Epistemology (PHIL 3300)

By Bruce Umbaugh Monday, January 05, 2004   Instructor Information Dr. Bruce Umbaugh office: Pearson House basement phone: 968-7172 (office) 968-7170 (PHIL office) email: bumbaugh@webster.edu office hours: 9:30-10:00 Tu or by appointment (I'm around the House a lot) Course Description This course aims at familiarizing students with the terrain of contemporary epistemology and helping students to map their own thinking about knowledge. Questions we will address include the nature of epistemic justification, whether the traditional epistemological project--of treating knowledge as justified, true belief--is itself misguided, what alternative projects promise, and what they do or might deliver. Throughout, our focus is on recent work in theory of knowledge, rather than on classical issues such as responding to scepticism or arguments over the relative virtues of rationalism and empiricism. Following some introductory matters, we will first briefly consider the merits of the two main approaches to justification: foundationalism and coherentism. In succeeding portions of the course, we will consider the alternative tradition of naturalized epistemology, the movement to develop social epistemologies, and the merits of relativistic approaches to epistemology. We will address the so-called "replacement thesis," and take up the possibility that quite different systems of belief might count as knowledge. We will consider work by Louise Antony, Laurence BonJour, Christopher Cherniak, Catherine Z. Elgin, Paul Feyerabend, Jerry Fodor, Nelson Goodman, Gilbert Harman, Philip Kitcher, Hilary Kornblith, Ellen Markman, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, Willard van Orman Quine, Amelie Rorty, Richard Rorty, and Miriam Solomon. Students who complete the course successfully should both understand the major positions and key concepts in contemporary epistemological debate and also be able to articulate their own epistemological views. This course aims to engage live philosophical issues with an eye to resolving them. We will do philosophy, and it will be heavy going at times. Still, I have no reason to think the material in this course is too difficult for any student who engages it and who tries seriously to master it. Textbooks Christopher Cherniak, Minimal Rationality, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1986. Catherine Z. Elgin, Considered Judgment, Princeton: Princeton, 1996. Hilary Kornblith, ed., Naturalizing Epistemology, second edition, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994. Bruce Umbaugh, ed., Modest Amalgam o' Materials for PHIL 3300, St. Louis: Webster University, 2004. Our readings are diverse, though they no doubt reflect my biases as editor. This is (what I take to be) significant work, (mostly) by distinguished philosophers trying to address core epistemological issues. Again, we aim both to understand these others' views and to think for ourselves. We will treat recent epistemological divisions and movements, and two theoretical accounts in detail. At the outset, we will consider a couple key debates about justification. We will consider the alternative offered by naturalized epistemology, relying mostly on Kornblith's volume. We will attend to Cherniaks's book both for its positive theoretical framework, as well as its critical stance. Finally, Elgin's Considered Judgment offers a comprehensive statement and defense of a sophisticated and rich epistemological position (or positions), coupled with commentary on contemporary alternatives. Schedule of Topics and Assignments   (Given the vagaries of life, the schedule is subject to change. Amendments will be announced in class as need be.) January 13 Introduction and orientation. The nickel history of epistemology. The traditional analysis of knowledge.   15 Justification and epistemic regress. Read BonJour, "Foundationalism: The Main Conception" [in packet]. 20 Justification, foundationalism, and coherentism. Read BonJour, "The Elements of Coherentism" [in packet]. 21 Naturalized epistemology. Read Willard van Orman Quine, "Epistemology Naturalized" and Hilary Kornblith, "Introduction: What Is Naturalistic Epistemology?" [both in Kornblith]. 27 Naturalized epistemology. Read Hilary Putnam, "Why Reason Can't Be Naturalized" [in packet]. 29 "Nature" and what's natural. Read Nelson Goodman, "The New Riddle of Induction" [in packet]. February 3 "Nature" and what's natural. Read Ellen Markman, "Natural Kinds" [in Kornblith]. 5 Naturalized epistemology, foundationalism, coherentism. Read Gilbert Harman, "Positive and Negative Undermining in Belief Revision" [in Kornblith]. 10 Minimal rationality. Read Cherniak, "Minimal Rationality," (Chapter 1 in Minimal Rationality). 12 Minimal rationality. Read Cherniak, "Feasible Inferences," (Chapter 2). 17 Minimal rationality.  Read Cherniak, "Rationality and the Structure of Human Memory," (Chapter 3). 19 Minimal rationality.  Read Cherniak, "The Special Reasons Requirement," (Chapter 5). 24 Minimal rationality. Read Cherniak, "Limits for Knowledge," (Chapter 6). 26 Consequences of naturalizing epistemology. Read Louise Antony, "Quine as Feminist: The Radical Import of a Naturalized Epistemology" [in packet]. March 2 Cognitive Management. Read Jerry Fodor, "The Dogma That Didn't Bark (A Fragment of a Naturalized Epistemology)" [in Kornblith]. 4 Social epistemology. Read Philip Kitcher, "Contrasting Conceptions of Social Epistemology" and Miriam Solomon, "A More Social Epistemology" [both in packet]. 09 Spring recess. No class meeting. 11 Spring recess. No class meeting. 16 Socializing epistemology? Read Richard Rorty, "Solidarity or Objectivity?" [in packet]. 18 Consequences of socializing epistemology? Read Paul Feyerabend, "How to Defend Society Against Science" [in packet]. 23 Considered Judgment. Read Catherine Z. Elgin, "Epistemology's End," (Ch. 1 in Considered Judgment). 25 Considered Judgment. Read Elgin, "The Failure of Foundationalism" (Ch. 2). 30 Considered Judgment. Read Elgin, "Knowledge by Consensus" (Ch. 3). April 1 Considered Judgment. Read Elgin, "The Merits of Equilibrium" (Ch. 4). 6 Considered Judgment. Read Elgin, "The Heart Has Its Reasons" (Ch. 5). 8 Considered Judgment. Read "Shifting Focus" (Ch. 6). 13  Considered Judgment. Read "Epistemic Interdependence" (Ch. 7). 15  Considered Judgment. 20   TBA    22   TBA 27 Skepticism. Read Thomas Nagel, excerpts from A View From Nowhere [in packet]. 29 Truth day. Retrospect and prospect. Read Amelie Rorty, "Relativism, Persons, and Practices" [in packet]. May 4 Final examination 8-10 a.m.  Grading Papers 50% Collegial participation 20% Final examination 30% Papers will be assigned several times throughout the term. Typically, they will ask you to make sense of some aspect of one of our texts, or to try to resolve some stumbling block to having an adequate epistemology. Finished work should be typewritten or word-processed, double-spaced, grammatically correct, and show evidence of having been proofread as necessary. Papers need not be long: a page or two should ordinarily suffice, and sometimes a single paragraph will do. They do need to be clear and coherent. These papers, taken together, account for fifty percent of your grade for the course. This class will be taught as a seminar, and that will only work if students carry a measure of the burden for making class time worthwhile. Collegial participation is expected of every student. I expect you to contribute to your colleagues' education, and I will regularly ask some of you to shoulder special responsibility for particular readings. Your collegial participation is worth twenty percent of your overall grade in the course. Finally, a final examination caps the course. The final will be in two parts. A take-home portion will be due, with the same format expectations as your papers, on the occasion of the in-class portion of the exam. The two portions of the exam together account for thirty percent of your grade in the course. Although attendance in class is not required, you are foolish to blow it off. Class meetings are an occasion for you to learn. Besides, there is ordinarily a strong correlation between good class attendance and good grades in a class such as this one, not least due to the difficulty of the material and the role of participation in grading. All sorts of information will presented in class, including elaboration of the assigned texts. Announcements will be made. Papers will be assigned. You are responsible for knowing all this and for having any additional materials distributed in class. Although I will make myself available to help students outside of class, students who do not attend class meetings should not expect to be rewarded with intensive assistance. Finally, note that I reserve the right to reward students who have attended class faithfully, displayed significant effort, and made important contributions to the class. Policy on academic dishonesty You are adults, attending a university. I expect you to behave responsibly. Students in this class are expected to do their own work and not to rely on the work of others. Students are welcome to work with one another to understand the material, but any student plagiarizing, cheating on an exam, aiding another student to cheat, or committing any other act of academic dishonesty will be referred for appropriate disciplinary action. Please consult with me if you have questions in this regard, either about your own work or that of another person.

Home