PAPERS FOR Phil 146
The paper ought to be typed, double-spaced, and have normal font size and 1 inch
margins. It should be less than 10 pages in length and preferably around 7 pages. It
should be passed in on May 18, at lecture, unless other arrangements have been made.
Please note that I do not want emailed copies of papers, but rather hard copies. Late
papers will be penalized 5 points per day.
(1) Evaluation. The paper should have a thesis or main point. The thesis should either
concern the proper interpretation of one of the thinkers we have studied or an evaluation
of one or more of the arguments employed by our philosophers. Most likely, the paper
will have to involve both interpretation and evaluation to some degree: one way of
defending an interpretation of a philosopher’s argument is to argue that it is less
vulnerable to criticism than alternative interpretations; conversely, criticisms of a
philosopher’s arguments are of little interest unless you show that your interpretation of
the argument you are criticizing is plausible.
2) Argument. Your paper needs to be more than an autobiographical account of your
experience in reading the material. You need to offer reasons for your position or against
the one you are attacking. One very good strategy students often do not use enough is to
think of possible objections to your view and respond to them. In addition, if you are
criticizing someone else’s work, it is a very good idea to discuss how you think the writer
would defend his or her position against your criticisms. This helps to deepen your
argument. Contrary to what some students fear, it also makes your argument more
persuasive.
(3) Clarity is vitally important: you need to write carefully and organise your paper very
explicitly. If necessary, you should ruthlessly sacrifice elegance of style in favour of
glaringly obvious signposting.
(4) Research. You are expected to do research outside the mandatory readings for the
class (in addition to the relevant class materials). Papers that are not sufficiently
researched (i.e., that miss major points due to an obvious research omission) will be not
receive high marks. The most obvious places to read depend of course on your topic, but
generally the references in the in-class papers would be a natural start; in addition, some
of the books mentioned as background reading will contain good direction too. Internet
papers from non-refereed websites do not count. They are unreliable and often of substandard quality. Many relevant articles in good journals are available electronically,
however, through UCSD’s electronic library. If in doubt or needing of help, simply ask
me before/after class or via email.
Suggested Topics:
1. Is special relativity compatible with the idea that time flows? (Start with Putnam.)
2. Is general relativity compatible with the idea that time flows? (Start with Gödel.)
3. In Newtonian spacetime, who wins, the substantivalist or the relationist? (Dainton,
Maudlin)
4. In Galilean (neo-Newtonian) spacetime, who wins, the substantivalist or the
relationist? (Dainton, Maudlin)
5. In Minkowski spacetime, who wins, the substantivalist or the relationist? (Dainton,
Maudlin)
6. In general relativity, who wins, the substantivalist or the relationist? (Dainton,
Mualdin)
7. Explain and evaluate Barbour’s relationist model in The End of Time. (Pooley and
Brown)
8. Does Kant’s argument from the existence of handed phenomena prove that space is
substantival?
9. Is physical geometry conventional? (Reichenbach, Sklar, Weingard)
10. Is physical topology conventional? (Reichenbach, Sklar, Weingard)
11. Is simultaneity in special relativity conventional? (Reichenbach, Sklar, Norton)
12. Take a principle author we’ve read and subject his or her work to detailed evaluation.
If there is another topic you wish to write on (related to this course), you may do so once
you have my permission.