Theory of Knowledge
Fall 2006
Take-Home Final
Directions: Answer two of the questions that follow. An answer of about 3-5 pages for each question should suffice, but you should worry more about quality than length. Make sure that your answers are well-organized, that key terms are clearly explained, and that you give clear and direct answers to the questions asked. The essays should be similar in style to those you have written during the semester, but you should do more to set out the context of your discussion than was required in those assignments.
You are allowed to discuss the general outlines of your answers with other students, but all the details of your answers should be the product of your own work.
Finals are due Monday December 18th at noon. Either email your work to me (richard.feldman@rochester.edu) or bring it to my Philosophy Department office (Lattimore 518). Slide it under the door if I’m not there. If you email it, it is your responsibility to be sure that I get it. So, if you send it, ask me to respond to tell you that I received it. And if you don’t hear from me, do something about it. A significant number of points will be deducted for late submissions. There will be no exceptions to this policy. If you have other exams or you are worried about last minute computer problems, then get your work done early. Early submissions are encouraged.
1. Analyze some central arguments or claims in one of the following two articles in the anthology. You may find the editor’s questions at the end of each article useful in organizing your thoughts. You need not directly answer his questions, however.
a) In “Testimony and Observation,” pp. 239-249 in the anthology, C.A.J. Coady discusses the justification of testimony. Toward the end of the essay, on p. 247, he states what seems to be his conclusion: “the problem of justifying testimony is a pseudoproblem.” Discuss what Coady means by this, how he argues for it, and whether his arguments are any good. Do not recount all aspects of Coady’s argument. Instead, select some central part of it for discussion. You may find some of the material from pp. 168-175 of the text somewhat relevant to this. (Then again, you may not find anything useful there.)
b) In “Distrusting Reason” (pp. 275-91 of the anthology), Hilary Kornblith discusses “skepticism about reason-giving.” Write an essay about Kornblith’s article. Your essay should identify a central issue addressed in the article and should critically assess Kornblith’s main conclusion about that issue.
2. One of the main claims made in the text and in class about the non-evidentialist theories of justification is that “they understate the role of … evidence in the account of” knowledge.(p. 105) Explain and discuss this criticism of one of these theories, focusing on whether or not the theory can be defended from the criticism. (You don’t have to argue that the claim made in the text and in class is mistaken. You might instead develop the point more fully or explain some point that is not well-enough explained.)
3. On pp. 178-182 of the text there is a discussion of “serious relativism.” Two principles, (R5) and (R6), come up for discussion as candidates for what relativism is supposed to be. Extend this discussion of relativism. You can do this by taking issue with what is said about one or both of those principles, or by identifying and discussing some other principle that might better capture the idea of relativism. (You can discuss this whether you want to defend or reject relativism.)
[Continued on back]
4. Here is a list of principles from the text, most of which were also discussed in class:
a) The Same Evidence Principle (p. 29)
b) The Justified Falsehoods Principle (p. 28)
c) The Justified Deduction Principle (p. 28)
d) The Get the Evidence Principle (p. 47)
e) The Past to Future Principle (p. 137)
f) The Past to Future Principle Revised (PFR, p. 137)
g) The Tea Leaf Principle (TLR, p. 139)
h) The Best Explanation Principle (Premise 9-2 of The Best Explanation Argument (Revised), p. 151)
i) The Reliability of Perception and Memory Principle (REL, p. 173)
Some of these principles were said to be true, some were said to be false. There is more to be said about each of these than was said in class or the text. Add to the discussion of one or more of these principles. Your discussion can take any of the following forms:
a) Argue against the assessment of the principle given in the text or class. For example, if it says that one of these principles is true, and you think that it is not true and that no simple revision of it is true, then you can argue for that claim. Explain what goes wrong with the reasoning about this principle in the text.
b) You might think that one of the principles is not right as formulated, but that a revision of it would be much better. If so, explain your reasoning. This will work best in the case of a principle that is claimed in the text to be true. You can argue that the stated principle is not true, but that some revised version of it is true.
c) You might think that some combination of the claims cannot be right. Two principles that are evaluated differently should be evaluated similarly, or two that are evaluated similarly should get different evaluations. E.g. you might argue that (PFR) and (TLR) should get the same status.
d) You might think that one of the claims is true, but that it is inadequately defended in the text. If so, explain the inadequacy and provide a better defense.
Whatever option you chose, explain and defend your view and explain what implications your conclusion has for the larger discussion in which the principle appeared. Make sure that you make fully explicit exactly which principle you are discussing and what you want to say about it.