Philosophy 353: Philosophical Methods

Methods Conference Paper Timeline:

Tuesday 4/2, midnight: Last day I will accept drafts of conference paper for pre-grading feedback.

Wednesday 4/10, 2:00 pm: Conference Paper Due

Wednesday 4/24, 2:00 pm: Final version of Conference Paper Due to Commentator and Professor

Friday 4/26, 5pm: Commentary Due to Paper Writer and Professor

Saturday 4/27: Presentation of Conference Paper and Commentary

Submission via email attachment is acceptable. Late papers will be penalized.

Conference papers must be a minimum of 10 and maximum of 13 complete pages typewritten in a 12pt font, double-spaced, numbered, and with no more than one inch margins. (Font and line-spacing manipulators beware!)

Topics: Any philosophical topic is acceptable, but the paper must be a new and original work by you--papers or modifications of papers submitted in any other class during or prior to this semester are unacceptable. Papers that are mere recitations of the arguments of others are unacceptable.

Organization: You may choose any style, i.e. regular article, dialogue, proof, etc. that you deem appropriate for your chosen topic and goal. However, regardless of your chosen style, your paper must have an introductory section that includes (i) a statement of the problem , (ii) a clear precise statement of your goal with respect this this problem, and (iii) an indication of the significance of your goal. If style permits, a roadmap should be included. In the body of your paper you should do what you say you will do in your roadmap. You must also have a concluding section in which you briefly reiterate the main contention of your paper and the reasons for it. A 'hook' over and above the significance of your goal/problem is optional.

Your paper must have a clear statable goal and involve a clear strategy for achieving that goal. Any claims you make in support of your goal must be adequately justified. You must also anticipate and meet obvious objections to your claims.

Any use of the works of other authors in your final paper must be properly cited and included in a bibliography. [The more recent the works you read and cite, the better. An excellent tool for searching for relevant material is The Philosophers' Index, which is one of the Online Databases available through the Library webpage.]

Evaluation criteria (in no particular order) include:

• Is the paper clearly, cogently, and concisely written? Are the author's claims precise? Does the paper have an explicit overall direction/strategy? Does the paper have a clear, accurate, and informative introduction and conclusion? Would the paper be intelligible to another student at this level who is interested in the topic, but not enrolled in the course?
• To what extent has the author identified the assumptions or presuppositions underlying his or her position? And to what extent is he or she aware of the possible difficulties with them?
• Are the author's claims and positions accompanied by cogent arguments? Are the author's claims adequately justified? Are claims and arguments provided in different parts of the paper consistent with each other?
• Has the author fairly represented the positions of those being critiqued?
• Has the author been fairly thorough? Can the reader think of some fairly obvious objection to the author's position already raised in class or in the readings that the author has not anticipated nor addressed?
• Does the paper legitimately satisfy the length requirement? Does the meaningful and relevant content of the paper satisfy the length requirement?

Additional final draft/presentation criteria:

• Has the author adequately dealt with all concerns raised on the original draft?
• Was the author able to adequately discuss all concerns raised by the Commentary?
• Was the author able to adequately discuss all audience questions?

Your commentary should be 2-4 double-spaced pages typed in a standard 12-point font with no more than 1 inch margins.

Your commentary should include the following:

• An introduction which includes a setup and a precise statement of your goal and commentary strategy.
• A clear, concise, and non-critical summary of the relevant portions of the subject paper you are evaluating.
• A critical commentary and evaluation of the article which may include, but need not be limited to, any of the following:

  -a discussion of the validity/soundness of arguments in the subject paper;

  -a discussion of unclarities in the subject paper [this discussion should not be limited to merely pointing out unclarities, but should include a discussion of possible means of resolving the unclarity.];

  -a discussion of underlying, undefended assumptions made by the author of the subject paper

• A conclusion which reiterates and summarizes the main points of your paper.

Be sure to justify your claims!

Due: Friday, April 26th by 5pm. One copy to the professor; one copy to subject paper author. Submission by email is acceptable.

Back to Syllabus