EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY – FINAL PAPER

Here are two options for topics:

(1)  *What has science discovered  about happiness in recent years, and what (if any) philosophical relevance does this have?
Start here: Dan Gilbert, The Surprising Science of Happiness, “Happiness”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/

GRADING POLICIES

In grading this paper, I will be looking for three main things.

(i)        Understanding. Do you set out the arguments out clearly in a way that shows understanding of the material provided in class? Do you demonstrate this with examples of your own?

(ii)       Clarity. Is it clear within the first paragraph what the paper is about? Do you structure the paper in a way that clearly shows how the argument is developing?

(iii)      Reasoning. Do you reach a conclusion that is supported by your premises? Do the examples you provide support your overall argument?

RECOMMENDED SOURCES

–           No matter which question you attempt, I will expect you to have read and refer to at least three to four articles, in addition to Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Please be judicious when picking sources – some crazy person’s rambling on their blog will not count.

–           Although they do not count to your secondary literature requirement, both Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu) are excellent resources. In particular, they are good to help you get clear on the issues and to find additional articles.

PRESENTATION GUIDELINES

(i)        Please do not use contractions like “I’m”, “you’re”, or “it’s” – I prefer “I am”, “you are”, and “it is”.

(ii)       I will be indirectly grading on spelling, grammar, and punctuation, I strongly encourage all students to pay close attention to these and seek assistance if required. Bad grammar and punctuation can make your arguments unclear or hard to understand, and there is no excuse for bad spelling in an age of spellcheckers.

(iii)      Feel free to write in the first-person.

TIPS

(i)        I strongly encourage all students to engage in original thinking. However, introducing secondary material is a requirement for the paper, and will often help stimulate further ideas of your own.

(ii)       Don’t just mention ideas to me. Explain them! Don’t just tell me that folk judgements of intention are influenced by normative considerations. Explain what this result is, and how it was obtained.

(iii)      When you are discussing statistics that are central to your argument, it is a good idea to present them in care and some detail, mentioning, e.g., what percentage of people gave what answers to what exact question.

(iv)      Papers should include a brief introduction and conclusion. Although it’s a little clichéd, a ‘three point’ structure is a useful way to build an essay: say what you think about the question, and then give three pieces of evidence that support your opinion.

(v)       I strongly encourage students to write a draft of their paper first. This will provide you with a basis for making edits.

(vi)      I will not mark beyond 3000 words. Try to aim for around 2000-2500 words for your final paper – waffling is a sign of a bad paper. You may need to write a longer paper first and then cut it down to size. Quality is much preferred over quantity, but if you only have 1500 words of material, you haven’t done enough research.

(vii)     I probably know about all the arguments you’ll be discussing. But pretend I don’t. Write your paper like you’re explaining it to an intelligent 16 year old who has no prior knowledge of the subject.

(viii)    Make sure your signpost what you’ve said, what you’re saying, and what you’re going to say. Use connective words and phrases like ‘because’, ‘therefore’, ‘consequently’, ‘it follows that’, ‘this suggests that’, ‘however’, ‘on the other hand’, and ‘for example’. Some useful things to say are ‘I will defend this claim’, ‘This argument seems wrong for the following reason’, ‘Although this might seem plausible, it faces the problem that’, and ‘Further support for this argument comes from’.

(ix)     Try to be concise. Don’t use two words when one will do, and don’t use an unusual or obscure word where a simple one expresses your point just as clearly.

(x)      Using rhetorical questions quickly gets stale. Do you really think I want to read question after question with no answer?

(xi)     Quotations are, of course, an important tool in writing your paper. But try not to quote excessively large passages of text. If a quotation runs more than 1-2 sentences, try summarizing it in your own words instead.

(xii)    When reviewing your work, ask the following questions about every sentence: does it strengthen my argument? Does it clarify my position? Does it help the reader know where he or she is in the paper? If you answer no to these – cut it.

(xiii)   Good structuring can be the difference between a B+ and an A.

(xiv)   When writing a philosophy paper, it’s a good idea to start in the middle and work outwards. Decide what the core of your argument is going to be before putting fingers to keyboard.

(xv)    Further EXCELLENT advice on writing philosophy papers can be found at Jim Pryor’s website: http://goo.gl/jYC7q. I STRONGLY advise any students hoping for an A from the course to read his advice carefully.

SOME EXAMPLES OF GOOD AND BAD WRITING

–       “There just can’t be free will. I mean, unless we want to believe in magic, then everything is physical, so there’s just no way we could exert any special power over reality.” (BAD)

–       “Since time immemorial, the question of free will body problem has been the cause of argument and counterargument, point and counterpoint, thesis and antithesis in philosophical debate. Nor have philosophers been alone in pondering these questions; indeed, the issue is much a religious one as a philosophical one. What manner of thing is a man? Is he more angel, or more beast? These are difficult issues; indeed, perhaps they are impossible ones. It shall be the goal of this paper to probe them more deeply, but I can scarcely hope to do more than scratch the surface.” (BAD)

–       “The question of whether an agent intended to bring about some effect X seems, on the face of it, to be a question purely about her psychological state. For example, we might ask whether she desired that X come about and whether she believed that her actions would bring about X. However, results by Joshua Knobe (2008) cast doubt on this conclusion.” (GOOD)

–       “Subjects were provided with the vignette given above and asked whether, in these circumstances, the agent was morally responsible for their actions. 72% of them answered yes, 18% answered no, and 10% said that they did not know.” (GOOD)