|
|
You will write two or three short papers for this course.
Paper assignments will require you to express challenging
ideas clearly and accurately and critically appraise them
fairly. Further details will be posted here as the course
progresses.
Contents
Requirements
for all drafts & papers
Drafts should:
- Meet the requirements here for integrity,
format, and style
- Integrity lapses on drafts may be charged as
violations of DePauw's academic integrity policy, so
follow the integrity
instructions
- Include an introduction with thesis and road map
(see the advice)
- Respond to the prompt
- Go through the peer review process: please turn in a
draft on time, and comment conscientiously on others'
drafts.
- Your draft will not be graded. But the grade for
your finished paper may be lowered if your draft is
missing, incomplete, not well proofread, doesn't meet
the integrity requirements, or doesn't go through peer
review.
- FYI, here is a copy of the peer review form
Academic
integrity, and how to cite
Reading responses, drafts,
papers, and take-home exams (if any) must meet these
requirements. Citing and quoting are not required for
in-class exams.
This section will not discuss all kinds of academic
integrity. It will focus on the problems that occur most
commonly. You are still responsible for following DePauw's
Academic Integrity Policy.
The most common integrity problems are:
A. Plagiarism -- that is,
presenting others' work as if it were your own -- and
B. Crediting others' work, but badly.
To avoid both, follow the guidelines below.
|
A. Plagiarism is
presenting another's work as if it were your
own. "Another's work" includes their ideas and
the words they used to express their ideas.
Therefore, to avoid plagiarizing:
- Any time you use something you get from
another, cite it, whether you quote it or not.
- Whatever
the source was -- assigned texts,
class discussion, a conversation with a
friend, an academic journal, a web page,
your mother, space aliens, or whatever --
cite it.
- If you use another person's words in your
work, put them in quotation marks and cite.
- FYI, if you just change some of the
wording here and there you may still be
plagiarizing. Either put the material in
quotation marks or completely rephrase it.
See this
exercise for help.
- Keep track of your sources.
- Citing properly will be easy if you make a
note of what you read and who you talk to
about your work. Keep track of what words
and ideas come from each source. Then, if
you use any words or ideas from your
sources, cite them and put their words in
quotation marks.
- Unsure what to do? Ask me
before you turn in the work.
|
Citing and quoting properly are vital. Failing to cite and quote
as required will automatically lower your grade,
potentially down to failing. I may also charge you with
violating DePauw’s
Academic Integrity Policy. If the charge is upheld, the minimum
penalty is worse
than turning in no work at all. You must keep track of,
and properly document, whose words and ideas you are
using. DePauw provides lots of info on understanding
academic integrity and how to avoid plagiarism on
this helpful page.
B. Citing properly:
Other instructors and other disciplines may have different
standards. Learn and follow the guidelines in each. In
this course, cite as follows:
| When
not quoting: |
We should not
completely trust our senses because they can
deceive us; for example, at any moment we might be
dreaming (Descartes, 144).
(The period
comes after the citation. Cite the author of the
work -- in this case, Descartes -- not the
editor of the textbook.) |
| When
quoting: |
The Third
Meditation argument for God is essentially that
"the idea of God, which is in us, cannot have any
cause other than God Himself" (Descartes, 143).
(The citation
goes outside the quotation marks and the period
comes after the citation. Again, cite the
author.) |
Also:
|
When you mention the
author's name in the sentence, you don't need to
include it in the citation (though including it
is never wrong). For example:
Descartes says we
should not completely trust our senses because
they can deceive us; for example, at any moment
we might be dreaming (145).
|
Works Cited/Bibliography/References: If
you use any sources outside of class materials, you must
include a Works Cited for them. However, if you only use
class materials, a Works Cited is optional in this course.
How to cite various
sources:
- Readings with page
numbers: Give the author's name and the page number in
parentheses, like this: (Descartes, 145) or (Locke,
187). Only cite Bailey for things Bailey wrote, like
introductory material, the logic reading, etc.
- Readings with
paragraph numbers: give the author's name and
the paragraph number, like this: (Behe, 21).
- Readings without
page or paragraph numbers: If the assigned
text is, for example, a web page with no page numbers,
just cite the author.
- Videos: Give
the video's title and the time at which the cited
material begins, like this: (Evidence for Intelligent
Design, 4:13). After you give the full title the first
time you cite it, you may abbreviate the title:
First
time cited: (Evidence for Intelligent Design, 4:13)
Second
and later citations: (Evidence, 2:03) etc.
- Citing class
discussion or lecture:
- Note: I recommend
you do not rely
only on class notes for material that is in assigned
texts or videos, because:
- The original source -- the text or video -- is
usually a richer source.
- Citing notes for something in the book is
misleading. You should cite the origin of an
idea whenever you can, not just where you last heard
it. For any material that is in an assigned text or
video or whatever, use that assignment as your
source and cite it.
- Class notes: cite
the class and date, either like (Phil 101, 2021-02-05)
or (2021-02-05 Phil 101 notes)
- Class discussion:
same as for class notes.
- Recorded class
meeting (for classes taught remotely):
include the date and, like with any video, the time
where the cited material begins: (Phil 101,
2020-02-05, 15:35).
- Citing outside
sources. No research outside of assigned texts
is needed in this course, and if you don't cite anything
besides class and assigned texts or videos, I don't
require a "works cited" page. But if you use any outside
sources:
- Choose them
carefully. Here's a handy rule: if you
cannot tell who the author is, and that the author is
qualified to write about your topic, you probably
should not use that source. When in doubt, either ask
me or do not use the source.
- Cite outside
sources in Chicago or Turabian format, using
the parenthetical citations/reference list style. In
other words, cite an outside source in parentheses --
like (Miyazaki, 247) -- wherever you use it in your
work, and provide a bibliography. You must include the
URL for all sources you access via the internet. A
quick guide to Turabian format is here on
the Library web page; click the Turabian (P/RL)
tab for instructions on how to cite various kinds of
sources.
- Citing
conversations. If you got an idea while
talking with, say, a friend or relative, that is fine.
But you must still cite it. It's easy: just give the
name of the person and the date and say, "personal
communication." Example: (Joan Anderson, personal
communication, 5/23/2005).
Paper
format
- Word (.docx or .doc), Rich Text Format (.rtf), or
shared Google doc only. No PDF's or Pages files, please.
- Double spaced, 1" margins, numbered pages, 12-point
Times New Roman or similar font.
- Your name and the word count (for the text of the
paper, not counting bibliography, etc.) at the top.
- Free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.
Do not trust your college GPA to auto-correct or to
grammar- or spell-checkers! Proofread your paper
yourself. Read it aloud!
- About length: I grade content, not length. I will not
lower your grade merely because your paper is not within
the stated word count. Instead, think of it this way: if
you write your paper and end up at only 800 words, you
probably need to say more. If you end up at 1500+ words,
you maybe should cut some material out or be more
concise.
Style
- Strive for
simplicity. Use simple, clear language as much
as possible. Don't use big words or complicated
sentences when simpler words and sentences will do. For
more specific advice:
- Avoid clichés.
Please don't tell me how long humanity has
pondered your topic ("For centuries, humanity has
pondered the basis of morality..."), or give me
Webster’s definition of anything.
- You may write in the first person in this course if
you prefer.
- Revise and rewrite. Complete
a draft and then let it sit for at least a few hours.
Then come back and revise to make it even clearer and
more logical, and to proofread it. I also recommend you
get assistance from DePauw's
Writing center. Of course all this means you
should get started well before the deadline.
Advice for
writing a good paper
- Start with a thesis
and map. Give readers a clear preview of what
you will do in the paper in a brief introduction. There
are two important reasons for this. First, it's a
courtesy to readers. Second, writing it makes you think
about, and refine, what you're going to say.
- Your intro should be no more than half a page, and
include:
- A thesis: why you think
the argument is good or bad; and
- A map: a
brief summary of how you will support your thesis.
- Resist the temptation to do much more than this in
your introduction.
- Make your thesis and road map specific, not generic:
| Generic, less
informative maps: |
Better, more specific map: |
"First I will
present the argument. Then I will object to it and
conclude the argument is unsound."
"I will first present the argument. Then I will
present an objection to it and show why the
objection fails."
(These are
better than nothing but say too little.)
|
"After explaining
Descartes' argument that God exists, I will defend
it against an objection. The objection tries to
show Descartes' argument is unsound because people
do not all share the same idea of God. I will
argue, however, that this objection does not show
that any of Descartes' premises are false or that
his argument is invalid, so the objection fails."
(This gives a
much clearer picture of what to expect in the
paper.)
|
- Second, explain your
chosen argument, in 1-2 pages. Rely on the source;
don't just write up your notes.
- Explain the whole argument, as if to someone who has
never heard of it.
- Here are some good ways to do that:
- Explain it all in your own words (but citing all
along); or
- Quote --> explain --> quote --> explain.
That is, quote a premise from the text, then explain
for yourself what it means, then quote some more and
explain that, and so on until you've shown how the
whole argument works. For any conclusions, explain
how they're supposed to follow from the premises.
- Or, some of each.
- Using notes from class to help you understand the
argument in the text is fine, but a paper that just
writes up notes won't be very good.
- Be charitable. Even if you don't agree with the
argument, make it look as persuasive as possible
(without misrepresenting what the author says).
- For the first paper, explaining the argument well is
the most important part. After that, evaluating is
just as important.
- Third, evaluate that
argument, in 1-2 pages. Argue for why some
objection(s) shows, or fails to show, the argument is
unsound or weak.
- For the first paper, this part is less important
than presenting the argument. After that, evaluating
is just as important.
- State just one or two objections. More than that
will not work in a short paper.
- Make them good objections, not easily dismissed.
- Explain why why any reasonable person should agree
with your assessment.
- Using an objection from the text or class? Cite it!
From something you found on the internet? Cite it!
From a chat with a friend, a relative, space aliens,
or any other source? Cite!
- Evaluating the
argument doesn't have to mean showing the argument is
bad. Maybe it turns out the argument is good--or at
least that some objection(s) fail to show it's bad.
There are many ways a paper can go. Here are some you
might try:
- Here's the argument. Here's an objection. Here's
why the objection shows the argument is bad. The
end.
- Here's the argument. Here's an objection. The
objection, though, fails to show the argument is
bad. So, the argument is immune to that objection.
- Here's the argument. Here's an objection. Here's
why this objection fails. But wait, here's another
objection, and it succeeds. So the argument is bad.
- Here's an argument. Here's an objection. Oh, and
here's another. But here's why they both fail to
show the argument is bad. So the argument is immune
to both those objections.
- Of these (1-4), #1 and #2 are OK, but #3 and #4 show
more sophistication, which is even better.
- Before you turn in your
draft:
- Make sure you have followed the general requirements
for papers given above:
- Does the draft follow the academic
integrity instructions?
- Have you followed the format
instructions? Proofread it carefully?
- Have you followed the style
instructions? Is it clear? Could you simplify the
wording?
- Ask yourself: would your arguments persuade someone
who did not already agree with you?
- Before submitting the
final version, consider the feedback you
received and use it to improve the paper.
Paper
Assignment #2
Deadlines for your draft & finished paper are on the class
schedule Google doc and here
on Moodle.
Prompt: explain and
evaluate one of the arguments from our unit on matter -- one
you did NOT write about in the second exam's last question.
Pick one of these -- again,
one you did NOT write about in the second exam's last
question:
- Descartes's argument for defective nature doubt
(145, first one and a half paragraphs)
- Descartes's argument that God exists (M3; see the
reading for assignment 16 on our Google drive; the
reading for assignment 17 may be helpful)
- Descartes's argument that God would not deceive
(second paragraph of M4, p. 157; also see the reading
for assignment 16 on our Google drive)
- Descartes's argument that mind and body are
"completely distinct" (i.e., separable; end of 166 to
top of 177)
- Descartes's argument that material things exist
(167)
- Locke's argument that material things exist (184-6,
esp. §§3-8)
- Berkeley's better argument that we cannot know
matter exists (§§18-19)
- Berkeley's argument that God exists
(§§29-32; he restates it in
§§145-149)
If you would like to write about something else in the
course from after James, see me!
Explain your chosen argument carefully and completely
(advice for that is here). Then
critically evaluate it. For this
paper, the critical evaluation is just as important as
getting the exposition right.
As before, your paper should be about 1000-1300 words
(about 3-4 pages).
My advice for writing a good paper
is the same, and please follow the guidelines for format, style,
and academic integrity.
Paper Assignment
#1
Deadlines for your draft & finished paper are on the
class schedule Google doc and here
on Moodle.
Prompt: explain,
and evaluate, one of the arguments about God in our assigned
texts -- one you did NOT write about in the first exam's
last question.
Pick one of these -- again,
one you did NOT write about in the first exam's last
question:
- Anselm's argument that God exists (Anselm, 7)
- Aquinas's "First Way" (Aquinas, 26) or his Second or
Third (Aquinas, 26-7) -- your choice
- Kenyon & Dembski's argument (see the video)
- Carl Sagan's argument for a naturalistic account of
DNA (see both the Sagan videos)
- Michael Behe's argument
- Pascal's Wager (in James, 112), or James's defense
of it
Explain your chosen argument carefully and completely.
This is the most important part of this paper. Then
critically evaluate the argument--that is, explain why
some objection(s) shows, or fails to show, it is unsound
or weak; for this paper, this is less important than
explaining the argument well.
Your paper should be about 1000-1300 words (about 3-4
pages).
Please follow the advice for
writing a good paper.
|