Join the Club!

Still subscribed to this course blog? Nice.

So, I'm trying to start up a school club -- the "Owning Our Ignorance" club -- devoted to fun and logic, in that order. I've put up a blog for it over here.

Check it out. Please join if you're interested.

Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Enjoy your winter break!

Final Exam

Just a reminder that the final exam is at 11:00 a.m. on Friday, December 19th, in our normal classroom. The test will last 50 minutes.

Intellectual Honesty

Here's a little rant on a favorite topic of mine: intellectual honesty.

A simple goal of this class is to get us all to recognize what counts as good evidence and what counts as bad evidence for a claim. I think we're getting better at that. But it's not clear that we're caring about the difference once we figure it out.

Getting us to care is the real goal of this class. We should care about good evidence. We should care about it because it's what gets us closer to the truth. When we judge an argument to be overall good, THE POWER OF LOGIC COMPELS US to believe the conclusion. If we like an arg, but still go on stubbornly disagreeing with its conclusion, we are just being irrational.

This means we should be open-minded. We should be willing to let new evidence change our current beliefs. We should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. This is how comedian Todd Glass puts it:


Admitting when we're wrong--or simply not guaranteed to be right, or not an expert--is a very important step in being intellectually honest. Here's an excerpt from a podcast I listen to called Jordan, Jesse GO! about owning our ignorance:


Here are the first two paragraphs of a great article I recently read on this:

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

Ironically, having extreme confidence in oneself is often a sign of ignorance. In many cases, such stubborn certainty is unwarranted.

Bad Things to Good People

Here are some links on the problem of evil.

The first link is a collection of resources all about the problem of evil, including criticisms of several different responses to the problem. I mean, wow.

The NPR program Fresh Air has an audio interview with Bart Ehrman on the problem of suffering.

Next is a discussion of the "God works in mysterious ways" response: do we have enough evidence to believe that there is a reason for all the suffering in the world, but humans aren't smart enough to understand what that reason is?

Finally, does everything happen for a reason? This cartoon dinosaur has an interesting take on that question. (T-Rex also occasionally wonders why bad things happen to nice people.)

Like a House, Only More So

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence. First is a radio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg. Second is an article on evolution versus intelligent design.

Third is the article about all the "design flaws" in nature. Fourth, here's an article on the recent research that might show the appendix serves a purpose, and so wouldn't count as a design flaw.

I also have a little music for you. Here's the source of the "more so" phrase:

John Gorka - I'm From New Jersey
"I'm from New Jersey | It's like Ohio | But even more so | Imagine that"

Finally, the National Public Radio show Fresh Air ran a pair of interviews with two scientists talking about whether God exists. The conversations touch on a lot of things we've been discussing in class.

Richard Dawkins pushing atheism

Francis Collins pushing theism

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? The media are so biased toward those with opinions.

If you've read a good article on intelligent design, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post.

Think [Tap-Dance] God

There's a philosophy comic strip that ran a whole series on the ontological argument that god exists. Here are links to the comics:

Comic #1: The argument

Comic #2: Existence is better? Huh?

Comic #3: So the greatest possible pizza exists?

Comic #4: The perfect girlfriend!

If you're still jonesing for the a priori, there's also this entry on ontological arguments in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Or maybe you like modal logic? If so, try Godel's version of the ontological argument.

Finally, here's what Guanilo said to Anselm after he presented Anselm his "Greatest Possible Island" criticism:

Group Presentations

Here are the group assignments. If you're not in a group yet, let me know as soon as possible so we can get you in one.

Team Free Will (1st on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Jim D., Josephine, Luke, Karly, Kourtney, Manny

Team Pascal's Wager (2nd on Wednesday, 12/10/08)
Brittney, Doug, Kerry, Meghan, Melissa, Sherry

Team Meaning of Life (1st on Friday, 12/12/08)
Andrew, Desiree, Heather, Jaime, Tracy, Rachel

Team Personal Identity (2nd on Friday, 12/12/08)
Crystal, Gem, Kelcey, Mallory, Steve, Taryn

Team Philosophy of Art (1st on Monday, 12/15/08)
Ashley, Brianne, Jeremiah, Jessica, Kevin, Shaun

Team Philosophy of Mind (2nd on Monday, 12/15/08)
Ben, Jim A., Lil, Mike, Rob

Also, I mentioned this in class, but just in case...

Attendance is mandatory for the group presentations on Wednesday (12/10/08), Friday (12/12/08), and Monday (12/15/08). It's the only time I'll be a stickler for it. Basically, I want you to show respect for the other groups presenting.

If you don't attend on either the days your group isn't presenting (and your absence isn't excused), your own personal presentation grade will drop. Each day you don't attend will lower your grade by a full letter grade.

One last thing: be sure to keep the presentations under 15 minutes. A 10-minute presentation is ideal, so we can have time for a short question-and-answer session afterwards.

Journal Guideline

Here is a guideline for the next big assignment: the journal you have to keep during our discussion of God.

Worth: 15% of your overall grade

New Due Date: the beginning of class on Wednesday, November 27, Monday, December 8, 2008

The assignment is to keep a journal during our section on philosophy of religion. I want you to write several short journal entries about the various arguments for and against the existence of God. We’ll be going over all these arguments in class during the next few weeks. Each entry should be around two paragraphs long.

This assignment is a chance for you to do philosophy. I want you to demonstrate that you understand what we are reading and discussing. (Present each argument in your own words.) In addition to this, I want you to critically evaluate each argument we read and discuss. (Are any premises questionable? Does the argument provide enough support for its conclusion?) It is also a chance for you to give your opinion on these arguments, and defend your opinion with good reasons.

You should have the following journal entries, in this order:

1) Your first entry on your thoughts about God before discussing any of this stuff in class. Do you think there is a God? Why or why not?

2) An entry explaining and evaluating the cosmological argument (Aquinas reading).

3) An entry explaining and evaluating the ontological argument (Anselm & Guanilo readings).

4) An entry explaining and evaluating the design argument (Hume reading).

5) An entry explaining and evaluating the problem of evil argument (Augustine and B.C. Johnson readings).

6) A final entry where you discuss your thoughts about God after reading these philosophers and discussing this in class. Has your opinion about God changed?
Have your reasons for your opinion changed?

The journal does not have to be typed. There is no length requirement. (Again, the suggestion is around two paragraphs per journal entry.)

Midterm on Monday

OK, the midterm is being pushed back yet again--this time to Monday, November 3rd--since the Phillies Parade is Friday at noon.

CONGRATS TO THE WORLD CHAMPIONS OF BASEBALL!

Still Trust Your Senses?

Julian Beever creates sidewalk art that looks three-dimensional when viewed from a certain angle. Here's one of his creations:

More pictures of his stuff are available here and here. It's pretty hard to tell that these are two-dimensional drawings. Oh, senses! Why won't you stop deceiving me?!?

Link-Tested, Keanu Approved

Now that we've finished going over A Rulebook for Arguments, we're ready to start diving into some philosophical topics in class. This means we're going to start reading some philosophers who are bad writers. Here is a guide to reading philosophy that might help you if you're having trouble understanding the assigned readings.

Jim Pryor's Guide to Reading Philosophy

Our first topic is knowledge. Here are some links on knowledge and skepticism. The first is about the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix.

The Matrix: Dream Skepticism

Next is an audio interview by a modern philosopher on the Descartes reading we're discussing in class.

A.C. Grayling discusses Descartes

The last link is a more advanced version of the Nick Bostrom article that we're reading for class on the likelihood that we're really in a computer simulation.

Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument

(A dinosaur comic on this issue is available here.) By the way, if you have any links you think I or others in class might find interesting, let me know. And feel free to comment on any of these posts.

Paper #1 Guidelines

Due Date: Friday, October 24th, 2008

Worth: 5% of final grade

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on one of the topics below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 300-600 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word & WordPerfect have automatic word counts.)

1. Criticize skepticism of the external world. Describe what you take to be the best argument for external-world skepticism. Then evaluate this argument. How is this argument unsuccessful? What is/are its flaw(s)? How can we avoid giving in to the skeptic’s arguments that we don’t know anything about the world? [NOTE: For this option, you don’t have to present a positive argument for the existence of the external world. Just explain why the skeptical argument you focus on is bad.]

2. Present and defend an argument for the claim that we can know that there is an external world outside our sense data. Be sure to consider and respond to objections to your argument that a skeptic would likely offer.

3. Defend external-world skepticism. Present an argument for external-world skepticism. Then consider and respond to objections to this argument. Pay special attention to your conception of knowledge: defend the conditions you believe are required for knowledge.

4. Write on an epistemological topic of your choosing. (Sean must approve this topic by Friday, October 17th.)

Fallacy Comics!

Here are some comics and a video about two of the fallacies we've discussed in class. The first is one of Ryan North's Dinosaur Comics on the fallacy of begging the question. (Click on the comic to enlarge it)

The next two are Jonathan Ichikawa's comics on hypocrisy and the ad hominem fallacy. (Again, click on the comics to enlarge them)


Finally, here's the video for Mims's logically delicious song "This is Why I'm Hot":

Evaluating Deductive Args

Here are the answers to the handout on deductive arguments that we went over in class.

1) All bats are mammals.
All mammals live on earth.
All bats live on earth.

Valid, Sound

2) All students in here are mammals.
All humans are mammals.
All students in here are humans.

Invalid (what if a dog were a student in our class?),
Unsound (because it's invalid)

3) (from Stephen Colbert)
Bush is either a great prez or the greatest prez.
Bush isn’t a great prez.
Bush is the greatest prez.

Valid, Unsound (questionable premises)

4) All BCC students are humans.
Most humans are shorter than 7 feet tall.
Most BCC students are shorter than 7 feet tall.

Invalid (there could be a lot of tall BCC students even if most humans aren't tall), Unsound (because it's invalid)

5) Some people are funny.
Sean is a person.
Sean is funny.

Invalid (only some are funny, so I don't have to be funny), Unsound (because it's invalid)

6) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean is singing right now.
Students are cringing right now.

Valid, Unsound (false second premise: I'm not singing right now)

7) All email forwards are annoying.
Some email forwards are false.
Some annoying things are false.

Valid, Unsound (questionable first premise)

8) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Sean isn't singing right now.
Students aren't cringing right now.

Invalid (students could cringe for a different reason), Unsound (it's invalid)

9) All bats are mammals.
All bats have wings.
All mammals have wings.

Invalid (bad structure), Unsound (because it's invalid)

10) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students aren't cringing right now.
Sean isn't singing right now.

Valid, Unound (first premise is questionable)

11) All dads have beards.
All bearded people are mean.
All dads are mean.

Valid, Unsound (premise 1 is false and premise 2 is questionable)

12) If Sean sings, then students cringe.
Students are cringing right now.
Sean is singing right now.

Invalid (I don't have to sing for students to cringe), Unsound (it's invalid, and false second premise)

13) Mexico borders oceans on the east and west.
USA borders oceans on the east and west.
Guatemala borders oceans on the east and west.
Australia borders oceans on the east and west.
Most countries border oceans on the east and west.

Invalid (the premises don't guarantee the conclusion), Unsound (it's invalid)

(More on Sisyphus)