PHILOSOPHY 432 – THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

Spring 2008 Professor M.A. Bergmann

Phone: 494-4584 Office Hours: most Tuesdays/Thursdays 4:30pm-5:30pm in BRNG 7140 Email: bergmann@purdue.edu

Texts: Course Packet (CopyMat)

Requirements: 20% - Participation

40% - Final Paper (2400-3200 words)

40% - Take-home final exam

Course Objectives:

1. To introduce you to some of the main problems in contemporary analytic epistemology.

2. To help you develop some of the skills necessary for thinking clearly and critically about these problems

Participation: This is a reading-based course. It will depend for its success on your reading carefully the assigned readings and discussing them intelligently with the rest of us in class. In order to discuss the reading intelligently with the rest of us, you must prepare. The way to prepare is to read each selection just prior to the time we discuss it in class, working hard at understanding it. Because many of the assigned readings are rather difficult, you may have to read parts of them more than once and you should make notes while you’re reading. These notes will highlight important points, summarize things you understand, inquire about things you don't understand, and outline the overall argument of the selection. Be careful to check whether you are to skip any portion of the assigned reading for the day.

Three things will affect your participation grade: (i) attendance; (ii) contributing to the class discussion in a way that demonstrates intelligent engagement with the readings; (iii) handing in questions about, objections to, or partial summaries of the readings. Regarding the first, I will take attendance each day by circulating a sheet for you to sign. Regarding the second, you don’t need to be a know-it-all to do well here. But you need to show you’ve thought hard about the reading material. A good question can boost your participation grade as much as a good answer. I realize that some of you will find it easier than others to speak out in class. But I’d like you all to have at least something to say in class during the semester.

The third contributor to your participation grade will be given the most weight. There are 19 reading selections on the schedule on the other side of this sheet (3 intro, 5 on prob #1, 5 on prob #2, and 6 on prob #3). The first one is due to be read on the second day of class. For 15 of the 19 readings, you are to hand in either a good question you have about the reading or a good objection to it or a brief 2-3 sentence summary of an important point made in the reading. You get to choose which 4 you want to skip; and you get to choose each time whether to hand in a question or an objection or a summary (you can do some of each throughout the semester). You goal, in writing the question or objection or summary, is to hand in something that demonstrates intelligent engagement with the reading. You can feel free to ask your written question in class discussion (after you hand it in).

You must hand in the question or objection or summary at the beginning of class on the day the reading is scheduled to be discussed. I will not accept any handed in late, not even after class on the day they are due, since we’ll be discussing the paper in class on the due date. I will assign a grade to each of ‘Satisfactory’ or ‘Unsatisfactory’ and these grades will count toward your participation grade.

Paper: Your paper will have four sections. In the first section (500-700 words) you will clearly and succinctly state and explain the position of one of our authors (or some other author referred to in our readings). In the second section (700-900 words) you will present the strongest objection you can think of to the position presented in section I. You can use the ideas of other authors as an aid in this section but there should be something original here; the more (intelligent) originality the better. In the third section (500-700 words) you will present, on behalf of the author of the position described in section I, the strongest response you can think of to your critical remarks in section II. Then in section IV (700-900 words) you will defend your objection of section II against the response to it in section III.

On March 25 you will hand in on a sheet of paper a very brief summary (a few sentences) of the position you will describe in section I. I will let you know if the position you've selected is an acceptable focus for your paper. On April 8 you will hand in sections I and II of your paper. I will hand these back with advice on how they can be improved. On April 24 (the last day of class), you will hand in sections I and II (rewritten) together with sections III and IV. Only the final paper will receive a grade (although your final paper grade will be reduced if you miss the earlier deadlines without an acceptable excuse). The earlier submissions will be returned with only the comments already alluded to and an indication of whether your work so far is acceptable, borderline or unacceptable. Late papers are unacceptable.

Take-Home Exam: I don't really like exams because they tend to test your memorization abilities more than anything else. But I do want to test your general understanding of the material we've covered in the course. I will hand out a take-home exam on the last day of class (due during exam week). Your work for the participation grade will help you to prepare for this exam.

Quality of Written Work Expected: I expect that all written work (the paper, the take-home exam and the reading questions/summaries) will be in proper English, free of grammatical and spelling errors, neatly typed, with no freshman-style fluff. This is a 400-level course; 200-level work will receive a low grade.

Tentative Schedule

Introduction

1/10 Intro

1/15 Pollock

1/17 Chisholm, sects 1-10

1/22 Gettier

Problem #1:Foundationalism vs. Coherentism

1. Foundationalism and an Objection

1/24 Plantinga, WCD, ch. 4, sects I & III

1/29 BonJour, SEK, ch. 2

1/31 no reading

2/5 no reading

2. Coherentism and an Objection

2/7 BonJour, “CTEK,” sects I-III

2/12 BonJour, “CTEK,” sect IV

2/14 Plantinga WCD, ch. 4, sect II

2/19 no reading

Problem #2: Internalism vs. Externalism

1. Some Objections to Internalism

2/21 Alston, “Int & Ext,” sects I-II (185-88, 196-203, 209-11)

2/26 Alston, “Int & Ext,” sect III (211-28)

2/28 no reading

2. An Objection to Externalism

3/4 BonJour, SEK, ch. 3 (to end of 3.3)

3/6 no reading

3/10-14 SPRING BREAK

3. A Dilemma for Internalism

3/18 Bergmann, “Dilemma,” (sect 1-2.1)

3/20 Bergmann, “Dilemma,” (sects 2.2-3)

3/25 no reading SUMMARY OF SECTION I DUE

Problem #3: Skepticism

1. A Skeptical Argument

3/27 Alston, RSP, ch 2 & ch 4, sect vi

2. Response #1: Denying Closure

4/1 Nozick (pp. 79-82)

4/3 Nozick (pp. 86-92)

3. Response #2: Contextualism

4/8 DeRose, sects 1-6 SECTIONS I-II DUE

4/10 no reading

4. Response #3: Commonsensism

4/15 Bergmann/Reid

4/17 Sosa, sects VI & VII

4/22 no reading

4/24 no reading FINAL DRAFT DUE