Every class session you are expected to come to class having read the assigned readings for the day (“For the Perplexed” and “Going Further” readings are optional). You must also bring the texts for that class period with you as well. Both of these things are necessary for us to have rich and meaningful discussions of the readings. I’ve clarified the syllabus on this point.
Tag Archives: fall 2012
History and Philosophy of Science, Fall 2012
Jump to: Required Texts | Course Schedule | Assignments | Late Work and Attendance
Office Hours
Time TBA, office JO 4.120. You can also schedule an appointment.
Course Updates
You can find updates about the course by reading the course blog (via RSS). You can also check for short updates on Twitter using the hashtag #HPS3328.
Course Description
Science plays an enormously influential role in our society. As a social institution, it commands enormous respect and social influence, as well as vast sums of funding. It produces results that are greatly sought after, for both good and ill. At the same time, science generates great controversy when it collides with various religious, economic, and educational agendas. The adjective “scientific” garners almost immediate respectability to whatever it is applied, and, in some circles, it is a prerequisite for being taken seriously. Yet to many it also bespeaks alienation, abstraction, and a void of meaning, useless in our attempt to understand values. Some even deride science as mere ideology and power-mongering, as sexist, racist, or elitist.
Science is open to interpretation and critique; as a result, it stands in need of explanation, elaboration, justification, limitation, or change. History and philosophy of science attempts to understand how and why science works, to explain its successes and occasionally uncover its failures, to interpret its results, and to discover, what, if any, are its limits. Historians and philosophers of science also try to situate science in the broader scheme of human activities and social institutions, and to understand the way in which our particular cognitive, social, political, and moral situation impacts its development.
In this course, we will try to better understand what counts as science and explore whether we can demarcate science from non-science or pseudo-science. We will ask what the aim of science is, what it is trying to produce. We will explore a variety of challenges to our common ways of understand how and why science works, as well as challenges to whether science works as we believe that it does. We will explore the too-often ignored connections between the scientific process and our ethical and political values, attempting to determine whether and to what extend such human values play a role in science, and to what extent such a role is legitimate and compatible with the objectivity or reliability of scientific knowledge.
Student Learning Objectives
- Students will analyze and interpret a significant body of primary works in philosophy of science.
- Students will develop their ability to read, analyze, and write about complex texts.
- Students will demonstrate knowledge of the major questions and traditions in the philosophy of science.
- Students will be able to critically analyze and discuss the nature of, value of, and challenges to science as an intellectual and cultural institution.
Required Texts
Books are on order at Off Campus Books (561 West Campbell Road near Fuzzy’s)
- Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues by Curd and Cover (WW Norton) [C&C]
- Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Peter Godfrey-Smith (University of Chicago) [PGS]
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (50th Anniversary Edition) by Thomas Kuhn (SSR)
- Online readings at the course website. [online]
- An apa annotated bibliography maker.
Schedule of Topics and Readings
Require readings are listed for each class period, and you are expected to complete them before class. Some classes include additional readings that clarify or extend the required readings. These readings can help you better understand the readings for that class period or provide useful starting-points for research on that topic. Note: online readings on JSTOR can only be accessed from on campus, via the library website, or by running the VPN.
0. Introductions
M 8/27
- What is Philosophy of Science? History of Science?
- Why Do We Want a Theory of Science?
- Why History and Philosophy of Science?
- PGS 1.1-1.4
- Syllabus Review
I. What is science?
In this class, we will consider some very basic ideas about the nature and history of science, as well as the attempt by philosophers and others to explain the difference between science and non-science or pseudo-science.
W 8/29
- A Very Brief History of Science
- PGS 1.5
- The Common Conception of the Scientific Method
- Stephen S. Carey, from A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method [online]
- PGS 2
W 9/5
- Science as a Process and Practice
- Peter Medawar, “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?” [online]
- John Dewey, from How We Think [online]
- Going Further: Frederick Suppe, “The Structure of a Scientific Paper” [online]; Peter Lipton, The Best Explanation of a Scientific Paper [online]; Allan Franklin & Colin Howson, Comment on “The Structure of a Scientific Paper” [online]; Frederick Suppe, Reply to Commentators [online]; Matthew J. Brown, “John Dewey’s Logic of Science” [online]; Frederick Grinnell, from The Everyday Practice of Science [online]
M 9/10
- The Process of Science in Action: John Snow’s Research on Cholera
- Goldstein and Goldstein, “Snow on Cholera” [online]
- Going Further: John Snow, “On the Mode of Communication of Cholera” [online]; Sandra Hempel, The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump
W 9/12
- Demarcating Science – Philosophical
- Karl Popper, “Science: Conjectures and Refutations” [C&C]
- Imre Lakatos, “Science and Pseudoscience” [C&C]
- PGS 4, 7.2
- For the Perplexed: Sven Ove Hansson, “Science and Pseudo-Science” [online]
- Going Further: Paul Thagard, “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience” [C&C]; Thomas Kuhn, Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? [C&C]; Paul Churchland, “How Parapsychology Could Become a Science” [online]
M 9/17
- Demarcating Science – Practical
- Susan Haack, “Trial and Error: The Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science” [online]
- For the Perplexed: “Daubert standard” on Wikipedia (with many useful links)
- Going Further: Michael Ruse, “Creation-Science Is Not Science” [C&C]; Larry Laudan, “Commentary: Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern” [C&C]; Ruse, “Response” [C&C]; Daubert on the Web; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decison; Margaret Berger, “Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court’s Rules.“
II. The Aims of Science
Part of understanding what science is involves understanding what it aims at, what its distinctive goals are. In this unit, we consider a variety of proposals for the what science aims at.
W 9/19
- The Aim of Science is Explanation
- Carl G. Hempel, “Two Basic Types of Scientific Explanation” [C&C]
- PGS 13.1-13-2
- For the Perplexed: Rudolf Carnap, “The Value of Laws: Explanation and Prediction” [C&C]
- Going Further: Carl G. Hempel, “The Thesis of Structural Identity”; Carl G. Hempel, “Inductive-Statistical Explanation”; Peter Railton, “A Deductive-Nomological Model of Probabilistic Explanation”; David-Hillel Ruben, “Arguments, Laws, and Explanation” [All in C&C]
M 9/24
- The Aim of Science is Unified Knowledge
- Kitcher – “Explanatory Unification” [online]
- Paul Oppenheim and Hilary Putnam, “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis” [online]
- PGS 13.3
- Going Further: Carnap, “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science” [online]; John Dupré, “Metaphysical Disorder and Scientific Disunity” [online]
W 9/26
- Library Day
- Hit the books, work on paper proposals
M 10/1
- The Aim of Science is to Discover the Laws of Nature
- A. J. Ayer, “What Is a Law of Nature?” [C&C]
- PGS 13.4
- For the perplexed: “Laws of Nature: Introduction” [C&C], “Commentary” pp. 879-885 [C&C]
- Going Further: John Carroll “Laws of Nature,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fred Dretske, “Laws of Nature” [C&C], D.H. Mellor, “Necessities and Universals in Natural Laws” [C&C], “Commentary” pp. 885-896 [C&C]
W 10/3
- … Not Laws of Nature, but Causal Powers
- Nancy Cartwright, [Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?” [C&C]
- For the Perplexed: “Commentary” pp. 896-899 [C&C], John Carroll “Laws of Nature,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Section 5
- Going Further: Ronald Giere, “Science without Laws of Nature,” Nancy Cartwright, How the Laws of Physics Lie.
M 10/8
- The Aim of Science is Significant Truth
- Philip Kitcher, from Science, Truth, and Democracy [online]
III. Challenging Science
In this unit, we will discuss a variety of historical, philosophical, and sociological challenges to science. Some are legitimate challenges to the authority of science itself, but most attempt to leave that unchanged while challenging our understanding of why science is successful or authoritative. We will examine the following provocative challenges to science or our theories of science.
W 10/10
- Induction cannot be Justified
- David Hume, from An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- PGS 3
- Going Further: Popper, “The Problem of Induction” [online]
M 10/15
- Theory is Underdetermined by Evidence
- Pierre Duhem, “Physical Theory and Experiment” [C&C]
- For the Perplexed: Underdetermination of Scientific Theory [online]; “The Duhem-Quine Thesis and Underdetermination: Introduction” [C&C]; “Commentary” pp. 354-365 [C&C]
- Going Further: Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” [C&C]; Gillies, “The Duhem Thesis and the Quine Thesis” [C&C]; Laudan, “Demystifying Underdetermination” [C&C]; Commentary pp. 365-411 [C&C]
W 10/17
- Observation is Theory-Laden
- Norwood Russell Hanson, “Observation” [online]
- PGS 10.3
- Going Further: Theory and Observation in Science [online]
M 10/22
- Scientists are Dogmatic
- Thomas Kuhn, “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research” [online]
- Thomas Kuhn on Normal Science, [SSR] Ch. I-V
- PGS 5
- For the Perplexed:Ian Hacking, Introductory Essay [SSR]
W 10/24
- Scientific Revolutions are Revisionary
- Kuhn [SSR] Ch VI-IX
- PGS 6.1-6.2
- For the Perplexed:Ian Hacking, Introductory Essay [SSR]
- Going Further: Larry Laudan, “Dissecting the Holist Picture of Scientific Change” [C&C]
M 10/29
- Science Does Not Progress Towards the Best Theory
- Kuhn [SSR] Ch X-XIII & Postscript
- PGS 6.3-6.5
- For the Perplexed:Ian Hacking, Introductory Essay [SSR]
- Going Further: Ernan McMullin, “Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science” [C&C]
W 10/31
- Science Has No Method
- Paul Feyerabend, from Against Method [Part I; Part II] (Make sure you get through Part II – It’s where a lot of the pay-off is at.)
- PGS 7.4-7.5
- For the Perplexed: Ian Hacking, “Introduction to the Fourth Edition”
- Halloween! Come dressed up, in honor of epistemological anarchism!
M 11/5
- Scientific Theories are Incommensurable
- Paul Feyerabend, “How to Be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological” [C&C]
- PGS 7.6
- For the Perplexed: The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories
W 11/7
- Science Has No Special Authority
- Paul Feyerabend, “How to Defend Society Against Science” [online]
M 11/12
- Science is Socially Constructed
- Bruno Latour, “Laboratories” [online]
- PGS 8
W 11/14
- Science is Sexist
- Kathleen Okruhlik, “Gender and the Biological Sciences” [C&C]
- PGS 9
M 11/19-11/21
- Fall Break!
IV. Values in Science
M 11/26
- Values and the Will to Believe
- William James, “The Will to Believe” [online]
W 11/28
- Scientists Make Value-Judgments (Rudner / Hempel)
- Richard Rudner, “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” [online]
- Carl Hempel, “Science and Human Values” [online]
M 12/3
- Science is Insulated from Non-Epistemic Value-Judgments
- Thomas S. Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice” [C&C]
- Ernan McMullin, “Values in Science” [online]
W 12/5
- Underdetermination, Objectivity, and Values in Science
- Helen E. Longino, “Values and Objectivity” [C&C]
- Elizabeth Anderson, “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce” [OR]
M 12/10
- The Inductive Risk Argument Against Value-Free Science
- Heather Douglas, “Rejecting the Ideal of Value-Free Science” [online]
W 12/12
- How Far Do Values Influence Science?
- Matthew J. Brown, “Values Beyond Underdetermination and Inductive Risk” [online]
Grading
Assignments
- Class Participation (9 pts) – Class attendance, quality of contributions to the life of the class. 5pts + Participation (4.0 scale) – Absences – (1/2) * Tardies
- Homework and In-class Assignments (5)
- Midterm Exam (8)
- Peer-Mark Assignments (5) – Several times during the semester, students will provide feedback on early stages of their research papers.
- Research Paper (18) – Grade includes not only final paper but work throughout the semester. Details here.
Final Grades
Final grade will be calculated on a 4.0 scale by taking your points divided by ten. So, for example, a student with a 33 would have a 3.3 or a B+. 41+ points is an A+, 38+ points is an A, 35+ points is an A-, 32+ is a B+, 28+ is a B, 25+ is a B-, etc.
Grading Standards
- Indicates excellent work, going beyond the expectations of the course to display subtle and nuanced understanding, clear and effective presentation, and intellectual rigor, insight, creativity, and sophistication.
- Indicates good work, thoughtful and careful, clear and consistent, without major errors.
- Indicates adequate or average work that meets all basic course expectations, but may involve unclear writing, lack of sophisticated understanding, or unsupported or insufficiently developed ideas. Some serious errors may be present.
Work which deserves a grade less than C will display some of the following problems: it fails to show adequate understanding of the text; it fails to understand the assignment; it fails to articulate a coherent or adequate argument; it fails to reflect on the content of the course; it displays such pervasive grammatical errors as to be highly obscure in meaning.
Late Work / Make-Up Exams
No late work or make-up exams will be allowed without consent of the professor prior to the due/exam date, except in situations where University policy requires it.
Class Attendance Policy
While reading and writing are crucial parts of the course, the central philosophical activity is live discussion. While class will occasionally involve bits of lecture, this is merely an instrument to a more well-informed discussion and other structured activities. Attendance is thus considered mandatory. Missed classes will count against your participation grade, and egregious absenteeism will be grounds for an F in the course at the professor’s discretion. In-class assignments and activities likewise cannot be made up unless the professor agrees to it before the class is missed. Disruptive late arrivals or early departures are poor classroom citizenship and will also negatively impact your participation.
Classroom Expectations
You are expected to have read the assignments before class, and it would be to your benefit to also read them again after class. You are expected to bring all of the texts assigned for each day’s class, and have them available to refer to. You are expected to listen respectfully to the professor and your fellow students, and participate in class discussions and activities.
Further standard University policies can be found at http://go.utdallas.edu/syllabus-policies
The syllabus is a living document. These descriptions and timelines are subject to change at the discretion of the Professor.
American Pragmatism, Fall 2012
“Post-modernist skeptics and their few neopragmatist admirers turn to the old pragmatists because they (correctly) see them as potential partners in a struggle against ‘strong’, that is, absolutist and ‘totalizing’, conceptions of truth. But what they neglect is the old pragmatists’ conviction… that once they had overcome absolutism, they could then resume traveling down the road of inquiry in a more fuel-efficient vehicle than Reason toward a more modest destination than Truth.” — Robert Westbrook
Course Description
This course will focus on America’s only original philosophical tradition: Pragmatism. American pragmatism is a diverse tradition, united by a common interest in a robust account of human experience, the fallibility of our knowledge, truth as a human phenomenon, and the relation of theory to practice. We will focus on several of the classical pragmatists and neo-pragmatists, including Charles S. Peirce, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., John Dewey, Jane Addams, Alain Locke, Richard Rorty, and Cornel West.
Student Learning Objectives/Outcomes
- Students will demonstrate knowledge of several major figures in the American
philosophical tradition of Pragmatism, their lives, relationships to one another, and
their major philosophical ideas. - Students will analyze and interpret a significant body of primary works in the
American pragmatist tradition. - Students will engage with a variety of secondary sources on the period and figures
of study. - Students will develop their skills of critical analysis and philosophical argumentation.
Required Texts
Abbreviations in [brackets] are used to give page numbers for readings in the course schedulebelow.
- Pragmatism: A Reader – ed. Louis Menand [PR]
- The Metaphysical Club – Louis Menand [MC]
- Democracy and Social Ethics – Jane Addams (University of Illinois Press edition w/ introduction by Charlene Haddock Seigfried – make sure you get this edition) [DS]
- Companion to Pragmatism – ed. Shook + Margolis [CP]
- Reading Dewey – ed. Larry Hickman [RD]
Books are on order at Off Campus Books (561 West Campbell Road near Fuzzy’s).
Pragmatism Resources
- Pragmatism Cybrary – The most systematic repository of research, information, and online resources.
- The PastMasters Database, which includes the complete works and correspondence of John Dewey, the collected papers and published works of Peirce, and the works of Santayana.
Course Schedule (by week)
- Introduction and Background (8/27)
- Menand, The Metaphysical Club, Preface + Part One [MC ix–70]
- Menand, “An Introduction to Pragmatism,” [PR xi-xxxv]
- Margolis, “Introduction: Pragmatism, Retrospective, and Prospective,” [CP 1–10]
- Labor Day Holiday (9/3)
- Charles S Peirce – Meaning, Truth, and Inquiry (9/10)
- “Some Consequences of Four Incapacities” [PR 3–6]
- “The Fixation of Belief” [PR 7–25]
- “How to Make Our Ideas Clear” [PR 26–48]
- “A Definition of Pragmatism” [PR 56–58]
- Menand, The Metaphysical Club, Part Two [MC 71–148]
- Colapietro, “C.S. Peirce” [CP 13–29]; Anderson, “Peirce and Cartesian
Rationalism” [CP 154–165]
- Charles S Peirce – Continuity, Chance, and Evolution (9/17)
- from “A Guess at the Riddle” [PR 49–51]
- “The Doctrine of Necessity Examined” [online]
- from “Evolutionary Love” [PR 52–55]
- Haack, “Not Cynicism, but Synechism” [CP 141–53]
- Metaphysical Club Part Three [MC 149-232]
- William James (9/24)
- from The Principles of Psychology [PR 59–68]
- “The Will to Believe” [PR 69–92]
- “What Pragmatism Means” [PR 93–111]
- “Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth” [PR 112–131]
- Suckiel, “William James” [CP 30–43]
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. – Pragmatism and the Law (10/1)
- from “Lecture I: Early Forms of Liability,” in The Common Law (1881) [PR
137-138] - from “Lecture III: Torts – Trespass and Negligence,” in The Common Law (1881)
[PR 139-141] - “The Path of the Law” (1897) [PR 145-159]
- from “Ideals and Doubts” (1915) [PR 170-172]
- “Natural Law” (1918) [PR 173-177]
- from Abrams v. United States (1919) [PR 178-181]
- Posner, “Introduction” to The Essential Holmes [online]
- Morton White, “Rule, Ruling, and Prediction in the Law: Hart v. Holmes” from A Philosophy of Culture [online]
- from “Lecture I: Early Forms of Liability,” in The Common Law (1881) [PR
- John Dewey – The Reconstruction of Philosophy (10/8)
- “The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy” [online]
- from “The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy” [PR 219–232]
- “Philosophy and Democracy” [online]
- “Theories of Knowledge” [PR 205–218]
- “Philosophy’s Search for the Immutable” [online]
- Menand, The Metaphysical Club, Part Four [MC 233–334]
- Jackson, “John Dewey” [CP 54–66]
- Hickman, “Introduction” [RD]
- John Dewey – Inquiry, Science, and Art (10/15)
- from How We Think (1933) [online]
- from Logic: the Theory of Inquiry [Part I, Part II, Bonus: Part III] [online]
- “Experience, Nature, and Art” [PR 233–264]
- from Art as Experience [Part I, Part II] [online]
- Hickman, “Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry” [RD Ch. 9]
- Alexander, “The Art of Life: Dewey’s Aesthetics” [RD Ch. 1]
- John Dewey – Moral and Political Philosophy (10/22)
- “The Ethics of Democracy” [PR 181–204]
- “Evolution and Ethics” [online]
- “Three Independent Factors in Morals” [online]
- “Moral Judgment and Knowledge” [online]
- from The Public and Its Problems [Part I, Part II] [online]
- Pappas, “Dewey’s Ethics: Morality as Experience” [RD Ch. 6]
- Stuhr, “Dewey’s Social and Political Philosophy” [RD Ch. 5]
- Campbell, “Dewey’s Conception of Community” [RD Ch. 2]
- Mancias, “John Dewey and American Social Science” [RD Ch. 3]
- Jane Addams – Radical Pragmatism (10/29)
- from “A Function of the Social Settlement” [PR 272–286]
- Haddock Seigfried, “Introduction” [DS ix-xxxviii]
- “Introduction” [DS 5–10]
- “Charitable Effort” [DS 11–34]
- “Filial Relations” [DS 35–47]
- “Political Reform” [DS 98–120]
- “Problems of Poverty” [online]
- Fischer, “Jane Addams” [CP 79–86]
- Hamington, “Jane Addams”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/addams-jane/
- Alain LeRoy Locke (11/5)
- “Values and Imperatives” [online]
- “Pluralism and Intellectual Democracy” [online]
- “Cultural Relativism and Ideological Peace” [online]
- “A Functional View of Value Ultimates” [online]
- Harris, “Alain L. Locke” [CP 87-93]
- The Middle Period – Pragmatism and the Rise of Analytic Philosophy (11/12)
- C.I. Lewis, “A Pragmatic Conception of the A Priori”
- C.I. Lewis, “Logical Positivism and Pragmatism”
- W.V.O. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”
- Morton White, “Normative Ethics, Normative Epistemology, and Quine’s Holism”
- Sidney Hook, “Pragmatism and the Tragic Sense of Life”
- Alan W. Richardson, “Engineering Philosophy of Science: American Pragmatism and Logical Empiricism in the 1930s” [all online]
- Thanksgiving Holiday (11/19)
- Richard Rorty (11/26)
- “Philosophy as a Kind of Writing” [PR 303–328]
- “Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism” [PR 329–336]
- “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy” [online]
- “Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritariamism”[CP 257–266]
- “Pragmatism as Romantic Polytheism” [online]
- Ramberg, “Richard Rorty” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/
- Nielson, “Richard Rorty” [CP 127–138]
- Menand, The Metaphysical Club, Part Five [MC 335–442]
- Cornel West – Prophetic Pragmatism (12/3)
- “The Making of an American Radical Democrat of African Descent” [online]
- “Why Pragmatism?” [online]
- from “Prophetic Pragmatism,” in The American Evasion of Philosophy [PR
403-17] - Richard Rorty, “The Professor and the Prophet” [online]
- West, “The Limits of Neopragmatism” [online]
- Feminist Pragmatism (12/10)
- Sullivan, “Feminism” [CP 232–238]
- Judy Whipps, “Pragmatist Feminism”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach-pragmatism/ - Charlene Haddock Seigfried, “Where are All the Pragmatist Feminists?” [online]
- Rooney, “Feminist-Pragmatist Revisionings of Reason, Knowledge, and
Philosophy” [online] - Lynn Hankinson Nelson, “A Question of Evidence” [online]
Grading
Graded Assignments
- Questions on the readings — Email the professor 2-3 questions about the primary texts at least 24 hours prior to class. Students are responsible for submitting questions at least 10 of the 13 weeks of substantive class meetings (not counting the introductory class). These questions will form the basis of in-class discussion. Questions can be of the following types:
- Interpretive questions – Questions about how to interpret particular concepts or arguments from the text. Must include reference to a specific passage or passages for close reading and proposed options or strategies of interpretation.
- Critical questions – Questions which critically analyze or challenge certain key ideas in the primary text. You must clearly explain the concept or argument being challenged.
- Historical questions – Questions that explore the larger historical context of the thinker being discussed. These questions should be specific and make reference to the content of a certain idea. You need to give us enough to have something to discuss: e.g., a question of influence between philosophers should point to passages of text and biographical details that at least give some reason to raise the question of influence.
- Application questions – As pragmatism is deeply concerned with the relation of theory and practice, it is apropos to ask how certain pragmatist ideas can be applied. A clear explanation of the concept or argument being questioned, along with the context of application to be explored. The application should raise some interesting philosophical point, such as providing a potential counter-example or illuminating some unappreciated feature of the idea.
Do not skimp on explaining and elaborating the question.
- Participation in class discussion — A necessary part of developing ones scholarly
skills, especially in philosophy. Based on class attendance, frequency and quality of
contributions. - Term paper — details TBA.
Evaluation Standards
The following is a clarification for the purposes of this course of UTD’s official policy with
respect to grading standards.
- An A grade indicates excellent work. A work has something to say and says it well. It displays a subtle and nuanced understanding of the texts, develops arguments clearly and effectively, and reflects insightfully on the course material. It often rises above other work in terms of creativity and sophistication, or it may add something valuable to the discussion that goes beyond merely fulfilling the letter of the requirements. Only few, minor mistakes are present.
- A B grade indicates good work, but with room for improvement. Such work displays a clear understanding of the text, develops arguments consistently with a clear aim, and is thoughtful and careful. The presence of serious errors must not impair the clarity of an argument or the overall understanding of a text. B work is in many ways successful, but lacks the sophistication or originality of A work.
- A C grade indicates marginal work. It shows a basically adequate understanding of the key parts of the text. Arguments aim at a central claim, though they may rely on unsupported or insufficiently developed ideas. More serious errors may be present, so long as the central claims and basic understandings are not undermined.
- Work which deserves a grade less than C is considered poor and will display some of the following problems: it fails to show adequate understanding of the text; it fails to understand the assignment; it fails to articulate a coherent or adequate argument; it fails to reflect on the content of the course; it displays such pervasive grammatical errors as to be highly obscure in meaning.
Course & Instructor Policies
Late Work / Make-up Exams
No late work or make-up exams will be allowed without consent of the professor prior to the due/exam date, except in situations where University policy requires it.
Class Attendance
While reading and writing are crucial parts of the course, the central philosophical activity is live discussion. While class will occasionally involve bits of lecture, this is merely an instrument to a more well-informed discussion. Attendance is thus considered mandatory.
Classroom expectations
You are expected to have read the assignments before class, and it would be to your benefit to also read them again after class. You are expected to bring all of the texts assigned for each day’s class, and have them available to refer to. You are expected to listen respectfully to the professor and your fellow students, and participate in class discussions and activities.
Further standard University policies can be found at http://go.utdallas.edu/syllabus-policies