Academic year
2018/2019
Teacher
Sven Rosenkranz
Department
Department of Philosophy
University
Universitat de Barcelona
Itinerary
Master courses
Module
Module 3. Research Seminar in Theoretical Philosophy
Code
570631
Credits
5
Language
English
Dates
2019-01-28 - 2019-02-08
Schedule
Monday-Friday: 10:00 - 13:00
Location
UB, Philosophy Faculty, Seminari Maria Zambrano

Description

Aims. The course is concerned with two central questions: what we know and what we should believe. It approaches these questions by examining candidate principles for knowledge and justified belief. Examples of such principles are: what is known is true; one should believe only what one knows; it is not justified to have contradictory beliefs; it is justified to believe what follows from one’s beliefs, and so on. Studying such principles is one of the main ways in which contemporary philosophers gain insight into what knowledge is, what we know and what we should believe.

 

Topics. The first week, taught by Sven Rosenkranz, provides a general introduction to epistemology, its central conceptual distinctions and core questions (28 January - 1 February, 2019). The second week is taught by Julien Dutant, King’s College London (4 - 8 February, 2019). It will cover views of knowledge in Western philosophy, the contemporary debate on the analysis of knowledge, some influential contemporary theories of knowledge and their implications for some of our principles. It will also ask what we should believe, in particular whether we should believe what is sufficiently probable, whether our beliefs should be coherent, whether we should believe the consequences of what we believe, and whether we may believe things we know we don’t know. Along the way it will provide students with formal tools that are essential for epistemology: epistemic logic, probability theory, epistemic utility theory. A detailed provisional programme is provided below.


Methodology

The course will combine lectures by the course instructors with seminar-like discussions to which students are expected to actively contribute. A list of mandatory readings (about 50 to 100 pages in total) will be communicated before the Christmas break. Some preparatory readings are also suggested in the bibliography.


Evaluation

Evaluation will be based on active participation in class and a final essay, of around 3000 words, on a pertinent question to be agreed with the course instructors.

 

Learning outcomes

CB6. Students should be able to critically understand central texts in metaphysics in a way that puts them in a position to develop and apply original ideas.

CB9. Students should be able to communicate their knowledge and their arguments to specialized audiences in a clear and articulate way.

CG2. Students should be able to design, create, develop and undertake new and innovative projects in their area of ‚Äč‚Äčexpertise.

CG3. Students should be able to engage both in general and specific discussions in the domain of metaphysics. They should be able to conduct a philosophical discussion (orally and in written form), by putting forward, for example, general arguments or specific examples, in support of one’s position.

CG4. Students should be able to work both independently and in a team, in an international environment.

CG5. Students should be able to identify methodological errors, rhetorical, conventional and uncritical assumptions, vagueness and superficiality.

CE1. Students should be able to critically engage with the concepts and methods of contemporary metaphysics of time. 

CE2. Students should be able to identify the core arguments and theories of contemporary metaphysics of time.

CE4. Students should be able to assess the writings of leading contemporary philosophers in the metaphysics of time.

CE5. Students should be able to identify and critically engage with the current state of a particular philosophical debate, and form a reasoned view, even if provisional, about it.

 

CE7. Students should be able to critically use specialized terminology in the metaphysics of time.


Bibliography

Students are not expected to have read all the texts mentioned above before the course starts. Students who wish to do some preparatory readings can use the suggestions below. Before the Christmas break, a list of obligatory readings will be made available.

 

Suggested preparatory readings

 

Student who wish to start preparing now may use one or several of the following. (To be clear, these are not the mandatory readings for the course; those will only be provided before the Christmas break.)

 

Nagel, Jennifer. 2014. Knowledge: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press. Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 7. A brief, accessible and rigorous introduction to a number of topics presented in the course.

Papineau, David. 2012. Philosophical Devices. Chaps 7 and 8. A brief and easy introduction to probability.

Bradley, Darren. 2015. A Critical Introduction to Formal Epistemology. Chaps 1, 2, 3 offer a clear introduction to probability with a focus on epistemology.

Hendricks, Vincent and Symons, John. 2006. "Epistemic Logic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/logic-epistemic/. Section 1 offers a brief introduction to epistemic logic.

 

References

 

Bird, Alexander. 2007. “Justified Judging.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1): 81–110.

Bradley, Darren. 2015. A Critical Introduction to Formal Epistemology. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Christensen, David. 2004. Putting Logic in Its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief. Oxford University Press.

Comesaña, Juan. 2005. “Unsafe Knowledge.” Synthese 146 (3): 395–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-004-6213-7.

Dutant, Julien. 2015. “The Legend of the Justified True Belief Analysis.” Philosophical Perspectives 29 (1): 95–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12061.

Dutant, Julien. 2016. “How to Be an Infallibilist.” Philosophical Issues 26 (1): 148–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/phis.12085.

Dutant, Julien. ms. Logics for derived knowledge and belief.

Dutant, Julien and Fitelson, Branden, ms. Knowledge-Centred Epistemic Utility Theory.

Fitelson, Branden, and Kenny Easwaran. 2015. “Accuracy, Coherence and Evidence.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology 5: 61–96.

Greco, Daniel. 2017. “Cognitive Mobile Homes.” Mind 126 (501): 93–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzv190.

Hawthorne, John, and Maria Lasonen-Aarnio. 2009. “Knowledge and Objective Chance.” In Williamson on Knowledge, edited by Peter Greenough and Duncan Pritchard, 92–108. Oxford University Press.

Holliday, Wesley H. 2015. “Epistemic Closure and Epistemic Logic I: Relevant Alternatives and Subjunctivism.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 44 (1): 1–62.

Joyce, James M. 1998. “A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism.” Philosophy of Science 65 (4): 575–603.

Lasonen-Aarnio, Maria. 2010. “Unreasonable Knowledge.” Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1): 1–21.

Lewis, David. 1996. “Elusive Knowledge.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–67.

Littlejohn, Clayton. 2015. “Stop Making Sense? On a Puzzle about Rationality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 96 (2): 257–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12271.

Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. (Excerpts)

Pasnau, Robert. 2013. “Epistemology Idealized.” Mind 122: 988–1021.

Pettigrew, Richard. 2016. Accuracy and the Laws of Credence. Oxford University Press.

Pritchard, Duncan. 2012. “Anti-Luck Virtue Epistemology.” Journal of Philosophy 109 (3): 247–79.

Rosenkranz, Sven. 2017. “The Structure of Justification.” Mind 127, 309-38.

Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. “The Problem of Logical Omniscience (I).” In Context and Content, 241–54. Oxford University Press.

Srinivasan, Amia. 2015. “Are We Luminous?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (2): 294–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12067.

Williamson, Timothy. 2009. “Probability and Danger.” The Amherst Lecture in Philosophy, 1–35.

Williamson, Timothy. 2000. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford University Press, chap. 5.

Williamson, Timothy. 2011. “Improbable Knowing.” In Evidentialism and Its Discontents, edited by T. Dougherty. Oxford University Press.

Zagzebski, Linda. 1994. “The Inescapability of Gettier Problems.” The Philosophical Quarterly 44 (174): 65–73.


Other considerations

Detailed provisional programme for week 2

 

The programme may be adjusted before the course starts. Main readings for each unit are listed; these are not mandatory, but recommended for those who wish to get deeper in some topic or

 

Week 2, Day 1: The concept of knowledge

 

  1. Knowledge in the history of philosophy. (Dutant 2015, Pasnau 2013).

 

  1. Theories of knowledge since Gettier. (Nozick 1981, Pritchard 2012, Zagzebski 1994).

 

Week 2, Day 2: Epistemic Logic

 

  1. Introduction to epistemic logic. (Bradley 2015, Stalnaker 1999).

 

  1. An application: Lewis’ theory of knowledge. (Lewis 1996, Holliday 2015).

 

Week 2, Day 3: Safety and the KK principle

 

  1. From epistemic logic to safety. (Williamson 2009, Hawthorne and Lasonen-Aarnio 2009, Comesaña 2005, Dutant 2016, man).

 

  1. The KK principle. (Williamson 2000, 2011, Srinivasan 2015, Greco 2017).

 

Week 2, Day 4: Epistemic enkrasia; Introduction to probability theory and epistemic utility theory

 

  1. Epistemic enkrasia. (Lasonen-Aarnio, 2010, Littlejohn, 2015).

 

  1. Introduction to probability theory and epistemic utility theory (Bradley 2015, Joyce 1998, Fitelson and Easwaran, 2015, Pettigrew 2016).

 

Week 2, Day 5: The Lottery and the Preface

 

  1. The lottery paradox and the preface paradox. (Christensen 2004).

 

  1. Knowledge-based approaches to the lottery and preface (Bird 2007, Rosenkranz 2017, Dutant and Fitelson ms.)