PY3001: EPISTEMOLOGY
Semester 1:
September 2003-January 2004.
Number of students: 60 (approx)
Course Organiser and Lecturer:
Patrick Greenough
Seminar instructor: Patrick Greenough.
LECTURES
Lecture 1.
The Rock of Fallibilism and the Whirlpool of Scepticism: the Dilemma of Epistemology. (Week 1)
Lecture 2. Knowledge, Fallibilism, and False Evidence. (Week 2)
Lecture 3. Evidence One Does Not Possess. (Week 3)
Lecture 4. Thermometers, Barometers, and Truth-tracking: Reliabilism from Russell to Nozick. (Week 4)
Lecture 5. Relevant and Irrelevant alternatives: the Reliabilist Response to the Sceptic. (Week 5)
Lecture 6. From Old Reliabilism to New Reliabilism: Better Safe than Sensitive. (Week 6)
Lecture 7. Chicken Sexers, Pottery Experts, and Clairvoyants: the Internalism-Externalism Debate. (Week 8)
Lecture 8. Easy Knowledge, Useless Knowledge: is Knowing Really a Virtuous State? (Week 9)
Lecture 9. Good Knowledge, Bad Knowledge: Anti-Anti-Luck Epistemology. (Week 10)
Lecture 10. Ignorance in the Epistemology Seminar: the Case for Contextualism. (Week 11)
Lecture 11. Meta-epistemic Scepticism and the End of Epistemology. (Week 12)
- Note: there are no lectures in week 7 (reading week).
LECTURES: TIME AND PLACE
Day:
Tuesdays.
Time: 12 noon.
Place: Upper College Hall (Note this is a change.)
Please note:
- Missing one lecture is OK, but if you miss two or more you will certainly struggle to keep up.
- Please bring all relevant reading materials with you to the lecture (e.g. set text, relevant photocopies, and previous handouts).
SEMINARS
Please sign-up for a seminar slot at the first lecture.
If you any queries about signing up for a seminar please contact Patrick, Room 202, Edgecliffe (email: pmg2@st-and.ac.uk; ext. 2481 (internal); 01334 462481 (external)).
Bring all relevant course materials (handouts, coursepack, photocopies, etc) to each seminar.
VERY IMPORTANT: Make sure you are properly prepared for each seminar by doing all the set reading and answering all the set questions.
Many students find it very useful to get their heads together before a seminar to discuss the key questions and issues ¾ I strongly encourage you to do so. That way, learning and thinking becomes easier and much more of a pleasure.
SEMINAR SCHEDULE
Seminar 1.
(week 2): Knowledge, Fallibilism, and False Evidence.
Set Reading:
- Edmund Gettier (1963): 'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?', Analysis 23, pp. 121-23.
- Richard Feldman (1973): 'All Alleged Defect in Gettier Counterexamples', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 52, pp. 68-9.
Additional Reading:
- Stephen Hetherington (1996): 'False Evidence', Chapter 11 of his Knowledge Puzzles, Boulder: Westview Press.
Seminar 2. (week 3): Evidence One Does Not Possess.
Set Reading:
- John Pollock (1986): Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, pp. 180-93.
Additional Reading:
- Stephen Hetherington (1996): 'Defeasibility', Chapter 9 of his Knowledge Puzzles, Boulder: Westview Press.
- Stephen Hetherington (1996): 'Social Defeasibility', Chapter 10 of his Knowledge Puzzles, Boulder: Westview Press.
Seminar 3. (week 4): Thermometers, Barometers, and Truth-tracking: Reliabilism from Russell to Nozick.
Set Reading:
- Robert Nozick (1981): 'Knowledge', from his Philosophical Explanations, pp. 172-85.
Additional Reading:
- Stewart Cohen (1992): 'Relevant Alternatives', in Dancy and Sosa (eds): A Companion to Epistemology, Blackwells.
- Alvin Goldman (1992): 'Reliabilism', in Dancy and Sosa (eds): A Companion to Epistemology, Blackwells.
Seminar 4. (week 5): Relevant and Irrelevant Alternatives: the Reliabilist Response to the Sceptic.
Set Reading:
- Robert Nozick (1981): 'Scepticism', from his Philosophical Explanations, pp.197-217.
Seminar 5. (week 6): From Old Reliabilism to New Reliabilism: Better Safe than Sensitive.
Set Reading:
- Ernest Sosa (1999): 'How to Defeat Opposition to Moore', in J. E. Tomberlin (ed.) Epistemology, Philosophical Perspectives 13, Blackwells.
Seminar 6. (week 8): Chicken Sexers, Pottery Experts, and Clairvoyants: the Internalism-Externalism Debate.
Set Reading:
- Earl Conee and Richard Feldman (2000): 'Internalism Defended', American Philosophical Quarterly,
Seminar 7. (week 9): Easy knowledge, Useless Knowledge: is Knowing Really a Virtuous State?
Set Reading:
- Linda Zagzebski: Excerpts from Virtues of the Mind, pp. 134-7, pp. 166-84.
Seminar 8. (week 11): Good knowledge, Bad knowledge: Anti-Anti-Luck Epistemology.
Set Reading:
- Stephen Hetherington (1998): 'Actually Knowing', The Philosophical Quarterly, 48, pp. 453-469.
Seminar 9. (week 12): Ignorance in the Epistemology Seminar: the Case for Contextualism.
Set Reading:
- Keith DeRose (1995): 'Solving the Sceptical Problem', The Philosophical Review, 104, pp 1-7, pp. 17-52.
Additional reading:
- David Lewis (1996): 'Elusive Knowledge', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, pp. 549-67.
- NOTE: There are no seminars in week 7 (reading week) AND no seminars in week 10 as this is the week before your course project is due to be handed in (hence you will have a bit more time to prepare your project).
SEMINAR GROUPS
Group 1:
Thursdays 9am -10am, Room G01, Edgecliffe.
Group 2: Thursdays 10am-11am, Room G01, Edgecliffe
Group 3: Thursdays 11am-12pm, Room G01, Edgecliffe.
Group 4: Thursdays 12pm-1pm, Room G01, Edgecliffe.
Group 5: Fridays 11am-12pm, Room 104, Edgecliffe.
Group 6: Fridays 12pm-1pm, Room 104, Edgecliffe.
HANDOUTS
There will be a detailed handout for every lecture.
However, please note that these handouts will often be deliberately incomplete ¾ by coming to the lecture you will be able to complete the missing sections.
Indeed, even the parts that are complete will not make much sense unless you come to the lectures.
At the end of every handout there will be a set of comprehension questions and discussion questions which relate to both the content of the lecture and the set reading.
Comprehension questions are designed to test your basic knowledge of the key terms, main theses, and basic moves concerning a particular problem.
Discussion questions, on the other hand, are designed to get you thinking about how one might best evaluate, reshape, and resolve a philosophical problem.
You should attempt all of these questions each week ¾ your seminar leader (Patrick) will want to ask you about your answers in the seminars.
The handouts will also guide you as to what is most relevant to read for each particular topic.
ASSESSMENT
This is a core module for Junior Honours in Philosophy. However, should you wish to take this course, it is also available to everyone with a sufficient background in philosophy (consult your honours advisor if you are unsure whether you are equipped to take this course).
It is a 15 credit module.
Assessment is by 2 hour exam (60%) in February and one coursework project (40%)
The overall grade for each module will be published by the University at the end of the semester in which it is taught.
Grades will be given on the 20-point marking scale: 17-20 Distinction / First Class; 14-16 High Merit / Upper Second Class; 11-13 Low Merit / Lower Second Class; 8-10 Third Class; 5-7 Pass; 1-4 Fail/no credit awarded.
Please Note: It is expected that you will be familiar, and will comply, with the regulations given in the booklet:
Honours Programmes In Philosophy: Information for Students 20032005.
WHAT WE EXPECT OF YOU
The overall aim of this course is to make you think critically for yourself rather than merely reproducing the ideas of others.
Philosophy is not about spoon-feeding received facts which must be duly regurgitated in essays and exams.
The students at St. Andrews are amongst the brightest and most stimulating students in the UK. Nobody wants a university to be an educational factory which takes in such bright students yet ends up turning out mindless, dull, vapid, individuals whose only skill consists in memorising lecture notes. This course is designed to avoid that. Hence, in order properly fulfil your potential I simply ask you to meet the course halfway.
Lectures are simply there in order to introduce you to the key philosophical problems and suggest some possible lines of response.
The lectures and seminars are thus simply a springboard for you to go on and read and think for yourself.
Outside of lectures and seminars we fully expect you to be reading and researching the topics for yourself (as well as having a good time).
As this is a 15 credit course, this means it should constitute about one fifth of your workload this semester.
Assuming a 36 hour week, you should plan to spend about six-seven hours per week on average on this module: two hours for lectures and seminars, leaving four to five hours of private study.
Private study should consist of reading your lecture notes and handouts, preparing for the seminars and doing some additional reading and research relevant to the topic.
Thinking for yourself, doing independent research, showing initiative, and taking appropriate intellectual risks will be rewarded highly.
Please note: You should consult your email every few days as it is assumed by all course lecturers, seminar instructors, and tutors that email is the default method of communication.
COURSE PROJECT
In order to encourage you to think for yourself, I've decided to set a course project rather than simply set a coursework essay.
Your options are:
- A Critical Notice of a particular book on epistemology (2500-3000 words).
- Two short essays (1250-1500 words each).
- One extended essay (2500-3000 words).
- One essay (2000 words) and one short book review (1000 words)
- YOU have to choose the title of your essay(s).
- YOU have to choose the book to either review or write a critical notice on.
- It's entirely up to you to decide on just how broad or focussed your chosen option is to be.
- However, I can give you guidance if you find yourself at a complete loss as to what title or type of project to choose. (Just
email me if you need to.)
(A Critical Notice is sometimes known as a review article--it's more or less an extended and highly evaluative review and typically has footnotes, sections, and a bibliography.)
PLEASE NOTE:
- The deadline for submitting your option is:
24th November (the Monday of week Nine)
You should submit your option via email to Patrick.
You need to give the following details:
- Your name
- Your preferred option (from 1-4 above)
- The title or titles of your Critical Notice, review, or essay(s).
- A short summary (about 100 words) of your course project
- The course project for PY3001 is due in on Monday
8th December (the Monday of week Eleven).
The project itself, of course, is to be submitted in the essay box (see below).
FURTHER DETAILS:
- If you do not submit an option to me by 24th November I will (randomly) choose the title of a 3000 word essay for you.
- The course project counts for 40% of your final mark.
- Your project and examination answers should not overlap in content.
- I (Patrick) strongly encourage you to ensure that your project is either typed or word processed (rather than hand-written).
- Work that is not legible will be returned.
- You should make three copies of your project.
- Submit two copies and keep the third for yourself.
- Make sure you attach and sign a 'Declaration of Own Work' form with your project.
- Projects should be "posted" only in the essay box in the basement of Edgecliffe.
- Projects should be marked with your name, your tutor's name, the module number, and the title.
- Projects will be returned with grades and brief comments normally within two weeks of submission.
- There are stringent rules as to the granting of an extension (be warned: I hardly ever do so).
- Normally extensions can only be granted for certified illness or serious personal difficulties.
- Plagiarism (passing someone else's work off as your own without acknowledgement) will be very harshly punished and may lead to you failing your degree.
THE COURSEPACK
There is no set text for this course. The set readings are all contained in the COURSEPACK.
This is available from Tuesday 30th September from Rhona Paterson, The Undergraduate Course Administrator (Room 1002, Department of Philosophy, Edgecliffe).
It should cost in the region of £3-£4 (far cheaper than having a set text).
The Coursepack contains the following 16 readings:
- Edmund Gettier (1963): 'Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?', Analysis 23, pp. 121-23.
- Richard Feldman (1973): 'All Alleged Defect in Gettier Counterexamples', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 52, pp. 68-9.
- Stephen Hetherington (1996): 'False Evidence', Chapter 11 of his Knowledge Puzzles, Boulder: Westview Press.
- John Pollock (1986): Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, pp. 180-93.
- Stephen Hetherington (1996): 'Defeasibility', Chapter 9 of his Knowledge Puzzles, Boulder: Westview Press.
- Stephen Hetherington (1996): 'Social Defeasibility', Chapter 10 of his Knowledge Puzzles, Boulder: Westview Press.
- Robert Nozick (1981): 'Knowledge', from his Philosophical Explanations, pp. 172-85.
- Stewart Cohen (1992): 'Relevant Alternatives', in Dancy and Sosa (eds): A Companion to Epistemology, Blackwells.
- Alvin Goldman (1992): 'Reliabilism', in Dancy and Sosa (eds): A Companion to Epistemology, Blackwells.
- Robert Nozick (1981): 'Scepticism', from his Philosophical Explanations, pp.197-217.
- Ernest Sosa (1999): 'How to Defeat Opposition to Moore', in J. E. Tomberlin (ed.) Epistemology, Philosophical Perspectives 13, Blackwells.
- Earl Conee and Richard Feldman (2000): 'Internalism Defended', American Philosophical Quarterly,
- Linda Zagzebski: Excerpts from Virtues of the Mind, pp. 134-7, pp. 166-84.
- Stephen Hetherington (1998): 'Actually Knowing', The Philosophical Quarterly, 48, pp. 453-469.
- Keith DeRose (1995): 'Solving the Sceptical Problem', The Philosophical Review, 104, pp 1-7, pp. 17-52.
- David Lewis (1996): 'Elusive Knowledge', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, pp. 549-67
- These readings are the minimum you should read in order to be adequately prepared for each seminar.
- Nearly all of them are quite short and the majority are very accessible (though some of the later readings get a bit harder).
ADDITIONAL READING: SEMINAR BY SEMINAR
You can find a set of additional readings for each seminar here.
ADDITIONAL READING: GENERAL
You can find a general bibliography for epistemology here
PHILOSOPHICAL DICTONARIES:
NOTE: If you haven't done so already, it is absolutely
ESSENTIAL that you but a dictionary of Philosophy. Try one (or two) of:
- Audi, R. (ed.) (1999): The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press .
- Blackburn, S. (1996): The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford: OUP.
- Flew, A. and Priest, S. (eds) (2002): A Dictionary of Philosophy, Pan.
- Mautner, T. (ed.) (1997): The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Penguin Books.
Please Note: Many of the books recommended for reading during the course should be available from the
Philosophy Class Library, as well as from the University Library. We recommend that you learn to use the Philosophy Class Library system, since many of the books you will need to consult will be on restricted access. The Departmental Librarian, Mrs Read, is very helpful and will be glad to assist you.
ELECTRONIC RESOURCES FOR EPISTEMOLOGY
Keith DeRose's excellent web resource for epistemology can be found at:
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/e-page.htm
- Also, you might like to try:
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~kak7409/EpistemologicalResearch.htm
http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Topics.aspx?TopiCode=Epis
- And for Philosophy and the Matrix, try:
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/phi.html
GENERAL ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
ENCYCLOPAEDIAS:
DICTIONARIES:
DATABASES:
(Note: no password required for local access; contact jmy@st-and.ac.uk for password for remote access.)
ON-LINE JOURNALS:
- Many Philosophy Journals can be accessed on-line at:
http://www-library.st-andrews.ac.uk/External/Journals/philosophy.html
VERY USEFUL WEB LINKS:
BUBL: http://link.bubl.ac.uk/Philosophy/ (Links to a wide range of Philosophy Internet resources.)
Guide to Philosophy on the Internet: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/philinks.htm (perhaps THE philosophy site).
Philosophy at Large: http://www.liv.ac.uk/Philosophy/philos.html (detailed guide to Internet resources in philosophy, subdivided by type).
Philosophy in Cyberspace: http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~dey/phil/ (annotated guide to more than 1000 philosophy sites).
SOSIG: http://www.sosig.ac.uk/roads/subject-listing/World-cat/philos.html (Links to a wide range of Philosophy Internet resources).
St. Andrews Virtual Library and Study Resource Centre: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~vlibrary/vlhome.html
WWW Virtual Library: Philosophy: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Philosophy/VL/
JARGON-BUSTING: CONSTRUCT YOUR OWN GLOSSARY
It's a fact of life that analytic philosophy, like most other academic disciplines, involves a great deal of specialist terminology. You may feel a little daunted by the by the amount of unfamiliar terminology encountered in PY3001. But don't be. After a while much of this terminology (call it jargon) will become very familiar.
To facilitate your understanding, I strongly encourage you to produce a glossary of the key terms encountered in PY3001. Once you are on top of all this terminology, your study will become much more manageable.
Your glossary should at least include definitions of the following terms and expressions:
|
Accessibilism
Anti-luck epistemology
Bad knowledge
Belief
Cartesian scepticism
Causal theory of knowledge
Certainty
Closure
Conditional theory of knowledge
Contextualism
Defeasibility
Defeasibility analysis of knowledge
Defeater
Defeater defeater
Discrimination
Dreaming scepticism |
Easy knowledge
Error
Error scepticism
Evidence
Evidentialism
Externalism about knowledge
Externalism about evidence and justification
External world scepticism
Factivity of knowledge
Factivity of justification
Fallibilism about Justification
Fallibilism concerning knowledge
Foundationalism
Gettier cases
Generality problem
Good knowledge |
Gradualism
Ignorance
Illusion
Incorrigibility
Indubitability
Infallibilism
Indefeasibility
Internalism about knowledge
Internalism about evidence and justification
Irrelevant alternative
Irrevisability
JTB analysis of knowledge
Justification
KK principle
Know-how
Know-that
Knowledge
Lucky knowledge |
Mentalism
Meta-epistemic scepticism
Misleading evidence
Modal epistemology
Moral versus epistemic luck
No-false evidence analysis of knowledge
Omnsicience
Practical knowledge
Propositional knowledge
Reason
Relevant Alternatives theory of knowledge
Reliabilism |
Reliability, local
Reliability, global
Rule of attention
Safety condition
Scepticism
Sensitivity to falisty
Sensitivity to truth
Social defeasibility
Subjunctive conditional
Telos of belief
TB analysis of knowledge
Tracking
Tripartite analysis of knowledge
Truth condition
Virtue
Virtue epistemology |
- Note that in many, if not all, cases it may prove impossible to give an uncontroversial definition of these key terms. That's a fact of life that you have to learn to live with in philosophy. (It's actually no bad thing since philosophy would be rather stale and dull if these definitions were entirely uncontroversial.)
- Still, in the first instance, you should give the most typical definition of a term (the definition encountered in the lectures, or in Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias, and Companions to Philosophy). The most typical definition of a term may well not coincide with the best definition of a term. It's part of the challenge of philosophy to close the gap between typical and superlative definitions.
FEEDBACK
There will be questionnaires to fill in at the end of the course where you can give formal feedback.
Please make every effort to fill these questionnaires in ¾ your views are VERY gratefully received.
Informal feedback can be given at any time to either Richard, or myself (Patrick).
If you are struggling with the course, please sing out as soon as possible.
Remember: perplexity is the natural philosophical state, so don't be overly-concerned if you find parts of the course very hard or confusing.
Don't be afraid to raise any concerns you may have.
In general, if you are experiencing problems, personal or academic, which are affecting your work, you should let someone know (your lecturer, your seminar instructor or tutor, your Honours Supervisor, or staff at the Student Support Service) as soon as possible.
HOW TO WRITE A PHILOSOPHY ESSAY
Very useful advice on how to write a philosophy is essay is available from:
Jim Pryor's
Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Andrew Pyle's
On Writing a Philosophy Essay.
HOW TO SUCCEED IN EXAMS
I've written some guidance on how to succeed in exams. You can find it here.
UNIVERSITY COURSES ON: note-taking, essay-writing, and exam technique.
Did you know that the university puts on courses for all undergraduates in how to take notes, write essays, and succeed in exams?
You need to sign up for these courses in advance. Details can be found at the following link:
PAST PAPERS AND MOCK EXAMS
Past papers for all exams in the period 1999-2003 are available at:
http://exams.st-andrews.ac.uk/exams/
Note:
Since course co-ordinators often change from year to year, there is no guarantee that the content and format of past papers will resemble future exams. Katherine Hawley taught epistemology in 2002-3, and it's for this reason that I've written four mock exams to give you some idea of what to expect. These are are to be found at:
Four mock exams
© Patrick Greenough 2003.
If you have any suggestions as to how this site might be improved then please
email me.
Last modified: 7th December 2004.