PHIL2207 - Assessment components

Your final grade will be based on five components: one test per module (3 in total), one essay, and your grade for the team exercises. The third test will take place during the final exam period, but will not be substantially different from the two others, in that its scope will be limited to one module (the third).

First test

The first test will take place during the third hour of the lecture on April 14. The test will cover the material from the first module only.The purpose of this test is to verify your comprehension of the material. You should be able to:

• Summarize the main points, arguments, and counterarguments found in the readings or discussed during the lectures, and relate them to each other.
• Explain any key terminology.
• Make a reasonable assessment of the relative importance of the points, arguments, and counterarguments discussed in the module.

• Knowledge of purely historical facts with little philosophical import (e.g., the year Descartes was born, though it matters that Descartes was writting in the 17th century, as opposed to the 20th).
• Knowledge of the precise neurophysiological information found in the readings, though a rough understanding of such facts as are relevant to the module is expected. As a rule, you are not required to know neurophysiological details not discussed in class.

Second test

Click here for the review questions for test 2. As before, the exam questions will be similar to the review questions.

Final exam

You will be given four or five questions, of which you must answer three. The same rules and general instructions apply as for the second test (see above).

Click here for the review questions. As before, the exam questions will be similar to the review questions.

Essay

General instructions

Your essay should be between 2500 and 3000 words (not counting the footnotes and the bibliography). The deadline has been extended to June 6 by 4pm. Contrary to the exams, you are expected to show evidence of original thinking and/or research in the essay. Your essay will be graded based on the following criteria:

1. Clarity - is it easy to read and understand? have you properly explained the terminology you use? is it clearly structured?
2. Strength of argumentation - are your claims adequately supported by argumentation and evidence? are your claims consistent with each other? have you clearly identified the assumptions you make? are your assumptions reasonable? (e.g., you cannot assume the main claim you aim to defend in your essay)
3. Accuracy - do you represent the empirical evidence (if any) correctly? do you represent others' views accurately?
4. Depth - have you discussed the topic in as much depth as one possibly could without compromising the other criteria or going over the word limit?
5. Originality - have you gone beyond the lecture material on your chosen question?

1. Introduction - state the question and your position on it, and very briefly outline your defence of the latter
2. Development - discuss what you take to be the key points for and against your position. You must exert your judgement in deciding what are the key points. A list of all points ever discussed will not do. You should pick a few key points and discuss them in depth instead.
3. Conclusion - re-state your position and briefly summarize your argumentation again

Essay questions (choose one) and suggested readings (optional)

Question 1: Is phenomenal consciousness causally efficacious?

Suggested readings:

• Susan Pockett (2004). Does consciousness cause behavior?. Journal of Consciousness Studies 11.
• William Robinson (2007). Epiphenomenalism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Normal Malcolm (1968). The conceivability of mechanism, Philosophical Review 77(1).
• Jaegwon Kim (1989). Mechanism, purpose, and explanatory exclusion, Philosophical Perspectives 3.
• E.J. Lowe (2000). Causal closure principles and emergentism, Philosophy 75.

Question 2: To what extent does scientific knowledge constitute a challenge for folk psychology?

Suggested readings: (in construction)

• William Ramsey (2007). Eliminative Materialism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Frank Jackson and Philip Pettit (1990). In defense of folk psychology, Philosophical Studies 59(1).
• Crispin Wright (1995). Can there be a rationally compelling argument for anti-realism about ordinary ("folk") psychology?, Philosophical Issues 6.
• Andrew Brook and Paul Raymont (2006). The unity of consciousness. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (mostly relevant to Nagel's article on split brains)
• Kathy Wilkes (1978). Consciousness and Commissurotomy. Philosophy 53 (204): 185-199. (Challenges Nagel's kind of argument. Not online.)
• See also Malcolm (1968) and Kim (1989) above.

Question 3: Are we free in the sense required for moral responsibility?

Suggested readings:

• A.J. Ayer (1954). Freedom and Necessity.
• Kadri Vihveling (2007). Arguments for Incompatibilism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Tim O'Connor (2005). Free will, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Randolph Clarke (2004). Incompatibilist (nondeterministic) theories of free will, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Daniel Wegner (2003). The mind's best trick: how we experience conscious will. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(2).
• Also Pockett (2004) above.

Important: though each question corresponds to a course module, there are significant ties between the topics of these modules, so you may want to use points/articles discussed in more than one module. Integrating elements from different modules would be a good way of fulfilling the research / originality requirement.

Format

Your essay should include a cover page containing the following information:

1. Your name and student id
2. Title of your essay
3. Question chosen
4. Course name and number (PHIL 2207 - Philosophy of Psychology)
5. Name of lecturer (David Bourget)
6. Submission date
7. Word count (not counting your bibliography or footnotes)

Please use the Times New Roman font with size 12 (default in MS Word). Use doublespace (not .5) and default margin settings..

Submission rules

Note the new information below.

The copy that will be marked is the electronic copy you send to me directly (second listed below). The other copies are for regulatory and backup purposes. Your grade and comments will be sent to you by replying to your email.

You must submit three copies of your essay:

1. One hard copy, in class or in my mailbox.
2. One electronic copy to me. Use my address , use subject "PHIL2207 Essay", and attach your essay as a MS Word, OpenOffice, PS, or PDF document (Word or OpenOffice preferred so I can insert comments directly in your text).
3. One electronic copy to the School. Use address , use subject "PHIL2207 Essay", and attach the same copy of your essay as above. This step is required by the School.

Your submission time will be determined according to the following rule: if you do not complain of a delivery problem with your email submission, your submission time will be when I received a readable copy of your essay by email; if you do complain of a delivery problem with your email submission, your submission time will be when you handed in your hard copy to the School or to me.

Since hard copies will be accepted by me and the School up to the day of the final exam, it follows that, if you receive confirmation from me that your essay has been received succesfully before the deadline, you need not submit your hard copy until the day of the final exam--you can wait that long without penalty.

All essays successfully received before noon on Friday will be acknowledged before 2:00pm. If you do not receive a confirmation by 2:30pm, you should take measures to get your hard copy to the school or another electronic copy to me before the deadline (4pm).

Note that all essays received will be checked for readability before being acknowledged.