Warning! The directory is not yet complete and will be amended until the beginning of the term.
180173 KU KU New Directions in Epistemology (2024W)
Continuous assessment of course work
Labels
Registration/Deregistration
Note: The time of your registration within the registration period has no effect on the allocation of places (no first come, first served).
- Registration is open from Mo 09.09.2024 09:00 to Su 15.09.2024 23:59
- Registration is open from Tu 24.09.2024 09:00 to Su 29.09.2024 23:59
- Deregistration possible until Su 10.11.2024 23:59
Details
max. 30 participants
Language: English
Lecturers
Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N
The course is in person. The course is taught in English.
- Monday 14.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 21.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 28.10. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 04.11. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 11.11. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Saturday 16.11. 09:00 - 12:15 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 18.11. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 02.12. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 09.12. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 16.12. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- N Monday 20.01. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Saturday 25.01. 09:00 - 12:15 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
- Monday 27.01. 09:45 - 13:00 Hörsaal 3C, NIG Universitätsstraße 7/Stg. II/3. Stock, 1010 Wien
Information
Aims, contents and method of the course
This course introduces you to five recent, new directions in (analytic) epistemology: expertise and authority, political epistemology, non-ideal epistemology, ignorance, and the epistemology of groups.
Assessment and permitted materials
Evaluation … of the participation in discussions (20% of the overall mark); of the prepared and uploaded questions (10% of the overall mark); of the two presentations (10% of the overall mark); evaluation of the short criticism, up to 5 pages (10% of the overall mark); of the final essay (of about 20 pages, Font 12, Times New Roman) (50% of the overall mark). You have to upload question at least 16 times. By registering for this course you agree that the automated plagiarism software Turnitin will check all of your written work for this course.
Minimum requirements and assessment criteria
Regular attendance (not more than two absences without a doctor's note, or another proof of sufficient reason for absence); punctual attendance; care (in reading the work of other and regarding one's own work); argumentative engagement with others' ideas; regular uploading of questions (at least 16 times) -- Independent short criticism, and essay on one of the topics of the course. The essay should discuss one of the questions raised in the seminar, and it should be based primarily on the literature discussed in class. It could be, e.g., a critique of one of the positions introduced, or an attempt to "decide" one of the debates covered in the seminar.
The overall mark consists of five components:
Mark for the essay: 50% i.e. 50 points
Mark for the uploaded questions/comments: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for participation in classroom discussion: 20% i.e. 20 points
Mark for short critique of about five pages: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for the two presentations: 10% i.e. 10 points.
Your need at least 50 points to complete the course.
All components have to be delivered for there to be a final mark.
Scale for the marks:
1: 85-100 points
2: 70-84 points
3: 55-69 points
4: 40-54 points
5: 0-39 points
The overall mark consists of five components:
Mark for the essay: 50% i.e. 50 points
Mark for the uploaded questions/comments: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for participation in classroom discussion: 20% i.e. 20 points
Mark for short critique of about five pages: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for the two presentations: 10% i.e. 10 points.
Your need at least 50 points to complete the course.
All components have to be delivered for there to be a final mark.
Scale for the marks:
1: 85-100 points
2: 70-84 points
3: 55-69 points
4: 40-54 points
5: 0-39 points
Examination topics
Regular attendance (not more than two absences without a doctor's note, or another proof of sufficient reason for absence); punctual attendance; care (in reading the work of other and regarding one's own work); argumentative engagement with others' ideas; regular uploading of questions (at least 16 times) -- Independent short criticism, and essay on one of the topics of the course. The essay should discuss one of the questions raised in the seminar, and it should be based primarily on the literature discussed in class. It could be, e.g., a critique of one of the positions introduced, or an attempt to "decide" one of the debates covered in the seminar.
The overall mark consists of five components:
Mark for the essay: 50% i.e. 50 points
Mark for the uploaded questions/comments: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for participation in classroom discussion: 20% i.e. 20 points
Mark for short critique of about five pages: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for the two presentations: 10% i.e. 10 points.
Your need at least 50 points to complete the course.
All components have to be delivered for there to be a final mark.
Scale for the marks:
1: 85-100 points
2: 70-84 points
3: 55-69 points
4: 40-54 points
5: 0-39 points
The overall mark consists of five components:
Mark for the essay: 50% i.e. 50 points
Mark for the uploaded questions/comments: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for participation in classroom discussion: 20% i.e. 20 points
Mark for short critique of about five pages: 10% i.e. 10 points
Mark for the two presentations: 10% i.e. 10 points.
Your need at least 50 points to complete the course.
All components have to be delivered for there to be a final mark.
Scale for the marks:
1: 85-100 points
2: 70-84 points
3: 55-69 points
4: 40-54 points
5: 0-39 points
Reading list
Literature:The literature will be uploaded on Moodle.Programme:(I) Expertise and Authority(1) Veli Mitova (2024), “Decolonising Experts”, forthcoming in M. Farina, A. Lavazza and D. Pritchard (eds), Expertise: Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford: OUP.
(2) Linda Zagzebski (2024), “Humility for Experts”, forthcoming in M. Farina, A. Lavazza and D. Pritchard (eds), Expertise: Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford: OUP.
(3) Jennifer Lackey (2018). “Experts and Peer Disagreement”, in M. Benton, J. Hawthorne and D. Rabinowitz (eds), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 228–45.
(4) Thomas Grundmann (2021), “Preemtive Authority”, Episteme 18: 407-427.(II) Political Epistemology(1) Jennifer Lackey (2023), Criminal Testimonial Injustice, Oxford: OUP, Chapter 1-2.
(2) Quassim Cassam (2021), “Bullshit, Post-truth, and Propaganda,” in E. Edenberg and M. Hannon (eds), Political Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 49-63.
(3) Briana Toole (2021), “What Lies Beneath: The Epistemic Roots of White Supremacy,” in E. Edenberg and M. Hannon (eds), Political Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 76-96.
(4) David Estlund (2021), “Epistocratic Paternalism,” in in E. Edenberg and M. Hannon (eds), Political Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 97-113.
(5) Helene Landemore (2021), “An Epistemic Argument for Democracy”, and Jason Brennan (2021), “In Defense of Epistocracy, in M. Hannon and J. de Ridder (eds), The Routledge Handbook on Political Epistemology, London: Routledge, 363-383.(III) The Epistemology of Ignorance
(1) Charles W. Mills (2007), “White Ignorance”, in S. Sullivan and N. Tuana (eds), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 11-38. And Alcoff Martin, L. (2024). The Roots (and Routes) of the Epistemology of Ignorance. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 27(1), 9-28.
(2) Rik Peels (2023), Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, Oxford: OUP, Chapter 3.
(3) Rik Peels (2023), Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, Oxdord: OUP, Chapter 5.
(4) Nadja El Kassar (2024), How Should we Rationally Deal with Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, London: Routledge, Chapter …
(5) Nadja El Kassar (2024), How Should we Rationally Deal with Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, London: Routledge, Chapter …(IV) Non-Ideal Epistemology
(1) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 2.
(2) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 4.
(3) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 5.
(4) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 6.(V) Group Epistemology
(1) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 1.
(2) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 2, until 2.5.
(3) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 2, the rest.
(4) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 3.
(2) Linda Zagzebski (2024), “Humility for Experts”, forthcoming in M. Farina, A. Lavazza and D. Pritchard (eds), Expertise: Philosophical Perspectives, Oxford: OUP.
(3) Jennifer Lackey (2018). “Experts and Peer Disagreement”, in M. Benton, J. Hawthorne and D. Rabinowitz (eds), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 228–45.
(4) Thomas Grundmann (2021), “Preemtive Authority”, Episteme 18: 407-427.(II) Political Epistemology(1) Jennifer Lackey (2023), Criminal Testimonial Injustice, Oxford: OUP, Chapter 1-2.
(2) Quassim Cassam (2021), “Bullshit, Post-truth, and Propaganda,” in E. Edenberg and M. Hannon (eds), Political Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 49-63.
(3) Briana Toole (2021), “What Lies Beneath: The Epistemic Roots of White Supremacy,” in E. Edenberg and M. Hannon (eds), Political Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 76-96.
(4) David Estlund (2021), “Epistocratic Paternalism,” in in E. Edenberg and M. Hannon (eds), Political Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, 97-113.
(5) Helene Landemore (2021), “An Epistemic Argument for Democracy”, and Jason Brennan (2021), “In Defense of Epistocracy, in M. Hannon and J. de Ridder (eds), The Routledge Handbook on Political Epistemology, London: Routledge, 363-383.(III) The Epistemology of Ignorance
(1) Charles W. Mills (2007), “White Ignorance”, in S. Sullivan and N. Tuana (eds), Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 11-38. And Alcoff Martin, L. (2024). The Roots (and Routes) of the Epistemology of Ignorance. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 27(1), 9-28.
(2) Rik Peels (2023), Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, Oxford: OUP, Chapter 3.
(3) Rik Peels (2023), Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, Oxdord: OUP, Chapter 5.
(4) Nadja El Kassar (2024), How Should we Rationally Deal with Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, London: Routledge, Chapter …
(5) Nadja El Kassar (2024), How Should we Rationally Deal with Ignorance: A Philosophical Study, London: Routledge, Chapter …(IV) Non-Ideal Epistemology
(1) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 2.
(2) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 4.
(3) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 5.
(4) Robin McKenna (2023), Non-Ideal Epistemology, Oxford: OUP, Chapters 6.(V) Group Epistemology
(1) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 1.
(2) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 2, until 2.5.
(3) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 2, the rest.
(4) Jennifer Lackey, The Epistemology of Groups, Oxford: OUP, 2021, Ch. 3.
Association in the course directory
Last modified: Mo 14.10.2024 07:46