Join the Club!

Still subscribed to this old 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.

Own Our Ignorance

I'll leave you with an excerpt from a podcast I listen to called Jordan, Jesse GO! Two guys in their twenties are jovially discussing a favorite topic of mine: owning your ignorance.

Other sincerely awesome stuff from them is available at Maximum Fun.

Goodbye to Yesterday...

Your grades are now posted. Enjoy your summer, Wednesday night class!
Sorry, Thursday night-ers, I forgot to bring my camera!

Links Worthy of a Swine

Here are some links that are loosely related to the stuff on Utilitarianism that we are studying. Most of these deal with psychology. There's a lot of psychological research on happiness popping up lately. The first link is an overview of the psychology of happiness:

Some Dark Thoughts on Happiness

The second is a slightly optimistic take on our ability to change our baseline level of happiness. This is important to know for an ethical theory that values maximizing happiness:

The Hedonic Set Point Can Go Up

The next link deals with a famous moral thought experiment, the trolley problem. This gets brought up a lot when evaluating Utilitarianism:

Psychology of the Trolley Problem

The last link is an advanced overview of consequentialist ethical theories. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, since it only looks at the consequences of an action to figure out whether an action is morally good or bad:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Entry: Consequentialism

So what makes you happy? WaWa? Ping pong? Cookies?

Kwakiutl-Doo

Here are some more links related to our discussion of ethical relativism:

• The Kwakiutl from Northwest America [Google Kwakiutl!]
• The Dobu of Melanesia
• Ruth Benedict and Herodotus
• Cannibalism!
• An argument against the DIVERSITY THESIS: cultures morally agree more than they disagree
• A webcam dialogue on morality, psychology, and religion

(Click on the comic to enlarge it)

Relative to You, But Not to Me

Here are some links on ethical relativism. The first is an interview with a moral psychologist who supports a sophisticated version of ethical relativism.

Interview with Moral Psychologist Jonathan Haidt

The second one is an advanced overview of various versions of moral relativism:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Article on Moral Relativism

Reading Response #4

Reading Response #4 is due April 24th for the Thursday night class, and April 30th for the Wednesday night class. The assignment is to write a one- to two-page (250- to 500-word) response on the following:

Explain and critically evaluate the ethical theory of relativism. First, briefly explain the theory in your own words. Then spend most of your response evaluating the theory. Discuss objections to the theory, and tell me your opinion on whether you think it's a good or bad theory. Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

Pascal's Wager

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.)

Extra Credit

The extra credit assignment is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, April 16th, or Thursday, April 17th, depending on which class you're in. Your assignment is to write a reading response (about 250-500 words) on the following topic:

Explain and evaluate your thoughts on God now that we've gone through the philosophy of religion section of the course. In particular, focus on any changes in your thoughts. Have you changed your beliefs about God? Have you changed your reasons for your beliefs? Why or why not? Ultimately, do you think doing philosophy is a useful method in exploring this topic? Why or why not?

This assignment is potentially worth the value of a reading response (up to 50 points).

April 9th: Class Canceled!

Hey, Wednesday night class! I found out that class is canceled on April 9th due to a professional development day.

Enjoy the week off!

Like A Watch, 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.

Midterm

The midterm is going to be held at the beginning of class on March 26th for the Wednesday class, and April 3rd for the Thursday class. It's worth 25% of your overall grade. You'll have 80 minutes to complete it. It covers everything we've gone over in class so far.

Also, I expect you to stick around after the midterm, because we WILL be learning stuff in class after it's done.

Feel free to insult me in the comments for putting you through the terrible ordeal of learning immediately after a test.

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.

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

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, February 27th, or Thursday, February 28th, depending on what class you're in. Here is the assignment:

Explain your thoughts about God. Do you believe there is a God? If so, what kind of God or Gods? Do you believe that there is no God? Do you not believe one way or the other? Also, explain why you believe whatever it is you believe about God. What reasons do you have for believing what you believe? Do you think these are good reasons, or bad reasons?

The response isn't based on any specific reading from the textbook. Instead, it's more of a chance for you to think about your own opinion before we discuss God stuff in class over the next several weeks. You won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you EXPLAIN and EVALUATE your reasons for your opinion.

Past Futures Are the New Past Pasts

Do you find yourself obsessed with Hume's question of what could justify inductive reasoning? Boy, do I have a link for you:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Induction
If you're tired of that one, there's also a new problem of induction. Or, you could watch this video of Lewis Black describing his failure to reason inductively every year around Halloween:


In class, we talked about how attempts to justify induction beg the question. Here's a dinosaur comic on question-begging. (Click on the comic to enlarge it)


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

Finally, here's a stick figure comic about scientists' efforts to confirm that the future will be like the past.

Innate Ideas? I've Had a Few

Here are a couple articles by Steven Pinker that offer some psychological insights on the innate ideas debate we've been discussing in class:

The Brain’s Versatile Toolbox (1997)

Grammar Puss (1994)

But hey, why read when you can watch a video? With that in mind, here's his appearance on The Colbert Report (the second part is particularly relevant to innate ideas):

Pinker has a few books on this stuff, and a lot of other interesting articles, too. Not everyone agrees with Pinker, though. Here's an article about a South American tribe that might be a counterexample to the claim that there are innate aspects of language development.

The Interpreter
(The linguist researching the tribe explains his case more here. Steven Pinker and others respond to him here.)

One more link. Here's an advanced survey article on the rationalism/empiricism debate from my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia:

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

Yes, there is more than one free online philosophy encyclopedia.

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?!?

ALSO: In a comment on the last post, Jim gave an interesting response to computer simulation skeptical scenarios like the Matrix: perhaps the computer simulation just is our reality. That's what we'd be referring to, after all. When someone stuck in a computer simulation says 'clock,' she's referring to the computer simulation of a clock. Good thinking, Jim! Here's an article on that response.

Link Tested, Keanu Approved

Here's a trio of links. The first one 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

The next two relate to epistemology and skepticism. The first is about the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix. If Neo read it, he'd say "whoa."

The Matrix: Dream Skepticism

The last link is an interesting take on skeptical scenarios (or what our textbook fancily calls universal belief falsifiers). Most of us think it's pretty unlikely that we're in a computer simulation like the Matrix. After all, these skeptical scenarios seem so weird. But Nick Bostrom provides some compelling reasons to think that these scenarios may be highly probable, after all.

What's the Probability that We're Living in the Matrix?

(A more advanced version of Bostrom's argument is available here, and 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.

Reading Response #1

Reading Response #1 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, 6th or Thursday, February 7th, depending on which section you're in. In a 250- to 500-word essay response, answer the following question:

What does Descartes say he cannot be certain of? What does Descartes say he can be certain of? What are his arguments for this? Do you agree with Descartes? Why or why not?

The response is based on the Descartes reading from pages 58-71 of the textbook.

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, 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) Sean either went to school or something kept him from going to school.
Nothing kept Sean from going to school.
Sean went to school.

Valid, Sound

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

Invalid, 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) It either rains or Sean swims.
If it rains, then Sean gets wet.
If Sean swims, then he gets wet.
I get wet.

Valid, Unsound (false first premise: sometimes it isn't raining and I'm not swimming)

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

Invalid, Unsound (it's invalid, and false second premise)

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

Valid, Unsound (questionable first premise)

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

Invalid, Unsound (it's invalid)

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

Invalid, Unsound (because it's invalid)

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

Valid, Sound

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

Valid, Unsound (false premises)

(More on Sisyphus)