First Paper Topics
PHI 560 Fall 2010
Prof. Meg Wallace
Below are some suggested paper prompts. Please choose one. You are allowed to write on a topic that is not listed below provided that (i) the topic is relevant to our course and the corresponding section of the course, (ii) reflects that you understand the material we’ve covered in class, (iii) prominently uses at least one article or reading material that is listed on the reading schedule, and (iv) you have discussed it with me first. All sources must be cited; all of your work must be your own. I will accept (and encourage) rough drafts in person. Please contact me to set up an appointment: .
3 Paper Option: As specified on the syllabus, you will turn in 3 papers with the due dates as follows: Thursday, September 29; Thursday, October 25; and Thursday, December 15. Each paper should be 6-10 pages. Each paper is worth 30% of your total grade.
2 Paper Option: If you would prefer, you may turn in 2 longer papers in lieu of the 3 papers. Each paper should be about 10-12 pages. The first paper must be turned in on or before Thursday, October 25. The second paper must be turned in on or before Thursday, December 15. Each paper is worth 45% of your total grade.
1. Explain and discuss the reasons and motivations for the logical positivist’s notion of cognitive significance. Make sure you explain the difference between “empirical meaning” and “analytical meaning,” providing examples. Why might one be sympathetic to such a project, and how is it relevant to philosophy, science, and contemporary philosophy of science? What are some difficulties for this project? Are they surmountable? Why or why not?
2. Lay out and discuss at least one of the “contemporary empiricists” attempt(s) to give necessary and sufficient conditions for cognitive significance (examples are provided by the relevant reading, e.g., Lange, Rosenberg, and Hempel). What are some problems with this (these) attempt(s)? If you outline specific objections (raised by Hempel, Church, Lange, etc.), be sure to work carefully through the objection, clearly. Can you think of any response(s) on behalf of the empiricist? Consider carefully replies and counter-replies on either side. Discuss.
3. Discuss the role that explanation, causation and laws of nature play in the empiricist’s picture. Why are the notions of causation and laws of nature particularly difficult for such a worldview? How is an appeal to explanation(s) supposed to help? What becomes of causation and laws? What are some problems to such a proposal? Are there responses to these problems? Discuss.
4. Carefully explain Hempel’s D-N model of explanation. Be sure to explain how such a model is supposed to integrate the notions of explanation, causation and laws of nature. Does the integration work? What are some objections? Be specific. Can you think of any responses on behalf of Hempel, or are the objections insurmountable? Explain your answer clearly and carefully. Hempel also introduces his I-S model. If you have space, explain how this is supposed to be a helpful addendum to the D-N model. Discuss.
5. Discuss David Lewis’ interpretation of laws of nature. In so doing, be sure to discuss (briefly) how his view of laws incorporates his commitment to (i)concrete modal realism, (ii) possible worlds analysis of modality, (iii) neo-humeanism or empiricism, and (iv) an empiricist-friendly notion of causation. Be sure to explain the role of simplicity and strength in Lewis’ picture. Do you think that the contemporary empiricists or Hempel would have been sympathetic to this view? Why or why not? Raise and discuss any objections.
6. Dretske claims that laws of nature differ importantly from universal generalizations, but he thinks that this difference is not what is traditionally supposed. What are some traditional proposals about how laws differ from universal generalizations? What are some of Dretske’s arguments against these proposals? Are these arguments convincing? Discuss. Clearly lay out Dretske’s proposal. Does his view accomplish all that he claims? Do you agree that it is an improvement over the traditional views? Why or why not? Discuss.
7. Some worry that ceteris paribus clauses are problematic for laws of nature, and philosophy of science in general. Critically discuss these worries. Lange argues that such concerns are unfounded. Discuss his proposal and the arguments he presents against alternative views and for his own. Do you agree with him? Discuss objections and replies.