Ok, that's a wrap!

Here's how we finish:

1. Final draft of Analysis 3 due Sunday December 11
2. Upload your finished Google Doc to Turnitin per the instructions in the syllabus.
3. Final exam: Tuesday December 13, 10:15 - 12:15
 

We'll finish the explanatory co-existence paper on Thursday.

Last thought question:

• What, if anything, that we studied this semester do you expect to find yourself thinking about later when you don't have to anymore?

The final exam questions are now posted on the top of the schedule page and here.

See previous post for Tuesday's thought question.

Be sure to read the previous post if you missed it.

Thought question for Tuesday

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?

(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.)

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:

• 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.

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.

We will move on to our last reading on Monday Bundles of contradiction, by T. Lombrozo & A. Shtulman. I will have all the relevant materials up by today or tomorrow. 

Note that the first draft for your last analysis is due on Tuesday night.

Since you are all working on it, I will make the test due Wednesday night.

Thought question for Thursday:

Can a belief discordant alief ever be the target of rationalization? If so, provide an example showing how. If not, explain why.

Thought question for Tuesday:

1. Do you think rationalization, as Ellis and Schwitzgebel define it, is irrational?

2. Do you think it is ever to our benefit to rationalize in this sense? 

3. Are your answers to the above questions compatible with your answer to the question from last week?  It was:

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.