write down how long you lasted, and any subsequent thoughts that you have about your performance or bacon.</li>
</ul>
</div>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-89997576851076621382016-10-15T10:51:00.001-07:002016-10-15T11:02:38.297-07:00The target article for your next analysis is "Epistemic agency," by Catherine Elgin. It is available <a href="http://elgin.harvard.edu/undg/virtue.pdf">here</a>, and there is also a link to it on the schedule page under week 6 supplementary readings. First draft due 10/25. Final draft due 10/30.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: lime;">Also, you will find this week's reading "Why knowledge is merely true belief," on Blackboard at the very bottom of the supplementary readings. The schedule originally looked like it linked to the article, but this was an error.</span>G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-24848158438932866452016-10-14T08:46:00.003-07:002016-10-14T08:46:57.236-07:00We will finish Pritchard's article fairly quickly on Tuesday. Please read Sartwell's "Why knowledge is merely true belief." I will have study questions, quiz and discussion thread available by Sunday, but they will not be due until Wednesday night.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For your thought question, please read <a href="http://www.danceofreason.com/2016/02/seriously-lucky-knowledge.html">this pos</a>t. </div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>What is the strongest reason for rejecting the view advanced there?</li>
<li>Do you reject the view for this reason? Why or why not?</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-62305679305972761812016-10-11T12:46:00.003-07:002016-10-11T12:46:58.285-07:00We will finish Hannon's article on Thursday and get started on Pritchard's "Anti-Luck Virtue Epistemology."<br />
<br />
Thought question for Thursday<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Virtue epistemology holds that one knows that P only if ones true belief that P is produced by the exercise of a cognitive virtue.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li>What do you think is the strongest objection to this view?</li>
<li>What do you think is the strongest reply to this objection? </li>
<li>Do you think this reply is adequate? Why or why not?</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2295898979609340515.post-2935144436173278802016-10-06T10:53:00.002-07:002016-10-06T10:53:53.362-07:00<div class="tr_bq">
<br /></div>
We're going to skip "Elusive Knowledge," and read Pritchard's "Anti-luck Virtue Epistemology" for next week. However, we will start on that article on Thursday and questions and quiz won't be due until Wednesday night.<br />
<br />
For Tuesday we will finish Hannon's article.<br />
<br />
Thought question for Tuesday:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
There are hundreds of religions in your world, all fervently believed by millions of people. However, you are lucky enough to have been born into the correct one: Önism. Everything in your holy book, The Önid, is in fact the word of the Supreme Being, Ön, dictated by Ön through a perfectly reliable process. You learned the precepts of Önism as a child and have never seriously questioned them. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Everything in the holy books of the other religions relating to creation and the afterlife is false. But the Önid is no more convincing to members of other religions than the holy books of other religions are to Önists. Atheists exist in large numbers, and they find the Önid to be puerile nonsense, just like all the other religions. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Do your Önist beliefs count as knowledge? Explain. Does your explanation incline you to internalism or externalism?</blockquote>
<br />
G. Randolph Mayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18285281186698499962noreply@blogger.com0