1/10

TEACHING DOSSIER

KERRY MCKENZIE

CONTENTS

List of Courses Taught 2

Possible Course Offerings 3

Evidence of Teaching Quality 4

Teaching Referees 9

Sample Syllabi 10

1. Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality (senior / graduate)

2. Philosophy and Science (introductory)

3. Topics in Epistemology: Theory and Evidence (senior)

2/10

LIST OF COURSES TAUGHT SUMMARY OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE As Lecturer and Course Leader • PHIL667.5 / 565.4 PHYSICS AND THE METAPHYSICS OF FUNDAMENTALITY, Graduate

and advanced undergraduate seminar, University of Calgary, Summer 2013. • PHIL367 SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY, Undergraduate course on philosophy of science

(covering method, demarcation and realism), University of Calgary, Winter 2013. • PHIL2402 TOPICS IN EPISTEMOLOGY: THEORY AND EVIDENCE, Undergraduate course

on inductive knowledge (covering inductive methodology, Bayesianism, probability and decision theory), University of Leeds, Winter 2012.

As Tutor/Teaching Assistant (responsible for preparing tutorials, running tutorials and marking; all courses taught at University of Leeds and 1-semester long unless indicated): Upper-level Philosophy • REALISM AND ANTIREALISM (2009-10 and 2010-11); • HOW SCIENCE EXPLAINS THE WORLD (2009-10); • LAWS OF NATURE, CAUSATION AND EXPLANATION (2010-11); • PHILOSOPHY OF PSYCHOLOGY (2008-09; 2nd year psychologists).

First-year Philosophy • REALISM AND ANTI-REALISM (2009-10 and 2010-11); • INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY (2011-12); • INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY (2007-08 and 2008-09); • INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS (2007-08 and 2008-09); • INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY (2007-08); • PHILOSOPHY OF MIND (2007-08); • HOW SCIENCE WORKS (2008-09 and 2010-11).

Medical Ethics (taught in Faculty of Medicine) • MEDICAL ETHICS (Semesters 1&2, 2010-11 and 2011-12; 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th -year

medics); • CAMPUS TO CLINIC (Semesters 1 & 2, 2010-11 and 2011-12; 1st year medics). • LIFE CYCLE (Semesters 1 &2, 2010-11 and 2011-12; 4th year medics)

3/10

POSSIBLE COURSE OFFERINGS

Those for which I have previous teaching experience are marked with a star.

• General Philosophy of Science (Graduate*, Advanced* & Introductory*)

• Evidence, Induction and Confirmation (Graduate, Advanced* & Introductory*)

• Laws of Nature, Causation and Explanation (Graduate, Advanced* & Introductory*)

• Scientific Realism (Graduate, Advanced* & Introductory*)

• Metaphysics (broadly construed) (Advanced* & Introductory*)

• Fundamentality (Graduate* & Advanced*)

• Metametaphysics (Graduate*, Advanced* and Introductory)

• Philosophy of Physics (Graduate*, Advanced* & Introductory)

• Introduction to History of Philosophy: Descartes and Locke (Introductory*)

• Philosophy of Psychology (Advanced & Introductory*)

• Philosophy of Gender (Introductory: will have taught this by Winter 2014)

• Philosophy of Social Science (Advanced and Introductory*)

• Mass, Madness and Masculinity: An Introduction to Social Constructivism (Introductory)

• Logic (Introductory)

• Philosophy 101*

I am prepared to supervise students in the philosophy of science, metaphysics of physics, and

other areas of metaphysics related to fundamentality or naturalism.

4/10

EVIDENCE OF TEACHING QUALITY1 INSTRUCTOR UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL PHIL367: Science and Philosophy (University of Calgary, Winter 2013) Role: Full responsibility, including for course design.

Overall rating of the course

• Overall instruction = 6.33 ± 0.9 (out of 7) Some student comments:

• “Excellent – fascinating material. Dealt with one troublesome class member very effectively.”

• “Very well communicated. Good, clear intuitive explanations of complex topics.”

1 Original sources and full evaluation reports can be supplied on request.

5/10

• “Absolutely amazing. Very enthusiastic, committed and overall just great.

• “It was very engaging for me and made me question a lot of my previous beliefs.”

• “Love the way Dr. McKenzie teaches; fit very well with my learning style. Love the course; very engaging.”

• “Great professor; top ten for sure.” • “One of the best profs I have ever had.” • “Incredible prof.”

PHIL2402: Topics in Epistemology: Theory and Evidence (University of Leeds, Winter 2012) Role: Full responsibility, except for grading.

6/10

Some student comments:

• “The lectures were interesting, well applied to examples in the real world. Its importance of what we were learning was evident, and I feel the skills learnt as made my critical analysis of events has improved upon completing the module.”

• “The teaching this year has been really good; Kerry was engaging and the examples used to illustrate points in lectures were interesting and entertaining. She was a really capable substitute to fill Juha's boots while he's away from teaching.”

• “This module was really well taught. The lectures were clear and delivered

7/10

in a good style, the topics were very well organized.” • “V. enjoyable module.”

GRADUATE / SENIOR UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL PHIL 667.5: Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality (University of Calgary, Summer 2013) Role: Course designer, seminar leader / lecturer, grader & course convener

Some Student Comments:

• “You and your course was an exceptionally valuable experience for me. Thank you very much for all your dedication”.

• “As my first graduate level course, 667.5 has been very challenging, but I have found it very rewarding. It has forced me to stretch my mind, and like all good education it has changed my view of the world. Taking your course has confirmed to me that I made the right decision in returning to academia.”

• “Thanks again for a really awesome seminar. I feel as though I learned a great deal, and you are an awesome (and inspiring!) prof! All your future students are very lucky!”

• “I really enjoyed the class too and I learned a lot--there were also times where you summed up my comp papers in like a sentence so that was awesome and definitely helped!’’

TUTOR/TEACHING ASSISTANT TUTORIAL OBSERVATION REPORTS Course: Causation, Explanation and Laws of Nature (2nd year metaphysics of science course), Fall 2010 Observer: Dr. Juha Saatsi

In sum, this was a very competent interactive teaching session without any obvious shortcomings. The topic was nicely introduced; the session was very well attended, a telling sign at this stage of the module; the students readily participated by answering questions; the coverage of issues was excellent. The tutor was very approachable; friendly; encouraging.

Course: Introduction to Political Philosophy (1st year course), Fall 2011

Observer: Dr. Greg Radick

Three things in particular impressed me about Kerry’s ability to guide the discussion and keep the intellectual standard high. First, she was clearly on top of the material and very well prepared. At one point she even gave the students a Nozick handout of her own. But more generally, and throughout the discussion, she worked to break down complex ideas into simpler or more easily assimilated terms, with excellent use of examples (bringing in the American

8/10

Tea Party by way of helping students appreciate the political relevance of libertarianism today; changing Nozick’s 1970s-era American example of well-paid athlete to a 2010s-era British one; contrasting libertarian and Marxian views on how to fill out the sentence: “To each according to X.”). Second, she mixed different “tutorial-management” approaches in a lively way – for example, by sometimes calling on people to give an answer, and sometimes asking for volunteers. Third, she checked understanding throughout, gradually making sure that she’d heard from even the quieter ones. In sum, it was an excellent tutorial, the more so given the condition of the students and the room.

Course: Introduction to Ethics (1st year course), Spring 2008 Observer: Prof. Chris Megone

Kerry is a very effective tutor. They clearly like her and respect her, and this is unsurprising, as she was well versed in the set material and her explanations were generally clear and helpful and engaging. She was well organised, crisp, and confident, but not intimidating, and she also made nice connections to other tutorials to help the students begin to think of the broader picture.

SURVEY DATA FROM INTRODUCTORY COURSES2 PHIL1001: Introduction to Philosophy

2008-09 Semester 1: 4.54 out of 5 2007-08 Semester 1: 4.71 out of 5 PHIL1002: Introduction to Philosophy 2007-08 Semester 2: 4.73 out of 5 TEACHING REFERENCES

Dr. Juha Saatsi

Convenor for several courses on which I served as TA

Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, UK

Email: J.T.Saatsi@leeds.ac.uk

Dr. Nick Jones

2 Note that quantitative data is not available for all courses. In the case of certain undergraduate courses at the University of Leeds, this was due to lack of administrative support (as may be confirmed by emailing Dr Nick Jones (head of first year) at phlnoj@leeds.ac.uk).

9/10

Head of First Year

Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, UK

Email: phlnoj@leeds.ac.uk

Prof. Mark Migotti

Professor at University of Calgary and auditor of my graduate course.

Email: migotti@ucalgary.ca

10/10

SAMPLE SYLLABI

1. PHIL 667.5: Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality (a senior / graduate level seminar taught at University of Calgary, Summer 2013)

2. PHIL 367 Philosophy and Science (an introductory philosophy of science class taught at University of Calgary, Winter 2013.)

3. Topics in Epistemology: Theory and Evidence (a senior level epistemology class taught at University of Leeds, Winter 2012.)

PHIL 667.5Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality

Introduction1

Kerry McKenzie

Seminars: Monday and Wednesday 10–1, SS 1214Office Hours: Thursday 10–12, SS 1208

1 Introduction.Contemporary metaphysics is arguably transitioning to a paradigm in which funda-mentality lies centre-stage. But it remains the case that contemporary metaphysicsoverwhelming subscribes to physicalism – the view that the actual world is funda-mentally physical in nature. Such a view must entail naturalistic commitments ofsome sort, though what exactly these consist of is a matter of some dispute.

This course will investigate the stratified picture of reality emerging in contem-porary metaphysics from a naturalistic perspective. We will study in some detailthe concepts associated with this reorientation in metaphysics and thus develop afirm grounding in a key contemporary theme. But we will also critically evaluatethe standing of the a priori assumptions contained within this work from a broadlyscientific point of view. As such, we’ll become proficient in a central topic in meta-physics whilst also acquainting ourselves with themes in contemporary philosophyof science, and in so doing be encouraged to reflect on the methodological demandsimplicit in ‘naturalistic metaphysics’ – a theme gaining increasing prominence inits own right.

1.1 Philosophy of science meets metaphysics.

Full disclosure: by its very nature some of the arguments we will encounter in thecourse will turn on some details of physics. But don’t worry. Many of the majorconceptual and metaphysical issues embedded in modern physics present themselvesvery quickly, and it will be my job to present them to you with the minimum oftechnicalities. Nor will your grades hang on any technical details. If you comeaway from this course aware of some of the questions which modern science posesto received fundamentality assumptions, and able to sketch some of their possibleimplications, you’ll be doing just fine.

2 Evaluation and GradingYou will be required to fulfill four tasks in order to pass the course.

Presentation of Reading. You will introduce the set reading for the class ontwo or perhaps three occasions. Your aim is to present material that will stimulate

1filename: IntroTruncated.tex

1

class discussion around a central issue; whether that will involve giving a synopsisof the reading will depend on the article, but do so where appropriate.

Critical Summaries. You will be required to produce a critical summary ofsome central issues in each of the following areas: (1) The definition of the levelshierarchy; (2) The existence of a fundamental level; (3) Structures vs Objects as thefundamental category; (4) The interplay between science and armchair metaphysicsin the fundamentality debate. These should be between 1000 and 1500 words inlength. Provide references where appropriate.

Paper proposal. The paper proposal will consist of two parts. The first partwill explain and motivate the focus of your research by answering these questions.(1) What is the general topic area? (2) What are the main views on the topic?(3) What will your focus in that area be? The second part of your proposal willgive a section-by-section outline of what you propose to write. This proposal willbe discussed in detail with me and will serve as your research plan. The proposalshould be no more than 1,250 words (approx. 5 pages double-space). I have somesuggested titles for your essay, but you are welcome to write on a topic of yourchoice provided it is cleared with me in advance.

Paper. Your paper should be between 4,000 and 5,000 words. This includesfootnotes but not bibliography.

Grading scale.

95 − 100 = A+ 78-80=B+ 68-70=C+ 58-60=D+

85-94=A 75-77=B 65-67=C 50-57=D81-84=A− 71-74=B− 61-64=C− < 50=F

3 Structure of Course.There are three broad topics we’ll be focussing on in this course. (1) The conceptualaspects of fundamentality. What does it mean to call something fundamental? (2)The locus of fundamentality. What, if anything, is fundamental in this world?(3) The methodology of fundamentality. Questions about fundamentality seem toinvolve both traditional metaphysics and contemporary science, but what shouldthe interplay between these two forms of enquiry be?

1. Introduction. We will discuss two pieces that will help get us in the rightframe of mind. Readings: Jonathan Schaffer’s ‘On What Grounds What’ andLadyman and Ross, Chapter 1 of Every Thing Must Go, to end of Section1.6.

Tranche 1: Conceptions of Fundamentality

2. The Levels Hierarchy. Our focus today is on ‘levels of reality’, and we’lllook at excerpts of Oppenheim and Putnam’s ‘Unity of Science as a Working

2

Hypothesis’, Schaffer’s ‘Is there a Fundamental Level?’, and a pieced-togetherhybrid of Maudlin’s ‘Part and Whole in Quantum Physics’ and ‘Why beHumean?’. Ahead of time, please read the handout distrubuted in the previousclass and the Maudlin hybrid.

3. General Conceptions of Fundamentality 1. In this and the next sem-inar we will discuss the concept of priority from a more general perspectivethan last time. This seminar will focus on two issues: (1) supervenience, andits usefulness in expressing ontological priority; (2) the differences betweensupervenience and ontological dependence. Readings: Leuenberger, ‘Super-venience and Metaphysics’; Stanford entry ‘Supervenience’, to end of Sections3; and Yoshimi, ‘Supervenience, Determination and Dependence’, Sections 1-5. (Be judicious in your reading, depending on how familiar you are withsupervenience.)

4. General Conceptions of Fundamentality 2. We will consider ontologicaldependence in more detail, addressing in particular the issue of whether wecan understand ontological dependence in purely modal terms. Readings:Kit Fine’s ‘Ontological Dependence’, Secs 1-3 (esp. 1 and 2), and NathanWildman, ‘Sparseness, Modality and Essence’ (to be distributed).

Tranche 2: The Locus of Fundamentality

5. The Existence of a Fundamental Level 1. In this and the next seminarwe will consider some arguments for and against the existence of a funda-mental level. The main reading for this seminar is Cameron’s ‘Turtles All theWay Down: Regress, Priority and Fundamentality’; read also the excerpts inthe handout.

6. The Existence of a Fundamental Level 2. In this class we will considerwhether and how we might positively deny the existence of a fundamentallevel. The main reading for this is Schaffer’s ‘Is There a Fundamental Level?’;read this plus excerpts in the handout.

7. The Fundamental Category 1. In this section we will consider some issuesconcerning what the fundamental category of the world is. We wil introducethis topic by first acquainting ourselves with the topic of structural realismvia two of the most important papers in contemporary philosophy of science:Larry Laudan’s ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (slightly truncatedversion to be put on Blackboard), and John Worrall’s ‘Structural Realism:The Best of Both Worlds?’. These are classics that you should read regardless!

8. The Fundamental Category 2. We will continue our look at structural-ism by thinking about ‘ontic’ structural realism in the context of quantummechanics. In particular, we will think about how structuralists ask us toreconceieve of quantum particles. We will consider their state-dependent (i.e.changeable) properties first, and here readings will include Saunders, ‘Physicsand Leibniz’s Principles’, Sections 1 and 2, plus handout.

3

9. The Fundamental Category 3. In this seminar we will think a bit aboutthe understanding contemporary particle physicists have of the state-independentproperties of quantum systems, an understanding which proceeds via the no-tion of symmetries. No reading this week – I will be leading this class.

10. The Fundamental Category 4. This class reserved for a review of thematerial presented in this tranche.

Tranche 3: The Methodology of Fundamentality

11. Methodology 1. Right at the beginning we looked at one extreme viewon the usefulness of scientifically disinterested metaphysics. But now thatwe have completed the first two parts of the course we are in a positionto develop a more nuanced picture of the physics–metaphysics relationshipthan we’ve encountered in the readings. Readings for this seminar are L.A.Paul, ‘Metaphysics as Modelling: The Handmaiden’s Tale’, and Callender’s‘Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics’.

12. Methodology 2. In our final discussion, we will read and rip apart Frenchand McKenzie’s ‘Thinking Outside the Toolbox’.

4 Possible Essay QuestionsYou are welcome to either select from this list or write on a topic of your ownchoice, provided it is cleared with me in advance.

Tranche 1: conceptions of fundamentality1. Describe one or some of the challenges relating to the definition of a levels hierarchy.

2. Can supervenience and / or ontological dependence act as a priority relation?

3. Can priority be defined modally?

Tranche 2: the locus of fundamentality5. Should we believe in the existence of a fundamental level to the actual world?

5. Is a fundamental level any more plausible than a ‘first cause’?

5. Should we believe the structuralist claim that so-called ‘elementary particles’ such aselectrons are not ontologically fundamental ?

5. Assess the claim of ontic structuralists that relations, not objects, are what is funda-mental in physics.

Tranche 3: the methodology of fundamentality10. Discuss the ways in which the issue of fundamentality can illuminate the interdepend-

ence or otherwise of science and armchair metaphysics.

20. Do developments in 20th century physics suggest that analytic metaphysics should be‘discontinued’?

4

1  

 

 FACULTY  OF  ARTS  

DEPARTMENT  OF  PHILOSOPHY    

PHIL  367–  “Science  and  Philosophy”      

Winter  Term  2013    

Course  Outline    

Lectures:    Monday,  Wednesday,  Friday  9-­10am,  MS  319    Instructor:           Dr.  Kerry  McKenzie                Office:         1208          Phone:         403  922  4536            Email:       kerry.mckenzie@ucalgary.ca          Office  Hours:     11-­12  Wednesday  and  Friday              Course  Description    This  course  is  a  general  introduction  to  the  philosophy  of  science.    In  it,  we  will  investigate  the  nature  and  status  of  scientific  knowledge,  focusing  on  the  following  three  core  issues.    

1. Methodology.    How  is  scientific  knowledge  acquired?    By  what  means  do  we  justify  claims  such  as  that  unobservable  particles  like  electrons  exist,  or  that  smoking  causes  cancer?      

2. Demarcation.    Scientific  claims  seem  to  have  a  special  status,  but  can  we  really  say  what  makes  a  claim  ‘scientific’?    How  do  we  separate  science  from  mere  quackery  or  `pseudoscience’?    

3. Realism.    Can  we  be  sure  that  the  unobservable  entities  of  contemporary  science,  such  as  quarks  or  genes,  really  exist?    Or  should  we  only  value  science  insofar  as  it  is  instrumentally  useful  to  us  in  some  way?    

Required  Texts    Curd,  M.  and  Cover  J.A.  (1998):  Philosophy  of  Science:  The  Central  Issues.  New  York:  W.W.  Norton  and  Co.    NB:  additional  readings  will  be  required  for  this  course  and  will  be  put  up  on  Blackboard.    Evaluation  

•  30%  in-­‐class  test  on  Friday  8th  February.  • 35%  paper  due  on  Thursday  14th  March.  • 35%  paper  due  on  Monday  15th  April.    

 Please  note  that  there  will  not  be  a  Registrar-­‐scheduled  final  examination.    Note  also  that  you  may  be  required  to  present  a  text  or  an  issue  before  the  class,  though  these  presentations  will  not  be  formally  assessed.              

2  

 

Grading  Method        

95-­‐100  =  A+     78-­‐80  =  B+     68-­‐70  =  C+     58-­‐60  =  D+    85-­‐94  =  A     75-­‐77  =  B     65-­‐67  =  C     50-­‐57  =  D  81-­‐84  =  A-­‐     71-­‐74  =  B-­‐     61-­‐64  =  C-­‐     <  50  =  F  

 Writing  and  the  grading  thereof  is  a  factor  in  the  evaluation  of  your  work  for  this  course.    

 Course  Breakdown    1.  Introduction.        Tranche  1:  Methods  of  Justification      

2.    Introduction  to  inductive  argument  (no  reading).    3.  Introduction  to  hypothetico-­‐deductive  method:  motivation  and  basic  schema  of  confirmation  and  falsification.    Reading:  Earman  and  Salmon,  ‘Hypothetico-­‐Deductive  Confirmation’  (Blackboard).    4.    Falsification  and  the  Duhem-­‐Quine  problem.    Reading:  Commentary  on  ‘Holism’,    C&C.    5.  HD-­‐type  confirmation:  underdetermination  of  theory  by  data.  reading:  Douven,  ‘Underdetermination’  (Blackboard).    6.  Q&A  session  on  induction  and  confirmation.    7.  Clinical  methods  1:  Mill’s  methods  for  inferring  causes;  ‘correlation  is  not  causation’.    Readings:  portions  of  Wesley  Salmon,  ‘Logic  and  Philosophy  of  Science’  (Blackboard).    8.  Clinical  methods  2:  animal  testing  and  argument  by  analogy.  Readings:  portions  of  Wesley  Salmon,  ‘Logic  and  Philosophy  of  Science’  (Blackboard).    9.  Q&A  on  clinical  methods.    10.  Hume’s  problem  of  induction.    Reading:  Stanford  Encyclopedia,  entry  on  ‘Problem  of  Induction’  sections  1  and  2  only;  excerpt  of  Hume  (Blackboard).    11.  Popper’s  attempted  solution  to  Hume’s  problem.    Readings:  Popper,  ‘Hume’s  problem  of  induction’,  in  C&C.    Optional:  portions  of  WH  Newton-­‐Smith’s  `Rationality  of  Science’  (Blackboard.)    12.  Q&A  on  the  problem  of  induction.    13.    Trouble-­‐shooting  session  on  Tranche  1.    14.  TEST.  

 Tranche  2:  The  Demarcation  Problem.    

15.  Introduction  to  science  vs  pseudoscience.    No  readings.    

3  

 

16.  Popper’s  falsificationism.  Readings:  Popper,  excerpt  of  ‘Conjectures  and  Refutations’,  in  C&C    17.  Q&A  on  pseudoscience  and  Popper.    18.  Kuhn’s  paradigms.    Readings:  Kuhn’s  ‘Logic  of  Discovery  of  Psychology  of  Research?’    in  Curd  and  Cover;  handout  (ahead  of  time)  containing  excepts  of  Kuhn’s  Structure  of  Scientific  Revolutions.    19.  Lakatosian  research  programmes.    Reading:  Lakatos,  ‘Science  and  Pseudoscience’  in  C&C;  excerpts  of  Newton-­‐Smith  (Blackboard).    20.  Q&A  on  Kuhn  and  Lakatos.    21.  Applications  1:  Astrology.    Reading:  handout  (ahead  of  time).    22.  Applications  2:  Creationism  and  the  Arkansas  Education  Act.    Reading:  Ruse,  ‘Creation  Science  is  not  Science’,  in  C&C.    23.  Applications  3:  Creationism  cont’d.    Reading:  Laudan,  ‘Science  at  the  Bar’,  in  C&C.    24.  Q&A  on  applications.    25.    Class  on  successful  essay  writing.    (No  reading.)  

 Tranche  3:  Realism  vs  Anti-­Realism  about  Science.    

26.  Intro  to  Realism  vs  Antirealism.  (No  reading.)    27.  Van  Fraassen’s  ‘constructive  empiricism’.    Reading:  van  Fraassen,  ‘Arguments  Concerning  Scientific  Realism’,  in  C&C.    28.  Musgrave’s  criticisms  of  van  Fraassen.    Reading:  Musgrave:  ‘Realism  versus  Constructive  Empiricism’,  C&C.    29.  Q&A  on  constructive  empiricism.    30.  Laudan  and  the  pessimistic  meta-­‐induction.    Reading:  Laudan,  ‘A  Confutation  of  Convergent  Realism’,  in  C&C.    31.  Worrall’s  response  to  PMI:  structural  realism.    Reading:  Worrall,  ‘Structural  Realism:  the  best  of  both  worlds?’,  Blackboard.    32.  Q&A  on  the  pessimistic  meta-­‐induction.    33.  Hacking’s  experimental  realism.    Reading:  Hacking,  ‘Experimentation  and  Scientific  Realism’,  in  C&C.    34.  Resnik’s  criticisms.    Reading:  Resnik,  ‘Hacking’s  Experimental  Realism’,  C&C.      35.  Essay  troubleshooting  for  Realism  vs  Antirealism.      

 

PHIL2402TOPICS IN EPISTEMOLOGY:

THEORY AND EVIDENCE

Module Description

Semester 2, 2011–12

Level 2 module

20 credits

Allowed as elective

Module leader: Kerry McKenzie

ph07km@leeds.ac.uk

Office: BG35 Office Hours: Thursday 10–12

Wk: Date Topic

1: 23/01 Introduction and Overview1: 27/01 Forms of inductive arguments: Statistical Syllogisms, Analogical Arguments, and Enumerative Induction.2: 30/01 Causal arguments: Introduction to Mill’s methods3: 06/02 Exercises and Q&A

3: 10/02 Elementary probability ideas: axioms and paradoxes4: 13/02 Decision theory: decision-making in an uncertain world4: 17/02 Introduction to Interpretations of probability5: 20/02 Exercises and Q&A

6: 27/02 HD-method and its problems: Underdetermination and Duhem-Quine6: 02/03 Paradoxes of confirmation: all ravens are grue7: 05/03 Bayesian confirmation theory7: 09/03 Q&A8: — — Essay writing week — deadline 19th March

Easter break . . .

9: 16/04 Hume’s problem of induction and Falsificationism9: 20/04 Lakatosian Research Programmes10: 23/04 IBE: The importance of explanation?11: 30/04 Q&A

1

1 Objectives, methods, requirements

1.1 What this course is about

This module concerns a central topic in epistemology: the nature and role of evidence andhow it relates to theory. It covers a range central topics such as: the nature of inductivearguments and inductive fallacies; observation and its relation to theory; the ‘old’ andthe‘’new’ problem of induction; the nature of probability and statistical reasoning, and thenature of causal and explanatory reasoning.

Here are examples of the types of questions and issues tackled in this module: Howdoes a set of observations confirm a hypothesis over another? What is philosophicallyproblematic about inductive reasoning in everyday life or in science? What is the nature ofprobabilistic and statistical reasoning from evidence? How is probability to be understood?Is there a universal framework that relates theories and evidence? What role does causaland explanatory reasoning play in assessing evidence?

1.2 Objectives

On completion of this module students should be able to critically discuss a variety ofissues concerning the relationship between a theory and its evidence. The main topicsinclude: inductive and causal reasoning; the nature of probability and statistical reasoning;confirmation and the scientific method.

1.3 Learning methods

There are 12 lectures, 4 Q&A -sessions, and 4 tutorials. A Q&A -session comes after everythree lectures and provides the module leader the opportunity to clarify and elaborate onthe covered lecture material in a more interactive way. There is a set reading for eachlecture. These reading must be completed by the time the respective Q&A -session takesplace. Critical issues in the readings will be covered in more detail in tutorials that providefurther opportunity for interactive reflection and learning.

As this is a 20 credit module, you should plan to spend on average about 12-13 hoursper teaching week on it, and about 200 hours in total, when essay preparation is taken intoaccount. That breaks down roughly as follows:

1. Lectures: 16 x 1 hour;

2. Tutorials: 4 x 1 hour.

3. 6 hours reading, writing and preparing per lecture: 96 hours;

4. 6 hours reading, writing and preparing per tutorial: 24 hours;

5. Writing an essay: 30 hours, re-reading material, reading further material, and devel-oping an in-depth understanding of an essay topic

6. Exam revision: 30 hours revising, reading over lecture notes, handouts, etc.

1.4 Assessment

Assessment is by an essay (1500 words) and a 2h-final exam (each 50%).

2

Exam. The exam will consist of four questions, from which you must choose two.

Marking criteria. In marking the essay the module leader will be looking for threethings, weighted roughly equally:

Comprehension: understanding of the concepts and ideas discussed in theessay.

Clarity: presentation of the ideas and concepts in a clear and concise manner.

Engagement: independent thinking about the items under discussion.

1.5 Feedback

You will receive written feedback on your first assessed work within two weeks of thedeadline. You are welcome to discuss your essay further with the module leader in heroffice hours or by appointment. At the end of the semester, you can apply to the moduleleader for qualitative feedback on your second assessed essay.

Set reading. All required readings (and more!) are included in the module Course Packthat must be purchased (from Blackwell’s).

Other reading. Further reading will be provided in the VLE.

3