PHIL 450A: Paper Topic #1: Empirical Justification

Paper #1 Deadlines:

(1) INTRODUCTION TO PAPER #1 POSTED ON PHIL 450 gopost site by midnight on Thursday Jan. 24. THERE IS A LINK TO THE PHIL 450 GOPOST SITE ON THE PHIL 450 WEB PAGE.

In your introduction, you must begin with an example that grabs the reader’s attention and serves to motivate the paper. Then you must provide an overview of the paper and conclude with a statement of the position that you will take in the paper. Don’t worry about arguing for anything in the introduction. Your goal should be for the reader to have a mental map of the paper and at least a preliminary understanding of what your conclusion will be.

(2) VOTE BY EMAIL FOR BEST PAPER #1 INTRODUCTION BY MIDNIGHT ON MONDAY JAN. 28.

(3) SUBMIT PAPER #1 TO PHIL 450 ELECTRONIC DROPBOX BY MIDNIGHT on Wed. Jan. 30. THERE IS A LINK TO THE PHIL 450 ELECTRONIC DROPBOX ON THE PHIL 450 WEB PAGE.

THE NAME OF THE FILE SHOULD BEGIN WITH YOUR LAST NAME. Submit the paper as a Word (.DOC or .DOCX) file or as an HTM or HTML file. If you have an unusual word processing program, submit your paper as an RTF file. Before turning in your final draft, make sure your paper complies with the Paper Guidelines.

Paper Topic #1: Empirical Justification (6-8 pages).

(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.

(5) 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. Make sure you consider objections to your position. This should be a significant part of your paper, not just a paragraph or two.

MAKE SURE TO REVIEW THE PAPER GUIDELINES BEFORE TURNING IN THE FINAL VERSION OF YOUR PAPER.