SYLLABUS
PHIL 310 Theory of Knowledge
Fall 2015
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 10:30-11:45am
Dr. Philip Woodward
Office: Arts and Sciences Building 324
Office phone: x6488
Email: philip.woodward@valpo.edu
Office Hours: 1-3pm, MWF
Course Description
This course is a course in contemporary Epistemology, i.e. the theory of knowledge. Like
so many other philosophically-interesting categories, the category of knowledge comes
up effortlessly in everyday thought and speech:
“Where is Prof. Visser?”
“She’s in her office.”
“How do you know?”
“It’s her office hour right now.”
Yet a moderate amount of reflection reveals how deeply puzzling and mysterious
knowledge is. Intuitively, for someone to know something is at a minimum for that
person to be justified in believing a truth. Suppose I believe that Prof. Visser is in her
office, because she has told me when her office hours are and now is one of the hours she
mentioned. Suppose that she lied to me about when her office hours are, but that she is in
fact in her office right now. It seems I believe truly and justifiedly yet do not know that
she is in her office. But even if things are not so weird as all that—even if she told me the
truth about her office hours—it is still not obvious that I know that she is in her office.
After all, if I were plugged in to a Matrix-like simulation of VU, rather than actually
strolling about the campus in northwest Indiana, all of my evidence would (by
hypothesis) be exactly the same. Am I really justified in believing P rather than Q, if my
evidence is perfectly consistent with both?
General questions such as these come up for any theory of knowledge, and we will
devote the first half of our course to their ilk. Matters get yet more complicated when we
try to understand knowledge in particular domains, domains such as perception, the a
priori (knowledge acquired without the aid of perceptual experience), science, morality,
and religion. Some philosophers have argued that knowledge in some or all of these
domains is impossible; other philosophers have provided clever responses to such
skeptical challenges. Most of the second half of the course will pursue such domainspecific epistemological questions.
Yet further complications stem from the fact that propositional knowledge—knowing
that such-and-such—does not appear to be the only type of knowledge. We say such
things as “She knows how to fix bicycles” or “I don’t know that film” or “Knowing
algebra is a prerequisite for learning calculus”. And what about states such as trust, faith,
understanding, and wisdom? These categories have an epistemic ring to them, though
their relationship to knowledge is not obvious. We will devote the final unit of our course
to these alternative (“non-doxastic”) epistemic states.
Readings for this course will be challenging. Class sessions will largely be discussionbased; lecturing will be minimal. It is expected that you will attend each class session
having read, taken notes on, and jotted down questions about each reading (even if such
questions amount to, “What is the author trying to say here?”).
Course Objectives




Becoming conversant in a wide range of contemporary debates in Epistemology
Considering rival theories; developing some reflective views about the nature,
scope and limits of knowledge, as a component of one’s worldview and as a
starting-point for future thought and research
Honing skills in reading, comprehending, and evaluating philosophical texts
Producing clear, rigorous, engaging philosophical writing
Course Requirements / Grading
Weekly Reading Summaries
Midterm Exam
Final Exam
Term Paper Topic
Term Paper Outline
Term Paper
20%
20%
30%
5%
5%
20%
Exams will be a mix of short-answer and essay.
Weekly Reading Summaries are due on the day we discuss a text. You are free to
choose the reading for Monday, Wednesday or Friday. Reading Summaries should be 12pp and should answer the following questions carefully: (1) What motivating
question(s) can the reading be best understood as answering? (2) What answer(s) does the
author propose? (3) What are the most important arguments discussed in the reading
for/against said proposal(s)?
No Reading Summaries will be due on weeks 1 and 6. 13 weeks remain, and I will count
12 Reading Summaries toward your grade. So you are free to skip a week. Or you can
turn in all 13 and I will drop the lowest grade. Reading Summaries will receive up to 10
points, as follows: 10–great; 9–good; 8–adequate; 7–inadequate; 6–poor.
You will write your Term Paper in three stages. First, you will turn in a paragraph or so
discussing the line of inquiry you want to pursue in your paper, along with 3-5 sources
you expect to consult. (You should feel free to run ideas by me well in advance of the due
date for this first stage.) Second, you will turn in an outline of your paper, plus written
notes on 3-5 sources. Third, you will submit your completed term paper, which should be
between 12 and 18 pages.
Required Texts



Robert Audi, Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of
Knowledge, Third Edition. Routledge, 2011. ISBN: 978-0415879231.
Steup, Turri & Sosa, Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Second Edition.
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. ISBN: 978-0-470-67209-9.
Other readings available on Blackboard
Course Policies
Attendance:
It is expected that you will be in attendance, on time, and prepared for every scheduled
class session. Please alert me ahead of time if you plan to be absent.
Late work:
No late work will be accepted.
Honor Code:
The Honor Code must be written and signed on every writing assignment and exam. In
accord with the Code, all students must pledge not to give or receive unauthorized aid.
Additionally, students are obligated to report violations of the Honor Code to the Honor
Council. Violations may result in failing this course or in being suspended or expelled
from the University. For details see:
http://www.valpo.edu/student/honorcouncil/honorcode.php.
Email and class cancelation:
Email is the best way to communicate with me. Expect a reply within 24 hours on
weekdays, and inconsistent replies on the weekends. I do not answer student questions
about exams in the 24 hours preceding the exam.
If I need to communicate with you, I will use your Valpo email address. This is also how
I will alert the class in the event of an unscheduled class cancelation. I expect that you are
checking your Valpo email at least once per day.
Academic support services:
If you find that you are struggling or feeling confused or frustrated, come to office hours
or email me requesting an appointment. The next step is to use the Academic Success
Center (ASC) online directory (valpo.edu/academicsuccess) or contact the ASC
(academic.success@valpo.edu) to help point you in the right direction for academic
support resources for this course. Valpo’s learning centers (Writing Center, Language
Resource Center, and Academic Success Center) offer excellent support services free of
charge.
Disability support:
Please contact Mr. Zebadiah Hall at Disability Support Services
(zebadiah.hall@valpo.edu), if you believe you have a disability that might require a
reasonable accommodation in order for you to perform as expected in this class. Mr. Hall
will work with you and me directly to make sure you receive any reasonable
accommodation needed as the result of a disability.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Readings labeled ‘CDE’ are from Contemporary Debates in Epistemology.
Week 1
9/26
9/28 Audi, Introduction; Audi, Ch 13: “Skepticism I: The Quest for Certainty,” pp.
334-43
Week 2
8/31 Audi, Ch 9: “The Architecture of Knowledge,” pp. 206-16
9/2
Audi, Ch 9: “The Architecture of Knowledge,” pp. 216-32
9/4
Elgin (CDE), “Non-foundationalist Epistemology: Holism, Coherence, and
Tenability”, pp. 244-55
Week 3
9/7
Audi, Ch 9: “The Architecture of Knowledge,” pp. 232-36 & Van Cleve (CDE),
“Why Coherence is not Enough,” + replies, pp. 255-73
9/9
Audi, Ch. 10, “The Analysis of Knowledge,” pp. 246-48; Gettier, “Is Justified
True Belief Knowledge?” [Blackboard]
9/11 Audi, Ch. 10, “The Analysis of Knowledge,” pp. 248-53
Week 4
9/14 Audi, Ch. 10, “The Analysis of Knowledge,”pp. 253-64
9/16 Conee & Cohen (CDE), “Is Knowledge Contextual?” pp. 60-83
9/18 Audi, Ch. 11: “Knowledge, Justification, and Truth,” pp. 270-77
Week 5
9/21 Greco (CDE), “Justification is Not Internal” pp. 324-36
9/23 Feldman (CDE), Justification is Internal,” pp. 337-350
9/25 Plantinga, “Warrant: A First Approximation” [Blackboard]
Week 6
9/28 Audi, Ch. 11: “Knowledge, Justification, and Truth,” pp. 277-281; Baehr &
Zagzebski (CDE), “Are Intellectually Virtuous Motives Essential to Knowledge?”
pp. 133-151
9/30 MIDTERM
10/2 NO CLASS
Week 7
10/5 Audi, Ch 2: “Theories of Perception,” pp. 38-51
10/7 Audi, Ch. 1, “Perception: Sensing, Believing and Knowing,” pp. 26-30; Ch. 2,
“Theories of Perception,” pp. 55-59.
10/9 EPISTEMOLOGY FIELD TRIP!
Week 8
10/12 Vogel & Fumerton (CDE), “Can Skepticism Be Refuted?” pp. 107-32
10/14 Audi, Ch. 5, “Reason I: Understanding, Insight, and Intellectual Power,” pp. 10416
10/16 Ch. 5., “Reason I: Understanding, Insight, and Intellectual Power,” pp. 116-21;
Ch. 6., “Reason II: Meaning, Necessity, and Provability,” pp. 130-38
Week 9
10/19 Bonjour (CDE), “In Defense of the A Priori,” pp. 177-85; Lewis Carroll,
“Achilles and the Tortoise” [Blackboard]
10/21 Devitt (CDE), “There is no A Priori” + replies, pp. 185-201
10/23 FALL BREAK
Week 10
10/26 Audi, Ch 9: “Scientific, Moral and Religious Knowledge,” pp. 298-308
10/28 Kuhn, “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions” [Blackboard]
10/30 Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice” [Blackboard]
Week 11
11/2 Maxwell, “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities” [Blackboard]
11/4 Van Fraassen, “Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” [Blackboard]
11/6 Audi, Ch 9: “Scientific, Moral and Religious Knowledge,”. 308-19
Week 12
11/9 *Topic due Audi, Ch 9: “Scientific, Moral and Religious Knowledge,” pp. 31928
11/11 Hume, “Of Miracles” [Blackboard]
11/13 Plantinga, “Reason and Belief in God” Sections 1 and 2, pp. 16-63 [Blackboard]
Week 13
11/16 Plantinga, “Reason and Belief in God” Sections 3 and 4, pp. 69-93 [Blackboard]
11/18 Alston, “The Perception of God” [Blackboard]
11/20 Goldberg, “Does Externalist Epistemology Rationalize Religious Commitment?”
[Blackboard]
11/23 THANKSGIVING BREAK
11/25 THANKSGIVING BREAK
11/27 THANKSGIVING BREAK
Week 14
11/30 *OL due Wykstra, “‘Not Done in a Corner’: How to Be a Sensible Evidentialist
about Jesus” [Blackboard]
12/2 Callahan & O’Connor, “Well-Tuned Trust as an Epistemic Virtue” [Blackboard]
12/4 Kvanvig (CDE), “Truth is Not the Primary Epistemic Goal,” pp. 351-62
Week 15
Howard-Snyder, “Propositional Faith: What It Is and What It Is Not”
[Blackboard]
12/9 Grimm, “The Value of Understanding” [Blackboard]
12/11 Grimm, “Wisdom” [Blackboard]
12/7
Friday, 12/18: Final paper due by 5pm
Tuesday, 12/15: FINAL EXAM, 10:30-12:30