Introduction philosophy

Write a paper in which you REC
one or two of the following arguments (if two, make sure they both fall under the same topic
heading, e.g., ‘Freedom and Determinism’), in accordance with the instructions given below:
Numerical Identity over Time for Persons
1. Lynne Rudder Baker’s argument on p. 127 against the psychological continuity theory of
personal identity.
2. Lynne Rudder Baker’s argument on p. 128 against the non-branching psychological
continuity theory of personal identity.
3. Lynne Rudder Baker’s argument on p. 129 that ‘this weaker relation than identity is not
what we are interested in in ordinary cases of survival’.
4. Lynne Rudder Baker’s argument on pp. 130-131 against the soul theory of personal
identity over time.
Freedom and Determinism
5. The argument, via the Frankfurt-style example, against the Principle of Alternative
Possibilities (presented in the Carroll and Markosian reading)
6. The objection to Volitional Indeterminism given on p. 68 (presented in the Carroll and
Markosian reading)
7. The ‘pass the salt’ objection to Libertarian Agent Causation given on p. 74- 75 (presented
in the Carroll and Markosian reading)
8. Sider and Conee’s argument(s) against one or more of the five soft determinist definitions
of ‘free action’ that they consider on pp. 128 133.
Knowledge and Skepticism
9. Jonathan Vogel’s argument against what he calls the ‘Moorean view’, in his paper
‘Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation’ (posted in the paper topics folder on
Canvas, not assigned). Be sure to explain the Moorean view.
10. Jonathan Vogel’s argument for the claim that the real world hypothesis is a better
explanation of your sensory experiences than the isomorphic skeptical hypothesis, in his
paper ‘Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation’ (posted in the paper topics
folder, not assigned). Be sure to say what those hypotheses are.
Propose your own topic
11. An argument of your choice, drawn from a passage in one of the readings assigned on the
syllabus. Write a brief proposal, submit the proposal to your TA by Tuesday, March 5,
and receive approval from your TA. (It is entirely up to your TA to decide whether or not
to approve your proposal.) Your proposal should take the following form:
The argument that I would like to REC is presented in a passage in [name
the reading] that begins with the sentence “[enter first sentence of chosen
passage here]” on page [XX] and ends with the sentence “[enter last

2

sentence of chosen passage here]” on page [YY]. The conclusion that is
argued for in this passage is that [state conclusion here].
You should cut and paste this text into an email that you send to your TA. But don’t
forget to fill in the blanks! Don’t choose a passage that has already been reconstructed in
the text.)
For each of these topics, it will be almost impossible to write a decent paper if you read just the
sections indicated in the prompt. To understand the issues well enough to write good paper,you
will need to understand the larger context in which the relevant argument is embedded; and to do
that, you will need to read the entire paper or chapter, probably more than once.
REC-ing an argument:
R: Reconstruct. Put the argument into standard form, so that it fits a valid pattern and captures as
much of the author’s reasoning as is compatible with its being relatively brief and compact. You
should try not to leave out important pieces of reasoning, but you should also avoid making your
reconstruction overly long and complicated. These are competing pressures, so you just have to
strike a good balance. Often, a good reconstruction has only two premises. Display the pattern
that it fits, in symbols, to the right of your reconstruction, in words. Here is an example:
1. Anything that is maximally great exists in reality. All P1s are P2s
2. God is maximally great. m is a P1
3. If God exists in reality, then theism is true. If m is a P2, then A.
— ——
? Theism is true. A
E: Explain. For each premise in your reconstruction, mention it by name (its number) and devote
at least one sentence to explaining why that premise might seem plausible, at least initially. Also,
if there are any unfamiliar terms or phrases in the premise, take this chance to explain what they
mean. If the logical structure of the argument is somewhat complex, you may wish to explain
informally why the intended conclusion really does follow from the given premises.
C: Criticize. After you’ve motivated each of the premises, focus on one particular premise,
mention it by name, and attack it: i.e., present, in detail, what you take to be the most powerful
reason(s) for thinking that the given premise is not true, or for thinking that the premise is less
plausible than the advocate of the argument took it to be.
If space permits, you may (i) discuss a potential response to your criticism that could be given by
an advocate of the argument, (ii) a reply to that response, (ii) attack another premise in the
argument, (iii) suggest a different argument that is immune to the criticisms you’ve raised, or
make other relevant and useful philosophical point. But the bulk of your paper should be
structured around RECing an argument. Avoid free-form, stream-of-consciousness expostulating.
Use the Cederblom and Paulsen text for more detailed guidelines on the DOs and DON’Ts of
reconstructing arguments. Some highlights:
• Be sure that you’ve correctly identified the main conclusion of the argument in
question.
• Be sure that your reconstruction fits a valid pattern.
• Be sure that your reconstruction (in words) really does match the pattern (in symbols)
that you’ve written out.

3

• Be sure that none of your arguments contains any idle premises, i.e. premises that are
not needed to make the argument valid. (If a premise is idle in a given argument, then
you could simply delete that premise and the argument would still be valid. Such a
premise is doing no work.)
• Be sure that the premise you attack is not just obviously false a ‘sitting duck’. It
should have some appeal; it should be the sort of premise that begins to seem doubtful
only after you’vecriticized it.
Length. Your paper should be 5 double-spaced pages long (assuming a reasonable type face
and size and reasonable margins), NOT INCLUDING ANY QUOTATIONS OR NUMBERED
RECONSTRUCTIONS. This means the paper should include 5 pages of ordinary text in
paragraph form written by you. Most of that should be focused on a critical evaluation of an
argument.
Grading. You will be graded on the clarity and mechanics of your writing, on how well your
paper is organized, and most importantly, on how well you’ve explained and critically evaluated
an argument. Again, the critical component will be weighted the most heavily of the three: the
more original, insightful, and convincing your criticism of a premise, the better your grade will
be. There is no mechanical recipe for coming up with interesting criticisms: it takes a lot of time,
hard thinking, and creative spark.
Some rough guidelines
A range: excellent mechanics, extremely clear and accurate explanation of an argument,
unusually insightful/creative/original/persuasive critical points these must go beyond anything
that has been said in lecture, discussion section, or the readings, and must be sufficiently
interesting and non-obvious that it would take some hard-thinking to come up with them
B range: good mechanics, very solid explanation of an argument with few or no mistakes of fact
or terminology, critical points that are on-target, relevant, and persuasive though maybe not
quite so dazzling as what one would find in an ‘A range’ paper.
C range: some problems with mechanics OR some errors or lack of clarity in explaining an
argument OR an off-target or unconvincing critical evaluation.
D range and below: two or more of the following: serious mechanical problems, major errors or
obscurity in explaining an argument, badly off-target or obviously unconvincing critical
evaluation
Outside Sources and Citations
You are not expected to consult outside sources in writing your paper. You are permitted to do
this, but a better way to spend your time is to get clear on what you think about the issues, and
about how to express your own thoughts as clearly and precisely as possible. Any sources you do
consult must be cited at the end of the paper, and any ideas or terminology that you take from the
outside source must be indicated in footnotes. Failure to appropriately cite outside sources brings