Comments on Paper 2, Fall 2011

Attached are two complete papers, or are they complete?

One paper presents a good case in favor of a priori knowledge, and another presents the case against a priori knowledge. Put both of these together, and you would have a good paper, but in each case, the student neglected to consider the other point of view. What each student should have done is anticipated the kind of thing that their opponent would say, and incorporated objections to that.

This does not mean that a good paper will consist simply in a list of arguments for a position, arguments against, and then a final paragraph where the student makes up his or her mind. You should present the point of view that you disagree with, but present it in such a way that the reader understands why you reject it.

Here is an extract from a paper that manages to do that. As you will see, when I read the paragraph about arithmetic, I immediately formulated an objection: evolution might explain our knowledge of basic arithmetic, but what about our knowledge of more advanced mathematics? The following paragraph provides a response. The student writing this paper anticipated what my objection would be, and prepared a response.

Back to PHI 2010.