Philosophy 1000 - Paper assignment 1

The paper has several parts.
* It will have a thesis. The thesis must have a very specific format. Either it must be from the list below, or I must approve it in writing.
* It will give an argument that your thesis is true.
* It will discuss what the authors we have read would think about your views.
* If an author would disagree, you explain why and then respond to their objection.
* It will explain a novel objection to your thesis. This is an objection we have not covered in class. You must do your best to make this look like a good objection (even though you don't believe it is a good objection, since you believe your thesis).
* Finally, it will explain why the novel objection does not work, and so why your thesis really is true.

The grading standards are here.

Pre-approved theses:

You may not change any aspect of these theses (except to fill in the brackets in each) without my written approval. These theses contain two conditionals; you must argue for both, but only have to give a counterexample to one.

* Assuming that A is not aware of any defeaters for their belief: If [condition(s)] then A's belief that religious proposition p is true is epistemically justified; if [those conditions are not met], then A's belief that religious proposition p is true is not epistemically justified. (Basically, this thesis is about what counts as evidence or prima facie justification for religious belief)

* If [condition(s)] then A can form epistemically justified beliefs by treating B as more likely to be correct than C about proposition p; if [those conditions are not met], then when A treats B as more likely to be correct than C, A's beliefs are not justified. (This topic is about when you should trust one person over another, given that they disagree)

* If [conditions] then A can have epistemically justified beliefs about a disputed religious claim X; if [those conditions are not met], then A cannot have epistemically justified beliefs about a disputed religious claim X. (Basically, the issue here is: when is dispute a defeater? By "disputed religious claim," I mean claims that different religions disagree on: e.g. that Jesus was the messiah, or that humans will be reincarnated after death. You aren't supposed to pick a particular claim as X; instead, your paper is about justification and religious disagreement in general)

* If [conditions] then it is practically rational for A to act on the basis of faith; if [those conditions are not met] then it is not practically rational. (Use "faith" as Buchak means it) (You can also argue that acting on faith is always practically rational, or never practically rational)

* If [conditions] then A can have epistemically justified beliefs about a decision which involves a transformative experience; if [those conditions are not met], then A cannot have justified beliefs about decisions which involves a transformative experience. (By "a decision involving a transformative experience," I am talking about what Paul is talking about: cases where there is a decent chance that the decision might be personally transformative).

* If A's belief that p is true is due to a testimonial injustice [and conditions], then A's belief that p is epistemically justified; if A's belief that p is true is due to a testimonial injustice [and those conditions are not met], then A's belief that p is not epistemically justified. (Note: if you want, your thesis can be "If A's belief that p is true is due to a testimonial injustice, then A's belief that p is not justified.")
* If [conditions] then it is practically rational to make a decision that involves a potentially personally transformative experience; if [those conditions] are not met, then it is not practically rational. (The decisions in question are those where one possible course of action could lead to a personally transformative experience (as Paul uses the term))


Possible other topics
Theses on these topics must be approved by me; that is, if you write on one of these, I have to have approved, in writing, the exact thesis your paper is about. Your proposed thesis should have the same structure as those above; that is, it should tell me "If [conditions] then such and such is true; if [those conditions are not met], then it is not."

* Pick a topic other than religion about which there is extensive disagreement, and write about when beliefs on this topic are or are not justified. Science, morality, or politics are good examples.

* Imagine that A goes through some transformative experience at time T; after time T, should A trust the beliefs they formed before the experience? If A knows, before T, that A will have different beliefs after the experience, should A trust their future self's beliefs?

* Who should we trust when we are not experts on a subject, and we know that experts disagree?

* How does it affect the justification of our beliefs when we have cognitive biases that we are not aware of (and maybe cannot be aware of)?

* What is the nature of faith (for this topic, you can't accept Buchak's view)? Is faith ever epistemically justified?

* Do practical considerations ever affect epistemic justification?

* I'm open to you writing on other topics; send me your ideas. I suggest doing so before your paper outlines are due, so you don't put too much time into a topic that won't be approved.

A note on trivial theses (this applies to both pre-approved and novel theses) Here's an example of a trivial thesis: "If A cannot form justified beliefs by trusting B, then it is not reasonable for A to trust B." That's not worth writing about: the antecedent and consequent mean basically the same thing. Trivial theses are no good because there are really not informative. You are not allowed to write about trivial theses.


Deadlines
Thesis proposal due: Oct 5, 8pm. Turn in by email, in the body of your email, not as an attachment. Subject line 1000 OUTLINE PAPER 1.
Draft due: Oct 19, 8pm, email it to your partner (as an attachment) and cc Brian. Subject line 1000 DRAFT PAPER 1.
Comments due: Oct 21, 8pm, email to your partner and cc Brian. Subject line 1000 COMMENTS PAPER 1
Paper Due: Oct 26, 8pm by email; subject line 1000 PAPER 1 FINAL.


This line intentionally left blank