1

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

WRITING ASSIGNMENT #3

Due May 5, 2021 (at the beginning of class)

For this assignment write a short essay on one of the following topics:

I. This semester we’ve looked at a variety of responses to philosophical skepticism: from Descartes’ attempt to directly refute skepticism to Stine’s “relevant alternatives” approach. (We’ve also looked at Humes’, James’, and Wittgenstein’s approaches.) For this essay consider any two of these strategies and make an argument for which, if either, more successfully addresses philosophical skepticism. For this essay you will need to describe, in your own words, the two positions you consider as well as their respective advantages and disadvantages. While you will be arguing in support of one strategy be sure to consider how the other strategy might respond; you may also need to consider the possibility that neither offer an adequate solution to the problem of philosophical skepticism. In making your argument be as specific and clear as possible, and make sure that your case is grounded in our readings and discussions. You may also consider whether the problem of philosophical skepticism is a real problem (as opposed to a pseudo-problem), what would count as an adequate solution in the first place, what more general consequences follow from these strategies, and whether they are relevant to topics outside philosophy, such as in response to scientific denialism.

II. In The Misinformation Age O’Connor and Weatherall conclude by noting that they “have a controversial suggestion”: namely, to extend the “legislative frameworks” covering libel and defamation to also cover “more general efforts to spread misinformation” (182-183). In other words:

If principles of free speech are compatible with laws against defamatory lies about individuals, surely they are also compatible with regulating damaging lies dressed up as reported fact on matters of public consequence. (183)

Paying close attention to the reasons they give in its support, offer your own critique of their proposal. Do you agree that misinformation can or should be regulated and sanctioned in much the same way as libel and defamation? Or would you argue that misinformation is a form of protected speech? What are

the costs and benefits of either approach? You may want to consider what we have rights to do (Thomson may be useful here) and whether we have an obligation to truth and honesty (Misak may be useful here). Have we reached a place, in your opinion, where a reinterpretation of our legislative frameworks is necessary in order to keep pace with technological change? If not, how would you propose dealing with the flood of misinformation that is leading to greater polarization and putting greater pressure on our civil society?

If you would like to write on a different topic that is usually fine, but please get in touch with me first.

As before, and regardless of your topic, the important thing is to defend your position: whatever your conclusion, you should give a thoughtful defense that also considers some plausible objections. Don’t leave any glaring holes in your argument. Just to be clear, I am not looking for a summary or book-report: I am looking for a thoughtful defense of your philosophical position. Be sure to consider alternatives and objections, and connect all the dots: it should be clear how your conclusion follows from your reasons. I cannot over- emphasize the importance of considering and responding to objections: doing so strengthens your position by showing that it has been tested by, and stood up to, the best alternatives you can concoct. You should build on, and respond to, one or more of the works we’ve read in this class. Do justice to the readings and to the position you defend.

Your grasp of the underlying issues will be implicit so I do not expect (and would even discourage) lengthy summarization and/or quotations from what we’ve read. (Having said that, it should be clear where and how you’re drawing from the work we’ve done in this course, so some quoting is a good idea.) Likewise, because I’m interested in your engagement with the readings, there is no need to consult any secondary sources. In fact, that’s something I would discourage, since secondary sources can suppress original thought. Your essay should be brief, but elegant in its economy: I place a premium on clarity and argumentative rigor. It goes without saying that these essays should be polished and free of typos—too many typos and your reader begins to question your seriousness. Like any reader, I’m always delighted to read a well-crafted essay.

Length should be at least 3 double-spaced, succinct, clear, and direct pages, with normal sized fonts and margins (≈1000 words). These essays will be due by the beginning of class on Wednesday, May 5 and can be submitted via the myCourses dropbox. Please, no late papers!