philosophy paper


Question Description

Need 6 pages paper. Two files, first file is guidelines, and the top of the guidelines have two links, the first one is guideline example, and second one is example paper. All requirement is in guideline. The second file my textbook, so you also can get some information from our book if you need. Due US pacific time 11/22 night.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Term Paper Thesis Argumentation 200 Grade Points Due As Assigned Via E-mail Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper: Start by reading the Notre Dame University Guidelines By Professor Jim Pryor and finally, Professor Peter Horban's "Writing a Philosophy Paper" Then, follow these Ten Commandments and everalsting grade salvation shall be thine. While the primary intent for publishing these 'commandments' is to aid your success in my Logic and Critical Thinking courses, anyone can use these steps to formulate a defensable term paper in philosophy. These are NOT mere guidelines for this Critical Thinking and Writing course, however. These are the NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS for writing a successful term paper in this course. Since satisfying these necessary and sufficient conditions entails demonstrating the skills of VALID and SOUND reasoning, then many students may well find these 'commandments' useful and productive in writing any paper assigned in your academic life. Be well and prosperous! PART ONE OF YOUR TERM PAPER: VALIDITY 1. THOU SHALT STATE THY THESIS: A philosophy paper begins with the statement of a claim to be defended. This claim is a proposition and constitutes the THESIS of your term paper. The first paragraph of your paper should state clearly what 'thesis' proposition you intend to defend. Example: "Political Science is an oxymoron" Choose a topic from your major academic discipline of study. The example is suitable for a political science major. If you don’t have a major yet, then choose a claim you wish to defend in an area of study interesting to you and where you have sufficient general background knowledge. Example: "There is a high degree of probability that intelligent life exists on other planets in the known universe." Perhaps you want to challenge the views of another thinker. If so, then your thesis statement would read something like this. Example: "I oppose the view held by Gilbert Ryle that states that the term ‘mind’ refers merely to the functions of the brain rather than to some being separate from the brain." Your statement of the claim is your thesis. You will defend this view by advancing a series of reasons called arguments. You may need many sub-arguments in order to get to your main thesis argument. Prepare a bulleted outline of what those arguments will entail. List the kinds of evidence or proof you will need for each argument. Is your argument purely analytical (a priori) like Anselm’s argument for the existence of God? Then you will have no soundness issues to deal with only issues of validity. Or, is your argument concerning some area of practical reasoning (a posteriori) as is in the first example stated above about political science? In that case you will have to deal with both issues of validity and soundness. This outline should be free from mere opinions, beliefs, feelings, hearsay or things you vaguely remember Monica Lewinsky saying in her interview with Barbara Walters on TV. Your outline should ONLY CONTAIN REASONS that support other statements in the outline by logical entailment. 2. THOU SHALT DEFINE ALL THY TERMS: Take each section of your outline and break it down into smaller sections containing premise statements (propositions) that lead to conclusions. List what kind of definitions you intend to employ for the terms in the premises you use for each sub-argument and your main argument. Are your definitions stipulative, lexical, functional, theoretical or some combination thereof? Make careful note of this in your outline. At this stage, be prepared to go through several drafts of your paper before you get to the final version. Three to four drafts are quite to be expected in writing a good philosophy paper, especially if this is your first attempt. Show your drafts to me or to a tutor for comment and suggestions. 3. THOU SHALT STATE THY ARGUMENT IN A VALID FORM: Choose a deductive method of reasoning to compose your arguments. This could be a series of standard form categorical syllogisms where each conclusion serves as the major premise for the succeeding argument until you arrive at the main argument also stated in standard form categorical syllogistic form. Choose one of the 15 Valid Forms. 4. THOU SHALT PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT(S) VALID: Once your argument is formulated using one of the known 15 valid standard form categorical syllogisms you must then prove validity of your argument. You do this by use of a VENN DIAGRAM and The 6 Rules for Validity in Standard Form Categorical Syllogisms. Embed the Venn Diagram for your thesis argument in the body of your text. Parse your argument through each of the 6 Rules. DO NOT FAIL TO DO THIS! If you have mastered these techniques you should have no trouble getting to this point. If you have trouble, see a tutor or bring your work to class for analysis. I’ll be happy to evaluate it with you. PART TWO OF YOUR TERM PAPER: SOUNDNESS 5. THOU SHALT ANALYZE THE SOUNDNESS OF THY ARGUMENT: Once your argument is proven VALID then each of the premises for the main argument must be submitted to inductive analysis to determine their empirical probability. Here you need to state the empirical conditions under which they could be tested. Of course, if your argument contains terms and propositions about those terms that are beyond the realm of empirical proof then you must state why that is the case. Then you must present an 'analytical' proof for your premises. THIS IS A CRUCIAL STEP IN YOUR PAPER. Valid arguments are easy to construct since validity is purely a matter of correct form. Sound arguments, on the other hand, are valid arguments that have all factually true, empirically verifiable, scientifically demonstrable premises to a high degree of probability. If you find that the premises have scientifically weak evidence then you cannot claim soundness for your argument, just weak probability. Empirically weak arguments provide little reason to accept them as factually true. Don’t be shy to come to this conclusion if the evidence warrants it. That’s the point of doing the paper, i.e. to see if valid and sound reasoning can substantiate the truth-claim of your term paper thesis. 6. THOU SHALT SUMMARIZE THY FINDINGS: As a last step in your paper, review where you began, where your inquiry took you and where you concluded. If this process changed your views on the issue underlying your thesis then state the reasons why. If you discover that there is little or no empirical verification for the factual truth of your premises, then say so. If you have come to some original insights about this issue, then state what those insights are. Typically, your summary paragraph will be quite short. 7. THOU SHALT MAKE THY PAPERS printed 6-10 pages in length, double-spaced, spell-checked and grammar-checked documents. Make two copies of your final paper. Keep a backup copy in digital format. 8. THOU SHALT FOLLOW APA (American Psychological Association) style and format for printing your final paper. List all references and resources used according to the APA format. 9. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBORS WORK. I define plagiarism as submitting the work of another as if it were your own. 10. REMEMBER TO READ THY PAPER ALOUD: Before you hand in your paper READ IT ALOUD to yourself and/or to a kind friend. You will catch last minute mistakes this way as well as enjoy a sense of confidence that your final paper actually makes well-reasoned sense. GRADING: Your papers will be graded according to the following criteria: 1. Is it clearly written, relatively free from careless errors in typing, spelling grammar and syntax? I stop reading papers that are syntactical train wrecks and do not grade them. 2. Is your thesis free from vague and ambiguous language? 3. Is there a logical flow to the structure of the paper? 4. Did you prove your argument valid by formal means? 5. Did you fairly represent the views of those you cite? 6. Did you consider counter arguments to your own? 7. Did you adequately examine the soundness of the premises you use? 8. Did you comprehend what you have been able to demonstrate? 9. Did you hand your paper in on time? 10. Did you do original work? Excellent Internet resources for writing a philosophy paper: APA Style and Format Help with Writing Here are some Valid Syllogisms from successful former student Term Papers. These thesis arguments were successful, not because of 'what' they argued, but rather by 'how' they were argued. AAA-1 BARBARA All individual passion is ruled by individual character. All individual destiny is ruled by individual passion. Therefore,All individual destiny is ruled by individual character. EAE-1 CELARENT No human fetus killing is a private matter. All human abortions are human fetus killings. Therefore, no human abortion is a private matter. (NOTE: by converting the MAJOR premise, this argument could be formulated as a CESARE, EAE-2) AII-1 DARII All perception states are real states. Some dream states are perception states. Therefore, some dreams states are real states. (NOTE: by converting the MINOR premise, this argument could be formulated as a DATISI, AII-3) AII-3 DATISI All things in life that don’t kill you are things that can make your character stronger. Some things in life that don’t kill you are “bad choices” you make. Therefore some “bad choices” you make are things that can make your character stronger. (NOTE: by converting the MINOR premise, this argument could be formulated as a DARII, AII-1) EIO-1 FERIO (All EIO Mood arguments are valid regardless of Figure) No inanimate three-dimensional objects are objects that can commit murder. Some things (i.e. guns) are inanimate three-dimensional objects. Therefore, some things (i.e. guns) are not objects that can commit murder. AEE-2 CAMESTRES All state sanctioned marriages are marriages wherein it is at least logically possible for human procreation to happen. No marriages between members of the same gender are marriages wherein it is at least logically possible for procreation to happen. Therefore, no marriages between members of the same gender are state sanctioned marriages. EAE-2 CESARE No ‘entity’ is a thing that exists outside of sense perception. All ‘god’ things are entities that exist outside of sense perception. Therefore no ‘god’ thing is an ‘entity.’ (NOTE: by converting the MAJOR premise, this argument could be formulated as a CELERANT, EAE-1) AOO-2 BAROKO All 'gay' people are people that politicize their homosexuality. Some homosexual people are not people that politicize their homosexuality. Therefore, some homosexual people are not 'gay' people. OAO-3 BOKARDO Some people that rely on ‘feelings’ in place of ‘reason’ are not ‘critical thinkers and writers’. All people that rely on ‘feelings; in place of ‘reason’ are political ‘liberals.’ Some political ‘liberals’ are not ‘critical thinkers and writers.’ EIO-2 FESTINO No drugs are “recreational”. Some ‘high risk’ sports are “recreational.” Therefore, some “high risk” sports are not drugs. (NOTE: by converting either the MAJOR or MINOR premise this argument could be formulated as a FERISON- EIO-3 or a FRESISON, EIO-4) Many students have asked for a sample term paper that satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions for formulating a successful term paper in this course. Here is just such an example as your guide. Click the link to access the PDF, Sample Term Paper by Matthew Bixby class of 2007 Yet More resources on Writing a Philosophy Paper Professor Douglas Portmore, Arizona State University has an excellent PDF that both parrallels these guidlines and provides an excellent bibliogrphy for successful writing of undergraduate philosophy papers. Here's the URL for his PDF ---Cordially Professor Mark McIntire 2 3 Copyright © 2013 REASON ARGUE REFUTE: Critical Thinking About Anything by Mark McIntire ISBN: 978-0-615-80070-7 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopies, recordings, internet, multimedia, television, virtual reality, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from Mark McIntire. MAY BE SOLD BY AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS ONLY First Printing 2007 Thank you for protecting the digital property rights of the author. 4 Table of Contents Copyright Author: Mark McIntire Dedication and Acknowledgments: Part One: Reason Section 1 Basic Logic Concepts Section 2 Twenty Basic Reasoning Distinctions Section 3 Reasoning Fallacies in Three Categories: Irrelevance, Presumption and Ambiguity Section 4 Fallacies of Irrelevance Category Section 5 Fallacies of Presumption Category Section 6 Fallacies of Ambiguity Category Section 7 Part One Reasoning: Learning Review 5 Section 8 Attributes of Critical Thinkers and Writers Part Two: Argue Section 2 Categorical Logic Section 3 Categorical Propositions Section 4 Categorical Syllogisms Section 5 Venn Diagrams & 15 Valid Forms Section 6 The Six Rules of Validity Section 7 Problems with Ordinary Language Section 8 Propositional Logic Overview Section 9 Argument Learning Review Part Three: Refutation Section 1 Section 2 Refute the Definitions Section 23 Refute the Logic Section 4 Refute the Weak Evidence Section 5 Refute by Analogy Section 6 Refute Ethical Or Moral Assumptions Section 7 Part Three: Refutation Learning Review Appendix I: Guidelines for Argumentative Writing Appendix II: Writing a Journal of Your Ideas Bibliography Bibliography Appendix III The 19 Rules of Natural Inference 6 7 Author: Mark McIntire Born in Salem, Massachusetts, Professor McIntire received his undergraduate and graduate philosophy degrees from Oblate College at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. In 1977 he wrote an original one-man-show, “JFK: A Time Remembered” giving over 500 live performances at colleges and universities across America. Author of “The Financial Core Handbook”, Professor Mark McIntire has taught Philosophy since 1966 at Westfield State College, Massachusetts (now Westfield State University), University of Phoenix, Antioch University, and currently teaches online at Santa Barbara City College in California. McIntire was elected to the National Screen Actors Guild Board of Directors in 1983, when he wrote and filed a brief, amicus curiae, with the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark case CWA v Beck (1986). The high court decision 5-3 sustained McIntire’s argument protecting the freedom of dissident union workers and led to the publication of his work “The Financial Core Handbook” that remains the definitive source on this decision to date. When not teaching Critical Thinking and Writing at Santa Barbara City College online, McIntire conducts executive seminars in “Critical Thinking for Success” and mentors gifted students into their graduate degree programs. In 2010, “The Mark McIntire Show: “MINDS THAT MATTER” ran for 52 episodes on AM 1290 Santa Barbara News Press Radio. The highly rated program featured the life of ideas from college presidents, writers, actors, and scientists and gifted students Supplemental materials for this e-textbook, Reason Argue Refute: Critical Thinking About Anything, are available on Mark McIntire’s online teaching website: 8 9 Dedication and Acknowledgments: It seems fitting for an author of an Aristotelian categorical logic book to acknowledge his indebtedness to others by logical category. In Memoriam: Dr. Peter A. Angeles, Joan McIntire, Ron Pagel, Vernon Olson, Richard Roberts Inspiration: Many thousands of students I have taught since 1966 Nurturing: David L. Hutchinson, Ellen White, Tyler and Whitney Duncan Guidance: Charlton and Lydia Heston, Fraser C. Heston, Christopher Mitchum, Carol Lanning Wisdom: Matthew Kane Bixby, Professor Joseph White, Professor Jim Chesher, Professor Peter Georgakis, Preparation: Mychilo S. Cline, Patricia L. Raabe, Norman P. Stevens, Max Holihan Insistence: Christopher Candy, Gary Gentilini, Michael Miller, Mikal C. Davies, Alastair Patterson Patiently, you have coaxed this book from me. -Cordially, Mark McIntire “Nemo dat...quod non habat." 10 Preface and Introduction “Is not the great defect of our education today--a defect traceable through all the disquieting symptoms of trouble that I have mentioned-that although we often succeed in teaching our pupils "subjects," we fail lamentably on the whole in teaching them how to think: they learn everything, except the art of learning.” ---‘The Lost Tools of Learning’ by Dorothy Sayers, Oxford University, 1947 Welcome to a critical thinking boot-camp for the mind. This is a “how to think” e-textbook for digital devices. Any intelligent person over the age of twelve years old can master basic reasoning, argumentation, and refutation by using this book. Primarily intended for high school college and university students, it can also serve the needs of career professionals in their writing and decision making. Tim McGrath, author of, John Barry: An American Hero in the Age of Sail wrote a gracious testimonial after using this book; “In no small thanks to Reason, Argue, Refute, I wangled a nice advance for a book on the Continental Navy (the Reason section was obviously a bigger help in this instance than the other two – but man, have they been good to learn for the business hours of the day).” This book presents the basics on ‘how to think’ clearly, rationally and logically. The guiding compass of the entire text is the concern for the quality of “how” students think, not with the quantity or content of ‘what’ they think. It is divided into three main parts, each with relevant subsections. Part One: Reasoning gives rigorous training in basic logical ideas, laws, methods and principles as well as an exposition of common fallacies in everyday failed attempts at reasoning. Part Two: Argument gives systematic training in recognizing arguments by type distinguishing arguments by the strength of the inference in their conclusions, analyzing arguments in ordinary language and everyday speech, formulating arguments using both categorical and propositional logic, proving the validity of arguments by formal rules and graphic illustration, and distinguishing between valid and sound arguments. Part Three: Refutation gives effective strategies for refuting arguments by objecting to definitions, weak inductive evidence, causal claims, analogies, and ethical and moral first principles. Ways to look inside (X11 ray or autopsy) arguments for their internal defects are demonstrated leading to cogent refutation by formulating contrary, contradictory and analogical counter arguments. Appendix I offers argumentative writing guidelines that have proven successful for thousands of students. Appendix II offers a reliable format for anyone wishing to write and keep a journal of their “life of ideas.” Throughout this book provocative examples are used sparingly and only to illustrate ideas and methods of effective reasoning, argument, and refutation. This book helps fill a vacuum created by current education curricula. Those curricula advocate teaching “what” to think while giving only flimsy clues as on “how” to think. Current higher education expectations place a premium on “diversity” of opinions while requiring little if any formal training in how to determine valid and sound arguments for or against these diverse opinions. Why Read This Book? Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century it is common for students to receive a Bachelor’s, Master’s, and even a Doctoral degree from higher education in ...

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors