PHI 1010 Indian River Community College Module 3 Argument for Skepticism Essay M3A3 Essay 1 (Click Here)Attached Files: Essay 1 Directions.pdf Essay 1 Dir

PHI 1010 Indian River Community College Module 3 Argument for Skepticism Essay M3A3 Essay 1 (Click Here)Attached Files: Essay 1 Directions.pdf Essay 1 Directions.pdf – Alternative Formats (243.211 KB)Assignment DirectionsPlease review the attached handout above for detailed assignment instructions. Please refer to essay 20191_PHI1010_Essay 1 Directions (1).pdf located in the drag and drop box, the directions for the paper is their. Must be 3 pages long. Essay 1
Follow the instructions given below carefully.
Write an essay that focuses on one of the arguments found in any of the assigned readings for
modules 2 or 3.
The primary goal is to offer your own argument in response to one of the arguments assigned for the
class.
1. Submit your essay as an attachment. Use a word document file extension of some sort (rtf, doc, docx,
odt, etc.) do not submit a pdf file.
2. Do not quote or cite (or plagiarize) the PowerPoints from the course—they should only be used to help
you understand the material. All citations and quotations should come directly from the readings.
3. The essay should be 3 pages.
4. Do not use outside sources—only use the readings that were assigned for the course—do not go out
on the internet and look up sources.
Your essay must follow this format:
1.
Begin with an introductory paragraph that a) presents your thesis, b) identifies which text and
author you will discuss, and c) prepares the reader for the organization of your paper. Your
THESIS is a clear and exact statement of the claim you will support in your essay.
a.
Thesis Statement: You must tell the reader specifically what position you will
defend.
Example of a thesis statement:
“Carl Cohen’s claim that reason is required to justify the extension of moral
consideration is flawed. One’s capacity to suffer, should be the only requirement
necessary to justify the extension of moral consideration.”
2.
The body of the paper should consist in a focused discussion on the author’s argument from your
chosen reading. Your paper should provide a clear exposition of one of the arguments offered by
the specific author from the text you focus on. Following the exposition, give one or two
objections to the author’s claims. Discuss your objection(s) carefully. Provide the strongest
possible counter-argument or counterexample. Be sure that your objection(s) are specifically
linked to the arguments given by the author whose work you have exposited. Next, offer possible
responses to your objections. In other words, examine and discuss possible
responses/issues/problems with your objections/argument.
3.
The conclusion should not simply repeat what you have already said in the body of the paper. The
concluding remarks may reiterate briefly the structure of your foregoing argument and the
conclusion(s) you have reached. But, crucially, concluding remarks should say something more
than this. Are there still further, related questions that you have not addressed? Does your
discussion have an important implication for the topic, for philosophical theory, for life in
general? In other words, try to show how your work in this particular essay reaches out to other
topics of interest or paves the way for further argument or analysis. Remember that philosophy
papers rarely solve problems once and for all time, so resist the temptation to overstate or
exaggerate your conclusions. It is reasonable, even admirable, to acknowledge the limitations of
your discussion in your concluding remarks.
4.
Quote and cite the text to support your discussion (Footnotes or parenthetical citations are
preferred). All verbatim quotation must use quotation marks. Citations are also required for
paraphrases of the text. The goal is to point the reader to the appropriate passages of text where the
claims are made. Use quotations selectively; most of the paper should be written in your own
words. Use a works cited page.
In a nutshell:
1.
Tell the reader what text you will discuss, identify the specific author you will address, offer a
thesis statement (the position you will defend), and give a brief overview of how the essay
will proceed.
2.
Explicate the specific author’s argument from the text you have chosen—explain the
argument in detail, walk the reader through the argument step by step.
3.
Offer objections to the argument—point out problems with the author’s argument, and offer
your own argument in an effort to justify your claim that the author’s argument contains these
problems. Do not ignore the author’s counter arguments—for example, if the author addresses
a particular objection in their piece, and offers (a response) a reason to think these objections
are not problematic for their position, then be sure that you do not simply offer that very same
objection without addressing why their response does not work.
4.
Examine possible responses to your objections—discuss possible weaknesses/problems with
the argument you present in section three. What sorts of issues might one raise against your
argument? Note the weaknesses and/or limitations with your original argument.
5. Conclusion (see above)
* Be sure to read “How to Write a Philosophy Paper” in Blackboard.
OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
?
?
?
?
?
You need not do additional research. Focus on the essays we have read, or any of the
others in Blackboard (provided they were assigned and we have discussed them).
Your work must be your own, original writing. There are severe penalties for plagiarism
and cheating. See the syllabus for details.
Your paper should be double-spaced in 10 or 12-point font. Use standard margins. Do not
use a cover page.
Spell-check your paper. Proofread and edit your work to check for mistakes that
computer programs cannot catch.
At the top of the first page provide the following information single spaced:
Student Name
PHI 1010: Introduction to Philosophy
Date
?
Give your paper a title. DO NOT USE A COVER PAGE!
?
Quote and cite the text to support your discussion. (footnotes or parenthetical citations)
All verbatim quotation must use quotation marks. Citations are also required for
paraphrases of the text. The goal is to point the reader to the appropriate passages of text
where the claims are made. Use quotations selectively; most of the paper should be
written in your own words.
?
The exposition should provide a clear, accurate, precise, and selective account of the
author’s position.
CLEAR: Write in complete, grammatical sentences. Organize your thoughts.
ACCURATE: Give a fair and reasonable representation of the author’s position.
PRECISE: Avoid offering vague claims and mere generalities. Make your discussion
detailed, specific, and focused on the exact claims the author gives in support of the
particular arguments you will examine.
SELECTIVE: In a short paper you cannot cover all of the arguments or claims the
author gives. Select only those ideas, reasons, arguments that are directly relevant to your
discussion.
?
As a guideline, your first, introductory paragraph should not be more than ½ a page.
The exposition should take about 1 page and the presentation of your objection(s)
and response(s) should take about 1 page.
NOTE: This paper assignment focuses on exposition AND on critical thinking. The first
goal is to demonstrate that you have a solid understanding of the text, that you can explain
specific arguments from the text, and that you can appropriately cite and quote the text in
support of your discussion. The second goal is to critically evaluate the text. In formulating
your objection(s) to the text, you are attempting to provide reasons why we might reject the
author’s argument or claims. These reasons should identify specific problems with the
author’s claims, not merely a general difference of opinion or view. The reasons you offer in
formulating your objection should be reasonable, clear, intelligent, and as convincing as
possible.1
Plagiarism
Your essays will be run through a plagiarism checker. If you plagiarize an essay you
will receive a 0% for the essay, and may be failed for the course. There are no
second chances. If you are unclear about what constitutes plagiarism, then please
contact your professor prior to submitting your assignment.
A portion of this document was excerpted from Dr. Brook Sadler’s “Guidelines for Writing a Philosophy
Paper.”
1
ESSAY 1 RUBRIC
Categories
and
Weights
Excellent
Very Good
Average
Substandard
Failure
Introduction
&
Thesis
Statement
The Introductory
paragraph identifies
the author and text,
presents a clear and
focused summary of
the position to be
developed in the
paper, and presents
a thesis (What you
will defend/argue).
The Introductory
paragraph presents a
thesis; however, the
thesis seems somewhat
muddled and unclear,
or the writing is
confusing.
The Introductory
paragraph merely
implies a thesis. It is
difficult to tell what
the thesis of the paper
is and/or its relation
to the author’s
position. Or, it does
not identify an author
and text.
The thesis
presented is so
unclear that it is
difficult or
impossible to
decipher
and/or
unrelated to the
author’s
position.
The writer fails to
state a thesis in the
introductory
paragraph.
(90% – 100%)
(80% – 89%)
(70% – 79%)
(60% – 69%)
(0 – 59%)
The writer
demonstrates an
excellent
understanding of the
arguments/ position
of the author
through a clear and
concise explication of
the ideas to be
considered.
The writer
understands the
arguments/position
of the author;
however, either the
explication of this
understanding
wanders from the text
at times, or the
understanding is not
strong.
The writer presents
a limited
understanding of
the arguments/
position of the
author.
The writer
misunderstands the
arguments/ position
of the author.
The writer fails to
explicate
arguments/
position of the
author.
(90% – 100%)
(80% – 89%)
(70% – 79%)
(60% – 69%)
(0 – 59%)
The writer presents a
specific critical
analysis of the
author’s position, and
explicitly declares
his/her stance with
respect to the
author’s ideas (thesis).
The writer’s critical
analysis of the
author’s position
lacks precision or
strength, and/or does
not explicitly declare
his/her stance with
respect to the
author’s ideas.
The writer’s critical
analysis of the
author’s position is
superficial,
unconvincing, and
un-supported.
The writer fails to
critically analyze
the author’s
position in any
meaningful
manner.
The writer fails to
critically analyze the
author’s position.
(90% – 100%)
(80% – 89%)
(70% – 79%)
(60% – 69%)
(0 – 59%)
The writer raises a
strong response to
his/her own
objection, and
elaborates upon these
objections.
The writer raises solid
responses to his/her
objections, but fails to
elaborate on these
objections.
The writer makes use
of weak responses to
his/her objections,
and fails to elaborate
on these objections.
The writer fails to
consider relevant
responses to his or
her objections.
The writer fails to
consider a possible
response to his or
her objections.
(90% – 100%)
(80% – 89%)
(70% – 79%)
(60% – 69%)
(0 – 59%)
20%
Explication
25%
Objections
20%
Responses
15%
References
10%
Grammar
10%
The writer makes
use of relevant
textual citations and
smoothly fuses
these citations into
the paper without
breaking the flow
of the argument.
The writer makes use
of references;
however, the cited
material is forced and
seems to chop into the
flow of the paper, or is
not explained in detail.
The writer uses far too
many or too few
references such that it
is difficult to tell if the
writer understands the
text, or the writer fails
to employ appropriate
references to the text,
or the quotations are
not explained.
The text is sparsely
referenced, and/or
improper citations
methods are used.
The text is never
referenced, and/or
improper citations
methods are used.
(90% – 100%)
(80% – 89%)
(70% – 79%)
(60% – 69%)
(0 – 59%)
Few, if any,
grammatical errors.
Sentences read
smoothly without
being overly wordy.
Appropriate word
choices.
Minor grammatical
errors. Sentences are
somewhat wordy and
wandering. Word
choice is sometimes
questionable.
Numerous
grammatical errors.
Sentences, word
choice, and word
economy make it
difficult to follow the
writer’s arguments.
There are misspelled
words.
Far too many
grammatical errors
present. Incomplete
Sentences, poor
word choice, and/or
bad word economy
make it nearly
impossible to follow
the writer’s
arguments. There
are misspelled
words.
There are major
grammatical errors
present. Incomplete
Sentences, poor
word choice, and
bad word economy
make it impossible
to follow the
writer’s arguments.
There are
misspelled words.
(90% – 100%)
(80% – 89%)
(70% – 79%)
(60% – 69%)
(0 – 59%)
TOTAL: 100%
Other ways to earn an F:
____Illegible: The grammar, syntax, and style are so poor that it is nearly impossible to comprehend. Thus, making it impossible to determine if
other criteria are met.
____Plagiarism: The text includes plagiarized material – the student must meet with the instructor/professor to explain.
____Formatting: The paper was formatted in a manner as to subvert the minimum length requirement.
____Late Paper: The paper has exceeded the allowable number of days late.
Peter Unger: A Defense of
Skepticism
Skepticism
?
“Skepticism, in Western philosophy, is the attitude of doubting
knowledge claims. Skeptics challenge the adequacy or reliability
of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or
what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some
such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true,
and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of
accepted assumptions. In everyday life, practically everyone is
skeptical about some knowledge claims; but some philosophical
skeptics have doubted the possibility of any knowledge […]”
(Popkin, “Skepticism,” 2017).
Unger begins by addressing a
common objection to skepticism.
?
People claim that it just seems so unlikely
that we could be so widely mistaken, that
we have good reason to reject skepticism.
How could we be wrong about
everything?
? Unger’s
response to this objection is to
argue that although sentences like “I know
that the earth goes around the sun” are
usually false, they are as good as true, for
practical purposes, and this is why we go
on saying them.
?
For example, “flat” is (according to Unger) an
absolute term. We very often say that a surface is flat
even though it may have some very tiny bumps and
so is not, strictly speaking, perfectly (and absolutely)
flat.
?
According to Unger, we use the adjective
“know” in much the same way. We go on saying
(and believing) that we know various things,
even though we almost never do know them,
simply because our beliefs are practically as good
as knowledge.
?
Unger argues further that the term “certain” is an absolute
term.
He offers the following test of certainty:
?
Suppose I believe a proposition p. If it is logically possible for
me to be more certain of another proposition q than I am of p,
then I am not certain of p.
?
In other words, if I claim to be more certain that dogs fly, then I am
that cats run, then I cannot really say that I am certain that cats run.
After all, if I was CERTAIN that cats run, then I could not possibly
be more certain about something else (I could be as certain, but not
more certain).
?
Unger then argues that knowing requires being certain.
?
?
For instance, to claim that “He really knows that it is raining, but he
isn’t actually certain of it” is inconsistent, precisely because knowing
requires certainty.
The point he is making is that sentences like the one above
seem to make no sense. Thus, they tell us that knowledge and
certainty must be connected.
Can we be Certain?
?Unger
says no!
From the claim that almost no one is ever
certain, and the claim that knowledge requires
certainty, it follows that almost no one ever
knows anything.
Unger’s argument
?
Premise 1: If someone knows something to be so, then
that person is absolutely certain that it is so.
?
Premise 2: It is never all right for anyone to be
absolutely certain that anything is so.
?
Conclusion: Nobody really knows anything about
anything.
1st premise
?
1. There is a necessary connection between knowing
and being certain, which is supported by how we use
the word know.
?
2. Knowing entails, at least, that one is certain
?
3. Any attempt to disconnect these two items ends in
inconsistencies.
-E.g. He knew that it was raining, but he wasn’t
certain (this sentence seems incoherent but is at
least inconsistent).
2nd premise
?
1. To be absolutely certain of something is to be
dogmatic in the matter of whether that thing is so.
?
2. Due to the dogmatic feature of certainty there
is always something wrong with being absolutely
certain (it is irrational).
?
3. Thus, premise 2 is correct.
Dogmatic:
No matter what new information, evidence, or
experience that might be out there, none will ever be
seriously considered to be relevant to any possible
change in one’s thinking in the matter.
In other words, there is nothing that would change
your mind.
?
Being absolutely certain of something requires one to
be dogmatic.
?
Being dogmatic is irrational.
It is irrational to claim that one “would” never change their
mind on something no matter what new information,
evidence, or experience was out there.
? Note: He is not saying that one has to agree that one
“could” be given such information. He is just saying that
one is irrational if they say they “would” not change their
mind “if” the evidence was offered.
?
What certainty means:
There is a distinction between being certain of something
and being certain nothing would ever count against it.
This is different than saying that nothing could count against
it. Being certain is being certain nothing would ever count
against it. Even if something comes up, it couldn’t count
against your being certain.
?
This attitude is dogmatic.
Absolute and relative terms
?
Absolute terms: Terms that can naturally be qualified by
‘absolutely’. (It makes sense to say that something is absolutely
flat, but not to say that it is absolutely bumpy.)
?
?
Absolute terms can be basic (like straight), or non-basic (like cube).
Notice that we also speak of absolute terms holding to
one degree or another: We can say that a surface is
somewhat flat, or very flat, or that the bottle is somewhat or
very empty (but strictly speaking, degrees do not apply to
absolute terms).
?
Relative terms: Some properties (‘wet, ‘bumpy’,
‘crooked’) are relative; they can be held to a
matter of degree.
?
A surface can be less, and less bumpy, until we
reach the point at which it is not bumpy at all;
when it reaches that zero point of bumpiness
(the relative property is not instantiated to any
degree at all), then the surface has the absolute
property of being flat.
?
Unger has a theory about what we mean when we
modify an absolute term in such a fashion: we really
mean to speak of how close the thing is coming to
instantiating the absolute term.
?
What we really mean when we say ‘the surface is very
flat’ is that it is very close to actually being flat (but it
isn’t).
Absolute adjectives are words like ‘flat’ and
‘certain’
?
Cases where ‘certain’ seem to function as a matter of
degree can be paraphrased away.
?
When one says, “I am nearly positive that Sammy is sad,”
What is really being said is that “I think he may be, but I
am not actually certain.”
What it takes to be certain
?
1. Someone is certain just in case nobody could
possibly ever be more certain.
?
2. A necessary condition of being certain is that you are
not at all doubtful
?
3. “not at all doubtful” just means that one is closed to
new evidence counting against the matter at hand
?
Being certain is wrongly dogmatic!!
Why being dogmatic is wrong
?
?
It’s plain that dogmatism is irrational once you think about it.
Special cases “help” to show it is irrational.
?
?
?
?
?
FBI hoax: One could be in an elaborate illusion.
Maybe one is dreaming or has been lied …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment