teaching dossier

Kimberly Van Orman 5 Liberty Street, Ballston Spa, NY 12020 (518) 288-8697 [email protected]

Teaching Portfolio

Table of Contents: Pages

Statement of Teaching Philosophy 2-3

Courses Taught 4

Courses Prepared to Teach 5

Teaching Evaluations and Student Feedback 6-7

Sample Syllabus: Philosophy of Mind 8-10

Sample Syllabus Overview: Philosophy of Science 11-12

Sample Syllabus Overview: Critical Thinking 13-14

Sample Syllabus Overview: Introduction to Philosophy 15-16

Classroom Activity: Dialogic Notebook 17-18

Sample Writing Assignment 19-20

Additional documents (including more syllabi) can be found at:

https://sites.google.com/site/vanorman/

https://sites.google.com/site/vanorman/

Van Orman, Teaching Portfolio, 2

Statement of Teaching Philosophy

The principal value in philosophy coursework lies in the critical thinking skills that students

acquire. My goal in teaching philosophy courses is not only to encourage students to consider

others’ views, but also to stake out their own position based on evidence and argument. In my

teaching, I design course activities to help students develop three aspects of critical thinking:

analytic thinking skills, the ability to apply the principle of charity to the views of others, and a

better understanding of their own beliefs. These critical thinking skills make students better

thinkers by helping them better understand and analyze philosophical theories as well as to lead

them toward being better people because they understand their own beliefs and can engage with

the beliefs of others in a more deliberate manner.

At the core of the analytic thinking skills is the ability to recognize and evaluate arguments.

Students need to be able to break down arguments in order to understand what parts are

necessary to the argument, what parts are ancillary, and what consequences follow from the

conclusion. To help students practice these skills, I design courses around the Team Based

Learning (TBL) approach. From the first class meeting, I place students in permanent teams and

spend much of class time engaged in decision-making tasks that require them to apply and

evaluate the theories we study. Prior to class, individuals will demonstrate their understanding of

the reading, either via a quiz or a discussion question on Blackboard, so that they are ready for

application problems in class. For example, in an ethics course students I require students to

choose between snippets of dialogue to judge which is the best exemplar of someone who has

accepted a utilitarian view of ethics. In courses that feature logic, I have found that students can

memorize the definition of validity but still struggle to understand it well enough to be able to

recognize valid arguments that have false premises. To help with this, I have them practice

sorting simple arguments (often syllogisms) on slips of paper into "valid" and "invalid" piles in

their teams. By working through a set of examples and discussing it with their team, they are

able to work with arguments better and to develop a functional understanding of the abstract

concept. To help students with the analytic nature of reading philosophically, I review short

passages of text in class and ask students to mark the passage and take notes which are then

compared with classmates’ examples as well as with my own. With this exercise, students learn

that reading is not a passive activity, but is rather itself a philosophical activity. To develop the

skills necessary for philosophical writing, students practice writing in class so that they can

receive immediate feedback. For example, to help them to better plan their writing as well as to

get practice in anticipating criticisms of their position, I use a “Dialogic Notebook” exercise.

This technique starts with a timed written discussion in which students are asked to take a

position, and then provide specific feedback to their peers. The activity then transitions to small-

group and large-group discussions. This technique can be used to scaffold paper writing so that

as students start sketching the thesis they plan to defend in a paper and identify the evidence they

plan to use, they get and give feedback that reinforces the principles of good argumentation.

The second skill that I encourage students to develop is the ability to apply the principle of

charity to others’ arguments. My goal is for students to practice bracketing their own beliefs and

positions and fully consider and analyze the viewpoints of others. I find that this is often a very

difficult task for students to do—they tend to view arguments as something to be won rather than

as tools to help us better understand a topic. I have found that working in groups can help


students to understand and accept other positions. Since they value their teammates, they are

more motivated to listen to teammates whose views conflict with their own.

Third, students often don’t understand what or why they believe what they do. It is common for

them to think that their beliefs are common sense or to think that they are widely shared by

others. Even with practice, students struggle to take seriously the views of others with whom

they disagree—sometimes to the point of being dismissive or even hostile. To help with this,

most of my classes spend some time on issues of cognitive biases, including implicit biases

related to race and gender so that students develop an understanding of the social and

psychological factors that can shape belief. To help them develop a more thoughtful

understanding of their own positions, students complete journals in which they reflect on what

they believe in relation to the topic and why they believe it. For grading purposes, initial entries

are reviewed simply for completeness, and then students are asked to revise a small number of

entries for a later essay in which they are asked to reflect and comment on whether their views

have changed or not. When students understand the reasoning behind their beliefs, they become

better able to engage in thoughtful discussions with their classmates.

These three aspects of thinking are addressed in a very direct manner in my critical thinking

course. While I include traditional topics of argument and fallacy analysis and some basic

principles of logic, I also include sections on cognitive biases, scientific reasoning, and habit

development. I want my students to not only be able to discuss what critical thinking is, but to

understand ways in which they are built for thinking quickly over thinking accurately, and to

have some practice in ways reflecting on their own beliefs and thinking behaviors and having

tools for changing the ones that don’t work. My goal is to instill some epistemic humility about

their own beliefs, and the both logical and reflective tools to help them develop clear thinking.

For students pursuing more serious philosophical study in upper division or graduate courses,

these same principles inform my course and activity design, but the focus falls more heavily on

in-depth analysis of philosophical positions. The readings chosen for more advanced students

focus on philosophically controversial issues and problems are viewed from various

perspectives. I assign frequent but short analyses of readings that students prepare before class

so that we can focus on the arguments being made rather than review the details of the readings.

When possible, I provide opportunities for students to rewrite essays so that they can use

feedback to improve their writing and arguing skills.

In the end, I want my students to fearlessly engage with unfamiliar ideas and to be able to

analyze and understand difficult material without feeling threatened by it. They will develop the

philosophical skills of learning to ask questions and to look for the evidence that would provide

an answer. They will become capable of analyzing the arguments and claims of others, able to

apply philosophic theories to real-world situations, and willing to hear views that conflict with

their own and modify their views when appropriate. These are the benefits of critical thinking

that I think philosophy has to offer our students.


Courses Taught

Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Philosophy, six sections, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Philosophy and the Human Being, five sections, Siena College

Invitation to Philosophy, one section, The College of Saint Rose

TA: Introduction to Philosophical Problems, four sections, University at Albany

TA: Mind and World, one section, University at Albany

Ethics Introduction to Ethical Theory, two sections, University at Albany

Morals and Society, one section (summer), University at Albany

Moral Choices, three sections, University at Albany

Additional section at Albany Medical College as an adult extension course for employees

Logic/Critical Thinking

Basic Logic, one section, Siena College

Critical Thinking, two sections, University at Albany

Philosophy of Mind/Cognitive Science

Minds and Machines, eleven sections, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Philosophy of Mind, ten sections, Center for Talented Youth, summer program, Johns

Hopkins University

This program provides advanced topic courses to gifted middle- and high-school

students in an intense three-week summer program. I also served as mentor for

other instructors of the Philosophy of Mind course.

World Views

Revolutions in Thought, one section, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

TA: World Religions, one section, University at Albany

Courses in the Teacher Development and Future Faculty Program (Co-Instructor)

Seminar in College Teaching, seven sections, University at Albany

Preparing for the Professoriate, three sections, University at Albany

The Reflective Teacher, five sections, University at Albany

Teaching assistant (TA) duties included grading papers and exams as well as holding office

hours and giving occasional lectures.

Class sizes range from 8-50 students (50-100+ in TA courses)


Courses Prepared to Teach

Lower-Division Undergraduate Introduction to Philosophy

Introduction to Ethics

Applied Ethics

Morals and Society

Critical Thinking/Informal Logic

Introduction to Logic

Introduction to Cognitive Science (Minds and Machines)

Understanding Science

Upper-Division Undergraduate

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy of Biology

Philosophy of Cognitive Science

Symbolic Logic

Epistemology

Metaphysics

Advanced Undergraduate or Graduate

Topics in Philosophy of Science:

Explanation

Causation

Topics in the Philosophy of Mind:

Metaphysics of mind

The explanatory gap

Mental causation

Conscious experience

The embodied mind


Student Evaluations and Feedback Student Feedback—University at Albany, SUNY The University at Albany does not use student feedback forms that provide much data. I have included

all of the data from those forms (there is no write in section).

For each course, I can see distinct improvement each time the course is taught. For the most recent

course, Critical Thinking, I also have data from the Department of Philosophy showing the mean scores

on all courses at the 100-200 level. For most items, I outperformed the department average.

Scores are on a 5-point scale where 1 is “poor” or “almost never” and a 5 is “excellent” or “almost always.”

Critical

Thinking

Critical

Thinking

Critical

Thinking

Intro

Ethical

Theory

Intro

Ethical

Theory

Moral

Choices

Moral

Choices

Dept 100-

200 Level PHI 112 PHI 112 PHI 112

PHI

212

PHI

212

PHI

115

PHI

115

Spring

2007

Spring

2007

Fall

2001

Spring

2001

Spring

2006

Fall

2000

Spring

2004

Spring

2000

Instructor, overall 4.04 4.45 3.91 3.44 4.11 3.59 4.32 3.88

Course, overall 3.67 4.00 3.52 3.50 3.83 3.11 3.95 3.64

Held you to high

standards of

performance 4.25 4.37 4.13 3.90 4.51 3.85 4.27 4.08

Well prepared for

class 4.60 4.73 4.58 4.40 4.69 4.37 4.77 4.56

Challenged you

intellectually 4.22 4.13 3.88 3.60 4.29 3.59 4.05 4.00

Receptive to

students ideas and

viewpoints 4.15 4.48 4.09 4.60 4.63 4.33 4.59 4.20

Communicated

course content in

ways you

understood 3.89 4.55 4.24 4.20 4.31 3.89 4.36 4.25

Stimulated interest

in course material 3.69 4.07 3.70 3.50 3.97 3.26 3.86 3.80

Available outside

class to discuss

course matters 4.27 4.75 4.25 4.43 4.72 4.38 4.23 4.11


Student Feedback—Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

RPI uses forms that allow the instructor to select course objectives, and then measures student

assessments of those criteria. The report suggests actions by comparing my ratings to those of classes

of similar size and student motivation. Three actions may be suggested in relation to selected objectives:

strength to retain, retain current use or consider increasing, consider increasing use. I received no

suggestions at the lowest level (“consider increasing use”).

[These evaluations are managed by the Individual Development & Educational Assessment (IDEA)

center at Kansas State University.]

Course Objectives—Strengths to Retain

The last time I taught Minds and Machines, a philosophical introduction to cognitive science, the

following objectives received the "Strength to retain" designation:

"Demonstrated the importance and significance of the subject matter"

"Found ways to help students answer their own questions"

"Displayed a personal interest in students and their learning"

"Gave projects, tests, or assignments that required original or creative thinking"

“Introduced stimulating ideas about the subject”

“Asked student to share ideas and experiences with others whose backgrounds and viewpoints

differ from their own”

“Related course material to real life situations”

These are criteria that reflect my course goals, and it is important to me that students perceive that these

objectives are achieved.

Student Comments

Here are some comments from students in this course:

"I liked the way that each element of the course, beginning to end, built upon the

previous topic, eventually leading up to the main topic of AI/Cyborgs, etc. I also like

that many papers gave us opportunities to make our own opinions/arguments and

explore the other issues branching off the one at hand. Thank you for teaching me

how to logically evaluate an argument and for all the thought-provoking assignments.

This course, while focused more on AI than I had expected, exceeded all my

expectations or anticipation of how good it would be. I highly recommend it!"

"This course was not what I expected it to be, but it made me realize my views on

technological growth which could be important."

"This course is excellent. It really puts your brain to work and makes you think no matter

what. It is also enjoyable, and the topics covered are interesting to learn and think

about. "

These comments suggest to me that the change from a more straight-forward lecture format to a more

collaborative one has had a positive effect on the students.

I also have evaluation forms from previous semesters and from my teaching with the Siena College and

Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Talented Youth. I would be happy to provide copies of any of

these. I also have the full reports from my RPI courses (minus qualitative comments), available here:

https://sites.google.com/site/vanorman/student-evaluations.

https://sites.google.com/site/vanorman/student-evaluations


Sample Syllabus: Philosophy of Mind

Course Description: You don’t know your own mind! It’s a mystery to you. This course will examine

central topics in the philosophy of mind. We will be exploring the relationship between the mind and the

body, issues of understanding consciousness, and whether the idea of “mind” can be extended to non-

human creatures (specifically animals and computers).

Texts: Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, David Chalmers

Papers will also be provided by the instructor.

Learning Goals: Students who complete this course will be able to…

Describe primary theories in the philosophy of mind

Analyze and critically assess these theories.

Explain and defend her or his position on philosophy of mind topics

Collaborate with student colleagues in using information to make reasoned judgments and

decisions related to course content

Write formal and informal analyses of theories in the philosophy of mind

Working in Teams

The kinds of thinking required in this course work well in a team-driven environment. Several graded

assignments will involve in-class collaboration with other students. For practical reasons, you will not be

required to collaborate outside of class, although you may choose to do so in preparation for certain

assignments. In-class collaborations will include team quizzes and/or test questions and assorted in-class

application tasks.

How Grades Will Be Earned (A=90-100; B=80-89; C=70-79; D=60-69; E=<60)

20% Readiness Assurance Process (10% Individual and 10% Team) (A schedule of due dates will be

published after the first class)

10% Frequent, short in-class tasks and writings (some team, some individual)

15% Weekly on-line writing assignments

20% 2 Individual essays (A schedule of due dates will be published after the first class)

30 % 3 In-Class Exams (A schedule of due dates will be published after the first class)

5 % Team Member Performance (peer evaluation of “helping behavior”)

100%

Managing your life and this course.

Missed assignments receive no credit. As many of the assignments in the course are team-based and in

“real-time” in class, it is impossible to schedule make-up opportunities for missed assignments. Since

there will be occasions in your life when missing a class meeting or missing a deadline for an assignment

is simply unavoidable (illness; personal crisis), this course has four built-in safety valves. These are your

tools to use in managing your life. Please manage these carefully.

Safety Valve One: You may choose to drop your lowest “major individual essay” grade and your

lowest “In-Class Team Essay” during the course.

Safety Valve Two: The average of the best 90% of your in-class work (short essays, tasks) will

count toward your grade.

Safety Valve Three: The lowest RAP grade (either individual or team component) will be

dropped from the calculation of your average.

Be careful not to waste your drops carelessly early in the semester, since you may need your

droppable grade to offset any unforeseen low scores or difficulties later in the semester.


Safety Valve Four: If you become seriously ill during the semester, or become derailed by

unforeseeable life problems, and have to miss so many assignments that it will ruin your grade,

you and the instructor will automatically schedule a special meeting in order to make

arrangements for you to withdraw from the course with the documentation needed to try to save

your grade point average. Don't wait until too late to arrange this meeting if you see that you’re

getting in trouble.

Lateness-Tardiness Policy. If you need to arrive late or leave early and thereby miss part or all of an in-

class assignment, you will risk damaging your grade irretrievably, as you will be unable to receive credit

for that assignment, neither for individual work nor for the work of your team in your absence. If you

know that it will be difficult for you to consistently get to class on time and stay for the entire period,

you should drop this course and take it the next time it is offered, when you have more time.

Cell Phone Policy. Please show respect for your fellow students by making sure your cell phone is

turned off before entering the classroom.

Academic Integrity: Plagiarism and cheating

The instructor is required to report any student behavior that has the appearance of cheating or plagiarism.

Penalties for cheating and plagiarism can be quite severe, and can include 1) failure of course; 2)

suspension from the university; 3) expulsion from the university and 4) a notation in your permanent

transcripts. You cannot afford to enter professional life with any of these stains on your permanent

record.

In test/quiz situations please keep your eyes on your own work except where collaboration is

explicitly permitted.

In papers, make sure you do your own work, except where collaboration is explicitly

permitted or required.

In research, make sure you properly cite and document any sources (using a recognized style)

from which you have borrowed ideas or language.

Students with Disabilities. Please be aware that the Disability Resource Center provides a program of

support and advocacy services to students with disabilities. Come and talk with the instructor if you need

additional support because of a disability.

Topics Outline (tentative): Numbers refer to chapters of the text.

(H) Indicates a handout provided by the instructor.

** Some items will be read in part, see Blackboard for details.

Unit One: Metaphysics of Mind

Descartes and dualism

1. Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (II and VI).

(H) Churchland, from Matter and Consciousness

(H) Montero, from On the Philosophy of Mind

4. Smullyan, An unfortunate dualist.

(H) Damasio, “Unpleasantness in Vermont” from Descartes’ Error

Behaviorism

5. Ryle, Descartes' myth.

7. Putnam, Brains and behavior.

Reductive Materialism

8. Place, Is consciousness a brain process?

9. Smart, Sensations and brain processes.



Functionalism


12. Armstrong, The causal theory of the mind.

13. Lewis, Psychophysical and theoretical identifications.

14. Block, Troubles with functionalism (excerpt).

Non-reductive materialism

17. Davidson, “Mental Events.”

(H) Antony, “Everybody Has Got It: A Defense of Non-Reductive Materialism”

(H) Baker, “Non-reductive Materialism

Unit Two: Mental Causation and Consciousness

Mental causation

19. Kim, “Multiple Realization and the Metaphysics of Reduction”

23. Yablo, “Mental Causation”

(H) Woodward, “Mental Causation and Neural Mechanisms”

Qualia and consciousness

(H) Tye, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Qualia”

25. Nagel, What is it like to be a bat

26. Dennett, Quining qualia.

(H) Chalmers, “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness”

(H) Noe, “Is the Visual World a Grand Illusion?”

(H) Copeland, “Consciousness” (selection) from Artificial Intelligence

Unit Three: Content

Intentionality

46: Dretske: A Recipe for Thought

47: Millikan: Biosemantics

48: Brandom: Reasoning and Representing

Propositional attitudes

51: Fodor: Propositional Attitudes

52: Dennett: True Believers: The Intentional Strategy and Why It Works

53: Churchland: Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes

Internalism and externalism

54: Putnam: The Meaning of "Meaning" (Excerpt)

55: Burge: Individualism and the Mental (Excerpt)

56: Chalmers: The Components of Content (Revised Version)

59: Clark and Chalmers: The Extended Mind

Unit Four: Kinds of Minds

Evolution and animal minds

(H) Dennett, “The Creation of Thinking” from Kinds of Minds

(H) Hauser, Prologue and “Know Thyself” from Wild Minds

(H) Humphrey, from History of the Mind

Artificial minds/Artificial intelligence

63: John R. Searle: Can Computers Think?

(H) Brooks, “We are not Special” from Flesh and Machines

(H) Copeland, “Can a Machine Think?” from Artificial Intelligence


Sample Syllabus Overview: Philosophy of Science

Course Description: What is so special about science? What does it have that other ways of

looking at the world don’t? This course is an introduction to major topic in the philosophy of

science. We will examine questions such as: What is the nature of science? What does it mean

to say something causes something else? Are the objects we normally interact with real? What

does it mean to say a theory is true? And, in what ways might we be wrong about what we think

science shows us?

Texts: Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Robert Hollinger, A. David Kline,

David Wyss Rudge (Editors)

Papers will also be provided by the instructor.


Describe primary topics in the philosophy of science

Explain and defend her or his position on topics in the philosophy of science

Collaborate with student colleagues to use information to make reasoned judgments and

decisions related to course content

Write formal and informal analyses of theories in the philosophy of science

Topics Outline (tentative):

Unit One: What is Science?

Intro: What is Philosophy of Science? (editors)

Science: Conjecture and Refutations (Popper)

Believing where We Cannot Prove (Kitcher)

Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience (Thagard)

Unit Two: Causation and Explanation

Introduction to Part 3 (editors)

Studies in the Logic of Explanation (Hempel)

The Truth Doesn’t Explain Much (Cartwright)

(H) Causality (Wilson)

(H) Causation: One Word, Many Things (Cartwright)

(H) What is a Mechanism? (Woodward)

Unit Three: Realism and AntiRealism


The Nature of Theories (Carnap)

(H) (BGT)-To Save the Phenomena (van Fraasen)

(H) (Oxf)-Realism, Approximate Truth, and Philosophical Method (Boyd)

(H) (Oxf)- Fundamentalism vs the Patchwork of Laws (Cartwright)

(H) Ontological Anti-Realism (Chalmers)


Unit Four: Testing and Confirmation


Hypothesis (Quine and Ullian)

Justifying Scientific Theories (Giere)

Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice (Kuhn)

Scientific Rationality: Analytic vs. Pragmatic Perspectives (Hempel)

Unit Five: The Social Context of Science


(H) Ontology and Social Construction (Haslanger)

The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments (Rudner)

Science and Human Values (Hempel)

Values in Science (McMullin)

The Feminist Question in the Philosophy of Science (Giere)


Sample Syllabus Outline: Critical Thinking

Texts: Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning

Readings will be available via Blackboard

Course Description: Humans have incredibly powerful brains. But, they are built with a

tradeoff between speed and power. In this course, we will look at some of the ways we naturally

commit errors in reasoning and look for ways to avoid those errors. We will also look at how

informal reasoning works (with a glance at formal logic). Students will learn to evaluate

arguments and identify fallacies in everyday problems and situations.

Learning Objectives: The student who successfully completes this course will be able to:

Describe cognitive biases that can affect reasoning and the ways to avoid falling prey to

them

Identify fallacies in reasoning and describe why they are problematic

Analyze arguments for validity and soundness

Describe scientific reasoning and how it differs from other kinds

Requirements: In-class activities 15%

Homework & Short writing assignments 25%

Exam 1: 15%

Exam 2: 20%

Final exam: 25%

Topics

Unit 1: How We “Know What Ain’t So” [understanding cognitive biases] Gilovich, “Something Out of Nothing,” from How We Know What Isn’t So

Fine, selections from A Mind of Its Own

Steele, selections from Whistling Vivaldi

Ariely, selections from The Upside of Irrationality

Dweck, from Mindset

Unit 2: Arguments and Fallacies Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Chapter 1: “What is an Argument”

Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Chapter 2: “What is a Good Argument”

Sober, Core Questions in Philosophy, Lecture 2: “Deductive Arguments”

Diestler, Becoming a Critical Thinker, Chapter 6: “Reasoning Errors”

Dowden, Logical Reasoning, Chapter 6: “Detecting Fallacies”

Lau & Chan, List of Fallacies (http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/list.php)

Moore & Parker, Critical Thinking, Chapter 11: “Inductive Arguments”

Sober, Core Questions in Philosophy, Lecture 3: “Inductive and Abductive Arguments”

Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Chapter 8: “A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational

Discussion”

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/list.php


Unit 3: Causal, Probabilistic, and Scientific Reasoning Moore & Parker Critical Thinking Ch 12 Causal Arguments

Moore & Parker Critical Thinking Ch 7 Explanations

M. Salmon Intro to Logic and Critical Thinking Ch 7 Confirmation of Hypotheses

V. Schick How to Think about Weird Things Ch 8 Science and its Pretenders

Unit 4: Games and Decisions Epstein, Critical Thinking Ch 13 Numbers?

Diestler, Becoming a Critical Thinker Ch 4 Statistics: Prove it to me. What are the Statistics?

Martin, There are Two Errors in the the Title of This Book Ch 14 Why Should I be Moral?

M. Salmon, Intro to Logic and Critical Thinking Ch 5 Probabilities and Inductive Logic


Sample Syllabus Overview: Introduction to Philosophy

Course Description: Philosophy is an area of human inquiry that has historically focused on

exploring what it means to be human and to examine how humans fit into their world. In this

course, we will attempt to gain an understanding and appreciation of this quest. We will examine

such questions as: What is philosophy, and what are its tools? How are the mind and body

related? Can science explain consciousness? Can we really know anything? What makes

something right or wrong? How should we get along with one another?


Describe the assumptions, methods of study, and theories in philosophy

Analyze and assess the strengths and weaknesses of ideas, positions and arguments

Create philosophical arguments

Evaluate arguments for and against the theories and positions we study

Texts: Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Louis

P. Pojman.

Handouts (These will be either given in class, or made available on Blackboard).

Requirements: Homework 10%

In-class activities 10%

Readiness Assurance Process 10%

Exam 1 15%

Paper 1 15%

Paper 2 20%

Exam 2 (Final Exam) 20%

Homework/In-class Activities: There will be several formal homework assignments and in-

class work done both individually and in teams. Some of this will be practice in the skills you

will need to succeed on your papers.

Readiness Assurance Process: Students will take a short test on the reading at the beginning of

each unit, both as an individual and then as a team. Teams will have the opportunity to appeal

questions from the test if they think they can make a case, based on the reading, that their answer

was as good as the correct one. The final grade for the test will be a split between the individual

and team tests.

Papers: There will be two short papers, 3-5 pages, in which you will be asked to argue for a

position related to topics covered in the course. Drafts of these papers will be brought to class

for peer evaluation work.

Exams: There will be two exams. They will consist of questions of various length, multiple

choice through essay.


Readings (Tentative): I. Introduction/Philosophical Reasoning

Pojman: “What is Philosophy?”

Locke: “Philosophy as the Love of Truth Versus Enthusiasm”

Pojman: Appendix II, "A Little Bit of Logic"

Webpage: “Monkey Business”

Webpage: “Flawed Self-Assessment”

Optional readings:

Gilovich: Ch 2 "Something Out of Nothing" (handout)

Gilovich: "Seeing What We Expect to See" (handout)

II. Theory of Knowledge

Pojman, "The Theory of Knowledge?"

Descartes: Meditations I-III

Locke: An Empiricist Theory of Knowledge

Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Kant: Copernican Revolution in Knowledge

Dennett: Postmodernism & Truth

III. The Mind/Body Problem & Consciousness

Pojman: "Mind-Body problem"

Descartes: from Passions (handout)

Shaffer: Consciousness and the Mind-Body Problem

Churchland: Critique of Dualism

Fodor, “The Mind Body Problem” (handout)

Nagel: What is it Like to Be a Bat?

Chalmers: "The Puzzle of Consciousness" (handout)

IV. Moral Theory

Pojman: Moral Philosophy

Pojman Ethical Relativism vs Ethical Objectivism (handout)

Hobbes: Contractualism

Aristotle: The Ethics of Virtue

Mill: Utilitarianism

Kant: The Moral Law


Classroom Activity: Dialogic Notebook

Purpose:

The dialogic notebook is a way to encourage focused discussion on a topic using small groups.

I've found that this can be a fantastic tool for helping quiet or shy students feel more comfortable

engaging in discussion. Because it starts with a written exercise, students start by working with

the topic, and the discussion flows from that. It decreases any social pressures that might

interfere with discussion.

It has also proved useful as a way to get students to practice elements of essay writing. It can be

a quick way to check in with students to see how well they are developing at thesis writing and at

providing evidence to support their thesis. It can also function as an exercise that gives students

practice in providing constructive feedback to their peers.

Procedure:

1. Divide students into groups of three

a. If there is an extra student, you can create a group of four

2. Have them take out a piece of paper, and fold it vertically.

a. This makes four vertical columns: two on the front, and two on the back

b. The student puts his or her name at the top of the front left column

3. Give a discussion question

a. Can be focused or unfocused, e.g.

i. What do you think the mind is?

ii. Which has the better argument, substance dualism or metaphysical

behaviorism?

iii. If you had to pick a position on the mind-body problem, which would it be

and why?

4. Give the students a specific time to answer the question

a. This can be any amount you prefer: 1 min., 2 min, 10 min (you may need more

paper if you use longer than 5 minutes)

b. Students use only the first column to answer their question

5. Have students exchange papers

a. Ideally, you have them hand their paper to the student on one side (say, the right)

b. The students now write their names on top of the front right column

c. They now have a specific amount of time to both read their peer’s position, and to

comment on it

i. Can be 1 min to read, 2 minutes to comment—it doesn’t matter, but specify

the timing at the outset

ii. You can allow the students to comment freely, or can direct them to

comment on specific aspects of the original author's statement


6. Have students exchange papers again

a. Now, the third student will have to read and respond to both the original person’s

position, and to the first comment on that position

b. They add their comment on the back left column

7. Students exchange papers once again

a. Now the paper is back to the original student (in a group of four the paper still

returns to the original author)

b. He or she reads both comments to his or her original statement and has a specific

time in which to respond

8. Give small groups time to discuss (say, 5 minutes)

a. As they write, they tend to circle in on a sub-topic from the original question

b. You can also ask the small group to come to a consensus, or to summarize the

group’s positions and to prepare a report for the full group

9. Have the small groups report back to the large group.

a. Can be timed or untimed e.g., each group gets 1-2 minutes to present their views

10. Can have open discussion on the different positions taken by the different groups.

a. Have the different groups comment or critique the other positions

The time spent on this project can vary, e.g.:

A: 2 minutes for the original person, 3 minutes for the other 3 columns, 5 minutes small

discussion, no large=17 minutes for the full exercise

B: 3 minutes each for 4 columns, 10 minutes small group discussion, 30 minutes for

class discussion=52 minutes for exercise


Writing Assignment

(Minds and Machines Course—first year introduction to cognitive science) INTRODUCTION: I found that when I switched to this format for writing assignments, in which

students are asked to apply the theory to a situation and write for a particular (somewhat realistic)

audience, they were much better able to write to a thesis and to provide evidence in favor of that

thesis. The weakest part of this assignment was in the third part of the “process stages.”

Students often did not receive useful feedback. In the future, I will use a detailed rubric and have

students get peer feedback in class. The rubric alluded to below gives only general guidelines

for what is expected for each grade letter.

For this assignment, students have read a general overview on personal identity, a dialogue by

Parfit, and a selection from Locke on personal identity. They also watched an episode of Star

Trek: Voyager in which two characters, via an unfortunate transporter accident, had been

combined into a new person who had memories and personality traits of both of the original

characters. Against his will, the captain ordered that he be destroyed in order to return the

original crew members.

NOTEBOOK QUESTION ONE

THE SITUATION: You have joined a transplant team as the Metaphysics expert. Dr. Matthews, the neurosurgeon has

just completed a revolutionary surgery. Here is the case:

Mary Frances (last names have been removed to protect the privacy of the individuals) is out for a

walk with her young child when suddenly the child breaks away and runs in front of a streetcar.

Julia, who is nearby, sees what is about to transpire and throws herself in front of the child,

pushing her to safety. Unfortunately, a double tragedy ensues. Julia, in her effort to save the

child, falls across the tracks and is crushed by the street car. Meanwhile, Mary Frances, fearing

that her child will be hit, has a stroke and collapses on the sidewalk. The hearts of both women

stop beating and, under the circumstances, there is no hope of resuscitation for either.

But just then, Dr. Matthews, a brilliant neurosurgeon, happens by. She directs the emergency

workers to take the women to her nearby clinic where she performs a macabre procedure. While

the trunk of Julia’s body was crushed in the accident, her brain was untouched. Mary Frances,

however, suffered irreparable brain damage though her body remained intact. Dr. Matthews

decides that, for the sake of both, she will insert Julia’s good brain into Mary Frances’ good body.

The operation was a success. The question is, however, “Who is the person lying in the recovery

room?” (Borrowed from the novel Who is Julia? by Barbara Harris).

YOUR TASK: Prepare a report (approximately three pages) for the rest of the transplant team (Dr. Matthews,

another neurosurgeon, two anesthesiologists, four nurses, an administrator and an ethicist). Make

sure it has three parts: (1) An explication of two conflicting positions on how we should understand

personal identity; (2) An analysis of which of these views we should use to answer the question,

“Who is lying on the table?” In addition, (3) include a short addendum that explains how your chosen

position would evaluate the Tuvix case reported by the Starship Voyager, and whether according to

that position it would be correct to have split Tuvix back into Tuvok and Neelix.


PROCESS STAGES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT:

1. Read the course material on personal identity (Pojman, Parfit). [Any other material needs to be

approved by instructor.]

2. Prepare outline of paper (counts as homework), due 9/28.

3. Have a friend or classmate (or the writing center) read a rough draft and comment on it. This

will need to be turned in with the final draft (suggested date to give to reviewer, 10/2—that

should give them time to return it to you in time to revise the final paper).

4. Submit paper, due 10/10.

Please put name on BACK of paper, and don’t forget to include the rough draft that contains

comments from your reviewer.

GRADING CRITERIA:

See syllabus for overview of grading rubric.

Elements I’m looking for:

Quality of analysis of personal identity positions (be sure that you do not confuse qualitative

and numerical identity)

Quality of argument for why readers should agree with your take on personal identity

Readability (top-down organization—clarity of thesis, how well thesis is supported; clear

sentences with no confusing passages)

Grammar and correctness

Assignment format adapted from John Bean’s Engaging Ideas (Jossey-Bass, 1996).

teaching dossier

Documents