Choose only ONE of these topics that come most fluidly to you.Write a 3-4 page paper (double-spaced) on one of the following topics. Papers will be graded on the basis of clarity, insight, organization, and depth of argumentation. Brief general note on philosophy papers: Generally, one is not looking merely for your opinion on any given topic --- though a thesis ought to be clearly stated. Rather, at least as important are the reasons for your opinion. That is, your view ought to be made to seem reasonable to the reader, and simply declaring what your view is does not do that. For example, in class, we have not just stated the standard opinion that the verificationist theory of meaning is wrong, but we have given reasons to think that it is wrong. If we were doing an even more thorough job, we would explore possible responses to those reasons — and even responses to those responses. When at its best, philosophy is the practice of evaluating positions using rational considerations. Thus, the reasons for your thesis are rather important philosophically. At a minimum, the reasons you give ought to be sufficient to make your view seem somewhat plausible. Of course, one cannot argue for everything since some things have to be taken for granted as reasonable. But, it is good to show awareness of what you are taking for granted, when you do take something for granted. Ideally, the things you take for granted ought to be views held in common by whoever you take yourself to be arguing against so that there is some chance that they will be persuaded. 1) Since we have spent relatively little time on any individual thinker (or group of thinkers like the logical positivists), it is reasonable to think that their views have been presented --- both in the textbook and in lecture --- in a way that is not terribly fair to the person being discussed. That is, one might think either that 1) their actual views had to be more sophisticated than presented or 2) even if their actual views were not more sophisticated, it is possible to make their views more plausible while preserving the core of the view. Either by looking more deeply into the view of a certain person (or group of people) that we have studied or by thinking up a reasonable defense on your own, argue (i.e. give reasons) that at least one objection to the view that we discussed can be successfully answered. (Although certain figures were mentioned in class, we did not study Hegel, Heidegger, Adler or Freud. When in doubt about whether we studied a figure, consult your TA or me.) Here is an example: a. We dismissed Popper by noting that holism about testability suggests that no theory is straightforwardly (or “outright”) falsifiable since one may always place the blame for a bad prediction on something other than the theory. But, maybe Popper doesn’t need to think that theories are straightforwardly falsifiable to solve the demarcation problem. Perhaps we only defeated a rather crude and simplistic version of his view. How could his view be made to be more sophisticated while still solving the demarcation problem? 2) Another thing one might think is that the views that we have dismissed really cannot be made more sophisticated without rejecting a core element of the view. One way to argue this is to suggest the most reasonable response to a certain objection to the view and then to suggest that that response will contradict other elements of the thinker’s views. For example: a. One might think that if Popper doesn’t think that theories are outright falsifiable (because of holism about testability) then he thinks instead that we are sometimes justified in thinking that theories are false even if they might be true. But, it can, at least, look as if that claim contradicts his view that induction is unjustified; we come to a conclusion that is not guaranteed by our evidence. If it does, then it doesn’t seem that his view can be made more sophisticated without leading to internal contradiction. Can it? 3) In the online forum, it was suggested that a key difference between “green” and “grue” is that I can tell purely observationally whether something is green whereas I cannot tell whether something is grue by observation alone. For example, if I become confused about what year it is and I am unsure whether it is currently 2020 or 2050, if you show me something green, I will be able to tell you that it is green by looking at it (assuming reasonable lighting), but if you ask me whether it is grue, I won’t know. (It is grue if it was first observed before 2030 and it is not grue, if it wasn’t. But I don’t know whether it was or wasn’t in the imagined scenario.) Why would the fact that one can observe whether something is green but not whether something is grue suggest that the all emeralds are green induction is more cogent than the induction that concludes that all emeralds are grue? Alternatively, argue that it isn’t that fact that suggests that the one induction is better than the other. One way to do that would be to argue that it is some other fact that suggests it. Another way is just to argue directly that it isn’t that fact without giving a positive suggestion as to what fact it, instead, is. 4) Has Quine provided convincing reasons to think that there are no analytic truths, that every statement could, in principle, be given up as a response to experiment? If you think he has, why not think that when we come to reject a sentence that we previously took to be analytic, we have simply changed the meanings of the words it contains? For example, though there might be an observation that might make us say “There are non-male bachelors”, one might think that we are now simply using the word “bachelor” with a different meaning than before. The idea here is that using the original meaning of “bachelor”, “bachelors are male” really was an analytic truth. All he has shown, one might think, is that we can change the meanings of words, but that is obvious insofar as you and I could set up a code in which the word “bachelor” means anything we like and it isn’t clear why that fact would show that there are no analytic truths. If, on the other hand, you think Quine hasn’t shown that there are no analytic truths, why do so many putative examples of analytic truths seem not to really be so. For example, most would say that “Bicycles have two wheels” is an analytic truth, but bicycles with four wheels (including two additional “training wheels”) are routine and wellknown to us. So it looks as if it is not straightforwardly part of the meaning of “bicycle” that a bicycle has only two wheels. Why not think that other putative examples of analytic truths are exactly like this in not really being analytic? Perhaps we just lack the ability to imagine their falsity, but they could be false.GRADING RUBRIC:I will grade based on the following categories: Organization (40 points) 30 points: Paper structure and clarity Structure – does the order in which you present your ideas to make your argument make sense? Clarity – is there a clearly stated thesis that directly addresses the prompt? Does the entirety of the paper support that individual thesis in a cogent manner? 10 points: Style Flow – are the transitions between sentences and paragraphs purposive? Writing style – are you writing philosophically (clearly, deliberately, and without unnecessary “flowery” language or jargon)? Quotes vs. paraphrase – do you paraphrase content, rather than use direct quotes? Citations – did you include all necessary citations?* Spelling and grammar Content (60 points) 30 points: Strength of argument Conciseness – do you avoid repetition and include only relevant and necessary details? Completeness – have you answered all parts of the prompt fully? Dialectic – do the claims you make, as presented, interact logically and cohesively? Accuracy – are you true to the text? Precision – do you avoid ambiguity? 30 points: Comprehension of course materials Do you display a clear, well-rounded understanding of the text? I will provide brief comments and a fial breakdown of points by category when I return your papers. Organization: x/40 Paper structure: x1/30 Style: x2/10 Content: y/80 Philosophical argument: y1/30 Comprehension: y2/30 Overall: x+y/100 *A word on citations: When in doubt, cite. Any style (MLA, Chicago, APA) is fine but be consistent. Lack of citation is plagiarism and will be treated as such. I will be more strict about this policy on your finals than I was on midterms. For minor citation issues (i.e. lack of citation when required) I will deduct 2 points. For larger plagiarism issues, I will send your paper to Professor Smith, who will decide how to proceed. Include authors, year published, and page numbers, like (Godfrey-Smith 2020, 31).

You are to complete 7 of the Quizzes found in this website: http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/ Follow the link to Quizzes then scroll down to the quizzes on Relationships and Sexuality or Personality sections. Please avoid using the Quizzes on Disorders and Symptoms since the emphasis in this class is on psychological well-being, not mental illness.- To begin your essay, state and highlight or indicate in italics or bold the titles of each of the self-assessments you took and briefly describe your results in terms of your reaction and how you see your thoughts, feelings, and behaviors coinciding with your scores. You may also address what surprised you about the findings. Be certain to provide a thorough discussion, as this part is worth 25% of your grade on the essay- Next, write an overall summary describing your insight into what the findings mean to you and what you learned about yourself in reference to your own psychological well-being. Again, please provide a thorough discussion, as this part is also worth another 25% of your grade on the essay.Any sources need to be United States Journals and websites. A combination of both. 1000-2000 word essay.

INSTRUCTIONS Your neighbor tells you that his eleven-year-old daughter has been having behavior and academic problems in school. "Her teacher recommended taking her to the pediatrician to get a prescription for Ritalin," he said. In a well-thought-out paper integrating information from the learning resources and module readings, make an argument for why your neighbor should first have his daughter evaluated by a clinical psychologist. Discuss the types of assessment tools the psychologist might use in his or her evaluation and how these tools would help in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Make sure to use appropriate sources of information that ground your argument in well-established, empirically sound science and practice. Properly cite and reference resources, applying APA Style.