18 No class. Take an exam or something.
This course aims at
Following some introductory matters, in the first portion of the course we will consider the merits of the two main approaches to justification: foundationalism and coherentism. In succeeding portions of the course, we will consider the merits of approaches within the alternative tradition of naturalized epistemology, efforts to develop reliabilist and social epistemologies, some feminist considerations in theory of knowledge, and the merits of relativistic approaches to epistemology. We will address the issue whether we should accept the so-called "replacement thesis" of Willard van Orman Quine, and take up the possibility that quite different systems of belief might count as knowledge.
We will consider more or less elaborate epistemological accounts and meta-epistemological considerations presented by Roderick Chisolm, Laurence J. BonJour, Willard van Orman Quine, David Annis, Jerry Fodor, Lynn Hankinson Nelson, Alvin Goldman, Keith Lehrer, Edmund Gettier, Richard Rorty, Amelie Rorty, Stephen P. Stich, and Catherine Z. Elgin. The final weeks of the course will principally concern the "irrealism" or "radical relativism under rigorous restraints" advocated by Nelson Goodman.
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
The Dancy and Sosa volume provides a valuable overview and reference source for some of the issues central to the course. Keep it by your side to provide background information to help you follow other things you read, but also read specific entries when assigned in the course schedule.
The Moser book and the readings I have assembled cover a fair range, though the editors' biases are no doubt reflected. Although we will subject the essays to criticism, they represent what I take to be significant work, by (mostly) distinguished philosophers trying to address core epistemological issues.
The McCormick book is a collection of essays clustered around one particular debate in contemporary epistemology that brings to a head issues that have recurred throughout the modern period in philosophy.
Schedule of Topics
and Assignments
(The schedule is subject to change as
circumstances warrant. Any
amendments to this schedule will be
announced in class.)
26 Introduction and orientation. The nickel history of epistemology. The traditional analysis of knowledge.
28 Propositional knowledge. Empirical knowledge. Justification. Read the entries "knowledge, and belief," "propositional knowledge," and "perceptual knowledge" in Dancy and Sosa.
2 The problem of the criterion. Certainty. Read the entries, "certainty," "criteria and
knowledge," and "problem of the criterion" in Dancy and Sosa.
4 One foundationalism regarding empirical beliefs. Read Roderick Chisolm, "The Myth of the Given," in Moser, and "foundationalism," and "incorrigibility" in Dancy and Sosa.
9 Epistemic regress. Coherentism. Read Laurence J. BonJour, "Can Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?" in Moser, and entries "the given," "infinite regress argument" in Dancy and Sosa.
11 One coherentism. Read Keith Lehrer, "The Coherence Theory of Knowledge," in Moser, and "coherentism" in Dancy and Sosa.
16 Reliabilism. Read, "causal theories in epistemology," "reliabilism," and "externalism/internalism" in Dancy and Sosa.
18 Reliabilism. Read Ernest Sosa, "Reliabilism and Intellectual Virtue," in Moser.
23 Contextualism. Read David B. Annis, "A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification," in Moser.
25 The Gettier Problem. Read Edmund Gettier, "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?" in Moser, and
"Gettier problem" in Dancy and Sosa.
30 Analytic responses to Gettier. Read John Pollock, "The Gettier Problem," and Earl Conee, "Why Solve the Gettier Problem?" in Moser.
2 Naturalized epistemology. Read Willard van Orman Quine, "Epistemology Naturalized," in Moser, "first philosophy," "naturalized epistemology," and "psychology and epistemology" in Dancy and Sosa.
7 Consequences of naturalizing epistemology. Read Louise Antony, "Quine as
Feminist: The Radical Import of a Naturalized Epistemology" in Moser.
9 A pragmatism. Read Richard Rorty, "Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism," in Moser, and "Rorty, Richard," in Dancy and Sosa.
14 In defense of normativity. Read Hillary Putnam, "Why Reason Can't Be Naturalized."
16 Observation. Read Jerry Fodor, "The Dogma that Didn't Bark (A Fragment of a Naturalized
Epistemology)."
21 Fall recess. No class meeting.
23 Fall recess. No class meeting.
28 Considered judgment. Read Catherine Z. Elgin, "The Failure of Foundationalism."
30 Epistemology naturalized. Read Alvin Goldman, "Epistemic Folkways and Scientific Epistemology," in Moser.
4 Epistemology naturalized, socialized, and politicized. Read Lynn Hankinson Nelson,
"Epistemological Communities."
6 Rationality. Read "rationality," in Dancy and Sosa.
11 Rationality.
13 Goodman. Read Peter J. McCormick, "Introduction," and Nelson Goodman, "The Way the World Is," in Starmaking, and "Goodman, Nelson" in Dancy and Sosa.
18 Goodmanian worldmaking. Read "Words, Works, Worlds," and "On Rightness of Rendering," in Starmaking.
20 Reactions to Goodmanian worldmaking. Read Putnam, "Reflections," Carl G. Hempel, "Comments," and Israel Scheffler, "The Wonderful Worlds of Goodman," in Starmaking.
25 Starmaking. Read Goodman, "On Starmaking," in Starmaking.
27 Thanksgiving.
2 Goodman and Scheffler. Read "Notes on the Well-Made World," "Reply to Goodman," and "On Some Worldly Worries," in Starmaking.
4 Goodman. Read Scheffler, "Worldmaking: Why Worry," Putnam, "Irrealism and Deconstruction," and Goodman, "Comments," in Starmaking.
9 Read Amelie Rorty, "Relativism, Persons, and Practices."
11 Truth day. Retrospect and prospect.
16 Final examination. 8-10 AM.
18 No class. Take an exam or something.
Grading
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. They do need to be clear and coherent. These papers, taken together, account for fifty percent of your grade for the course.
Collegial participation is expected of every student. This class will be taught as a seminar, and that works only if students carry a measure of the burden for making class time worthwhile. 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 assigned in Early December. It is due, with the same format expectations as your papers, on the occasion of the in-class portion of the exam (December 16, 8:00 a.m.). The two portions of the exam together account for thirty percent of your grade in the course.
To review that:
Bruce Umbaugh's Home Page
or Course Info Page.
Philosophy Department
home page
to the Webster University home page
