PHIL 450A: Paper Topic #1: Empirical Justification

Paper #1 Deadlines:

(1) By midnight on Wednesday, Oct. 17: Draft of Parts (1)-(3), but not (4), posted on Class Peer Review Web site. Include your name in the body of your paper. Before posting your draft, review the Paper Guidelines Handout and the Paper #1 Peer Review Checklist (available on the PHIL 450 Web site) to be sure that you have complied with those guidelines. In order to preserve formatting and footnotes, you should save the draft of your paper as a Web page (in HTML format) for posting in Peer Review. There is a link to the PHIL 450 Peer Review Web site on the course Web site (URL: http://catalyst.washington.edu/webtools/pr/slogin.cgi?owner=wtalbott&id=4121).

To logon, use your U.W. ID and password. Once you are logged on, you are ready to post a draft of your paper for review by others. From the Peer Review Menu, choose "Set up a new document for review." Make sure that you choose the correct assignment for your submission (Paper #1). Also make sure that your name appears at the beginning of your paper (after the title, if you have one). Peer Review will prompt you for a title. You must enter something ("Paper #1" is fine). Then you can upload your paper as a file or paste it into the Peer Review site. If you upload the paper, make sure you choose “HTML" (Web page) not “Text” for the format.

HOW TO DELETE A DOCUMENT: Choose the "Edit a document" option and then the "Delete" option. (Do not try to edit a document that has been uploaded. Edit your copy of the document, then delete the old version and upload the new.

PEER REVIEW TEST ASSIGNMENT. The Peer Review site includes a Test Assignment for you to use to practice posting an assignment and commenting on it. Before the beginning of class on Monday, Oct. 15, everyone should post a short (one- or two-sentence blurb) in HTML format and should make a comment on it. If there are any problems, we can discuss them in class.

(2) By midnight on Thurs., Oct. 18: Comment on two papers on the Peer Review Web site. From the Peer Review Menu, choose "View and Comment on the Documents in Peer Review." Then choose which assignment you are commenting on. Place your comments at the end of the sentence or paragraph to which they apply.

Identify yourself in your first comment on each paper. Positive comments are good, but you should not comment on a paper unless you have some suggestions for improving its content (not just grammar and spelling). Your comments on a paper should always be respectful and considerate of the feelings of the author. Use the Paper #1 Peer Review Checklist to make sure that each of the drafts you comment on contains all the items on the checklist. You are expected to inform the author of any items on the checklist or any items in the paper guidelines that s/he has not complied with.

Do not be the second person to comment on a paper unless all other papers posted on the site have already received one set of comments (or unless you have no suggestions for improving any of the papers that have not yet received any comments). Do not be the third person to comment on a paper unless all other papers posted on the site have received two sets of comments (or unless you have no suggestions for improving any of the papers that have received less than two sets of comments). You can place a comment after any sentence in the draft. Place your comments as close as possible to the passage the comment applies to.

One of the goals of Peer Review is for students to learn from each other, so you are encouraged to read as many other drafts as you would like. If you get an idea from another student that you use in your paper, you should credit that student for the idea.

(3) By midnight on Monday, Oct. 22: Final drafts of Paper #1 should be submitted to the electronic drop box for PHIL 450. There is a link to the electronic drop box on the PHIL 450 Web site (URL: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/collectit/dropbox/wtalbott/873).

THE NAME OF THE FILE SHOULD BEGIN WITH YOUR LAST NAME. Submit the paper as a Word .doc file. If you have an unusual word processing program, submit your paper as an RTF file. Before turning in your final draft, make sure you have read the comments on your paper in Peer Review and that you have answered all the questions in the paper topic below. Also, make sure your paper complies with the Paper Guidelines and the Paper #1 Peer Review Checklist.

Paper Topic #1: Empirical Justification (5-7 pages). [NOTE: The draft you post for Peer Review should cover only parts (1)-(3).]

(1) Explain what empirical justification is. Use our discussion of Chisholmian Foundationalism to explain Foundationalism about empirical justification. (You do not have to explain all of Chisholm's epistemology, just the Foundationalist part.) Explain the boundary problem for Foundationalist epistemologies (as referred to in class). First give a general statement of the problem and then show how it applies to our Chisholmian epistemology.

(2) Use Dancy as an example to explain Coherentism about empirical justification. Explain the input problem for Coherentist epistemologies (as referred to in class). First give a general statement of the problem and then show how it applies to Dancy's epistemology.

(3) Explain Haack's Foundherentist epistemology in a way that includes a discussion of how she tries to solve the two problems discussed in parts (1) and (2). Your explanation of Haack’s position should include an explanation of her double aspect theory of justification. Include in your explanation an example of a person who acquires a perceptual belief the justification of which depends on logical or quasi-logical relations between the content of the C-belief and the content of her experiential C-evidence. Make sure that you specify the content of the experiential C-evidence in the way that Haack would.

(4) Critically evaluate her solutions to those problems. Your critical evaluation can include considerations other than how well her account solves the problems discussed in the first three parts of the paper. [Check the Handout on Paper Guidelines to make sure you the discussion of what is necessary for a critical evaluation.] Use your critical evaluation of Haack as a platform for giving your own considered judgment about how best to combine Foundationalism and Coherentism into an acceptable theory of empirical justification.