What is knowledge? What are its sources, and how it is structured? Can we have knowledge of mind-independent state of affairs? What is a justified belief? Is justification internal or external to our mind? How do epistemologists go about investigating the nature of knowledge? How can we formalize our concept of knowledge and discuss the problems it raises? Which canons of rationality can we follow as guidance in our practical decisions?

While discussing these arguments the course will provide a brief general introduction to epistemology, and decision theory.

This work will help students to improve their logico-analytic and dialectic abilities, their philosophical sensibility, and the mastership of epistemological concepts.

There are no pre-requisites for this course, but because of the rather abstract and rigorous nature of its topics, it is advisable to attend classes regularly and actively, since the very beginning. Those unable to attend classes can study on their own the texts listed in the section below for non-attending students (NON FREQUENTANTI), but this will require careful work and a good attitude to autonomous learning, analysis and abstract thought.

In order to offer an opportunity of CLIL (content and language integrated learning), and also as a form of support for non Italian students, the teacher will propose to devote some classes to readings and comments in English. Non Italian students will also be allowed to use English for all their required readings, questions and comments in the classroom, and the final exam.

(A) Analysis of Knowledge. Kinds of Knowldge. Propositional Knowledge. The Standard Analysis of Knowledge. The notions of Belief and Truth. Gettier cases. Post-Gettier debate.

(B) The nature of justification. The notion of epistemic justification. Deontological and Non- deontological conceptions of justification. Propositional and doxastic justification. The Basing Relation. Internalism and externalism of justication. Reliabilism.

(C) The structure of justification and knowledge. The epistemic regress argument. Foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism about justification.

(D) Skepticism. Skepticism about the external world. The brain in vat argument. The skeptical paradox. The epistemic closure principle. Transmission of warrant. Proposed solutions to the skeptical argument.

(E) Metaepistemology and methodological debate. The naturalization of epistemology. The method of cases. The notion of reflective equilibrium. The objections coming from Experimental Philosophy (X-Phi) to the use of cases.

(F) Elements of decision and choice theory. Standard definitions of decision theory. Decisions under ignorance. Decisions under risk. Elements of game theory.

There are no strict pre-requisites for this course, but the parts on philosophy of knowledge of a high school handbook of history of philosophy might provide a useful background.

The course presupposes at least basic abilities of analysis of philosophical texts and abstract reasoning.

Knowledge and understanding:

After the course students should be able to understand and explain philosophical texts of medium difficulty, discuss some of the classical problems in epistemology, and the theory of choices. They should be able to use the bibliographical tools and repertories available in this field, and know some of the state-of-the-art questions in the field.

Applying knowledge and understanding:

After the course students should be able to discuss and evaluate various claims and arguments both in the specialistic debate and in the general contemporary cultural debate.

Making judgements:

After the course students should be able to make autonomous and original judgements about the arguments in the debate. To this end discussions in the classroom will be encouraged. Originality and autonomous judgement will be part of the final evaluation of the student's performance.

Communication skills: 

After the course students should be able to explain and discuss the relevant topics with conceptual and linguistic exactness, and to offer efficacious and synthetic accounts of the subject matter. To this end, they should acquire an at least medium level lexical competence in epistemology. In order to achieve these results verbal interaction in the classroom and a careful reading and analysis of the relevant texts will be encouraged.

Learning skills: 

After the course students should be acquainted with the subject matter and the method of research enough to be able to proceed on their own in gathering further knowledge from the literature in the field and in contiguous fields. To this end they should also improve their ability to read English texts in the field.

The teaching material prepared by the lecturer in addition to recommended textbooks (such as for instance slides, lecture notes, exercises, bibliography) and communications from the lecturer specific to the course can be found inside the Moodle platform › blended.uniurb.it

Some complementary lectures will be given by researchers specialized in the theory of knowledge. The materials available for the course, all communications from the teacher, and any other further activities can be found on the web platform Moodle › https://blended.uniurb.it

Teaching

Classroom lectures offering general frameworks, analyses of particular topics, and comments to the relevant literature. Before, during and after the lecture questions, comments and discussions by the students are encouraged. Of course, personal study at home will be equally important. Students are expected to study the texts assigned each time, in order to be able to ask questions and discuss them at the next meeting.

Attendance

Students should attend classes regularly and actively, since the very beginning. Because of the analytic and often abstract character of the subject matter, active participation in classroom discussion will be very useful. In order to do that, and in general to follow the lectures successfully, it is strongly advised to do every day the homework suggested as preparation for the following lecture.

Course books

(A) Analysis of knowledge.

1. T. Piazza, Che cos'è la conoscenza, Carocci 2017, capitoli 1, 2, 3, 4.

2. J. Nagel, Knowledge. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press 2014.

3. D. Pritchard, What is this Thing called Knowledge? Third Edition, Routledge 2014.

4. G. Volpe, La verità, Carocci 2012.

5. A. I. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World, Oxford University Press, capitolo 1.

6. C. Calabi, A. Coliva, A. Sereni, G. Volpe (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, Cortina 2015.

7. E. Gettier, “La credenza vera e giustificata è conoscenza?”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 37 – 40.

8. R. Nozick, “La conoscenza”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 41 – 58.

9. E. Sosa, “Un’epistemologia delle virtù”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 59 – 76.

10. D. Pritchard, “Sensibilità, sicurezza ed epistemologia anti-fortuna”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 77 – 104.

11. T. Williamson, “La conoscenza e i suoi limiti”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 105 – 129.

(B) Nature of justification.

12. H. Kornblith (Ed.), Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism, Blackwell 2001.

13. T. Piazza, Che cos'è la conoscenza, Carocci 2017, capitolo 2, § 2.3.

14. A. I. Goldman, “Che cos’è una credenza giustificata?”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 185 – 212.

15. L. BonJour, “Le teorie esterniste della conoscenza empirica”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 213 – 234.

16. J. Greco, “La giustificazione non è interna”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 235 – 253.

17. R. Neta, “The Basing Relation”, in S. Bernecker, D. Pritchard (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, Routledge 2014, pp. 109 – 118.

(C) Structure of knowledge and justification

L’argomento del Regresso Epistemico. Il Fondazionalismo. Il Coerentismo. L’infinitismo.

18. C. I. Lewis, “Le basi della conoscenza empirica”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 151 – 170.

19. R. Firth, “Coerenza, certezza e priorità epistemica”, in C. Calabi, et al. (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, pp. 171 – 184.

20. L. BonJour, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Harvard University Press, 1985, Part I.

21. W. P. Alston, “Has Foundationalism Been Refuted?”, in Epistemic Justification. Essays in the Theory of Knowledge, Cornell University Press 1989, pp. 39 – 56.

22. W. P. Alston, “What’s Wrong with Immediate Knowledge?”, in Epistemic Justification. Essays in the Theory of Knowledge, Cornell University Press 1989, pp. 57 – 78.

23. P. Klein, “Infinitism Is the Solution to the Regress Problem”, in M. Steup, E. Sosa (Eds.) Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Blackwell 2005, pp. 131 – 140.

24. C. Ginet, “infinitism Is not the Solution to the Regress Problem”, in M. Steup, E. Sosa (Eds.) Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, Blackwell 2005, pp. 140 – 155.

(D) Skepticism.

25. A. Coliva, Scetticismo. Dubbio, paradosso e conoscenza, Laterza 2012.

26. K. DeRose, T. A. Warfield (Eds.) Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader, Oxford University Press 1999.

27. B. Stroud, “The Problem of the External World”, in E. Sosa, J. Kim, J. Fantl, M. McGrath (Eds.) Epistemology: An Anthology, Second Edition, Blackwell 2008, pp. 7 – 25.

28. C. Calabi, A. Coliva, A. Sereni, G. Volpe (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, Cortina 2015, Parte Terza.

(E) Metaepistemlogy and methodological debate

29. H. Kornblith (Ed.) Naturalizing Epistemology, Second Edition, The MIT Press 1994.

30. H. Kornblith, “Epistemic Normativity”, Synthese 94, (1993) pp. 357 – 376.

31. A. Casullo, J. C. Thurow (Eds.) The A Priori in Philosphy, Oxford University Press 2013.

32. A. Angelucci, Che cos’è un esperimento mentale? Carocci 2018.

33. D. Sgaravatti, Esperimenti mentali e metodo filosofico, Mimesis 2017.

34. E. Machery, Philosophy Within Its Proper Bounds, Oxford University Press 2017.

35. M. Deutsch, The Myth of the Intuitive: Experimental Philosophy and Philosophical Method, Cambridge, MIT Press 2015.

36, H. Cappelen, Philosophy without intuitions, Oxford University Press 2012.

37. J. Alexander, Experimental Philosophy. An Introduction. Polity 2012.

38. J. Sytsma, J. Livengood, The Theory and Practice of Experimental Philosophy, Broadview Press 2015.

39. M. R. DePaul, W. M. Ramsey (eds.) Rethinking Intuition. The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Methodology, Rowman and Littlefield 1998.

40. S. Stich, La frammentazione della ragione, Il Mulino 1996

41. T, Williamson, The Philosophy of Philosophy, Blackwell Publishing 2007.

42. J. M. Weinberg et al., “Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions”, Philosophical Topics, 29 (2001), pp. 429-460.

(F) Elements of decision and choice theory

43. D.M. Resnik, Scelte. Introduzione alla teoria delle decisioni, Muzzio 1990.

 

Only a small part of this bibliography will be mandatory, and it will be indicated during classes. It is hence not advisable to buy anything without asking the teacher first. Some texts will be made available online (among them some parts from out-of-print books). An English edition can be used whenever existing. For any problem or question please contact the teacher.

Assessment

There will be a mid-term partial exam consisting of 4 open questions, one of which may be substituted by a second-choice question. For the final examination students will choose between a written examination at the early pre-exam session and an oral examination at the regular exam sessions. The written exam will consist of 8 open questions, two of which can be substituted by second-choice questions. The mid-term exam will weight 1/3 in the final evaluation and the final exam will weight 2/3.

The written exams allow a comparative and more objective assessment of the students’ learning, while testing the capacities for reflection, writing and argumentation. However, the option to choose instead the oral examination allows even the students less familiar with written examinations to seek a good final mark. Second-choice questions prevent the risk of picking just one of the few gaps in the student's knowledge. 

Both the written and the oral exam are intended to ascertain not only what and how much the students have learned both about the basic concepts of the discipline and its most important historical developments, but also their comprehension, the acquisition of better attitudes to  analysis, exposition, analytic argumentation,  and of the capacity to discuss in a critical and possibly original way the topics of classes and assigned readings.

All of these criteria will have equal weight in the assessment, but the minimal basis, sufficient to pass the course, will be a sufficiently clear exposition of the basic concepts and contents. Each question of the written exam will be marked from 1 to 30, according to the described criteria.

In the oral examination two or three open questions will be asked, followed by further questions if needed to achieve a more precise and reliable evaluation. Each answer will be graded from 1 to 30 according to the above criteria and the considerations.

The final grade will then be the average of partial grades. Active participation in class discussion will also weight in the assessment. 

All and only all topics actually discussed in class, and the texts explicitly indicated during classes will be required for the exam.  All other texts can be used for a better and deeper understanding.

Foreign students may take the exam in English.

Disability and Specific Learning Disorders (SLD)

Students who have registered their disability certification or SLD certification with the Inclusion and Right to Study Office can request to use conceptual maps (for keywords) during exams.

To this end, it is necessary to send the maps, two weeks before the exam date, to the course instructor, who will verify their compliance with the university guidelines and may request modifications.

Teaching

THOSE UNABLE TO ATTEND CLASSES will study on their own (individually or with others) according to the directions of this vademecum and, if possible, with the help which can be given by the teacher during office hours or through e-mail, Skype, etc. The files of lecture notes will also be made available on the platform Moodle › https://blended.uniurb.it.

Attendance

In order to make up for the impossibility of attending classes, a hard and careful study is required. One should already possess good skills of autonomous learning and some capacity to read and understand philosophical texts, at least at a basic level. Whenever possible, it is advisable to work with other students. Students should also test their own learning by trying to produce examples of each concept and idea they encounter. Lists of test questions or mock exams will also be supplied upon request.

To make learning more interactive students are welcome to agree with the professor on the topic of a short essay which will be handed in at least one week before the exam.

Course books

Required readings:

 

1. T. Piazza, Che cos'è la conoscenza, Carocci 2017.

2. C. Calabi, A. Coliva, A. Sereni, G. Volpe (a cura di) Teorie della conoscenza. Il dibattito contemporaneo, Cortina 2015, Parte Prima e Parte Seconda.

3. A. Angelucci, Che cos’è un esperimento mentale? Carocci 2018.

4. D.M. Resnik, Scelte. Introduzione alla teoria delle decisioni, Muzzio 1990, pp. 7-96.

Assessment

Oral examination. Alternatively, subject to previous agreement with the teacher, it will be possible to take a written examination at the early pre-exam session. Both the oral and the written examination have the same aims and characters described for attending students.  Students may ask the teacher to write a term paper on a topic relevant to the course. In this case the paper will have in the final evaluation the same weight as the other factors. Foreign students may ask to take the exam in English.

Disability and Specific Learning Disorders (SLD)

Students who have registered their disability certification or SLD certification with the Inclusion and Right to Study Office can request to use conceptual maps (for keywords) during exams.

To this end, it is necessary to send the maps, two weeks before the exam date, to the course instructor, who will verify their compliance with the university guidelines and may request modifications.

As a form of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) at least one article will be read and commented in English. Help to the understanding will be supplied if needed. Foreign students will be allowed to use English for questions and comments during classes, for all the required readings, and for the final examination.