Instructions.  You have a choice between two topics, below.  Whichever topic you choose, your paper should be typed, double-spaced, in a 12-point font.  Use 1-inch margins, and please number your pages.  If you use Times Roman (or a similar proportionally-spaced font), 1500 words translates to approximately 4-5 pages.  If you use Courier, 1500 words translates to approximately 6 pages.

Due date.  Friday, February 20 by 12 noon.  Papers should be brought to my office at 223 Seaman.  If I am not in my office when you come to hand in your paper, please slip your paper under my office door.

Late penalties.  Papers submitted after Friday at noon but before Monday at noon will be penalized by 2/3 of a grade (i.e. from a A to a B+).  After that, for each day that the paper is late it will be lowered by an additional 1/3 of a grade.  (Remember, late papers cannot be rewritten.)

Some rules.  You are welcome to discuss the assignment with one another (in fact, I encourage you to do so) but when it comes time to write your paper, you should write it by yourself.  Failure to do so constitutes a breach of academic integrity.  Also, you should not use any secondary sources for your paper.  Again, failure to do so constitutes a breach of academic integrity.  Of course you may use your class notes, but besides that, all you should read are the assigned texts for our class.
 

Topic #1: Goldman’s Causal Theory of Knowing
In "The Gettier Problem and the Analysis of Knowledge," Keith Lehrer poses the following Gettier case:  "I have strong evidence that Nogot, who is in my class, owns a Ford, no evidence that anyone else does, but Havit, who is also in my class, owns a Ford, quite unknown to me, and Nogot does not." (GS, p. 23)  He later builds on this case slightly, asking us to suppose (1) that Nogot knows that Havit owns a Ford; and (2) that Nogot has an odd compulsion to try to trick people into believing true propositions by getting them to believe some false propositions.  Lehrer then argues that this case provides a counterexample to causal accounts of knowledge:  "Thus, the fact that someone in my class owned a Ford caused Nogot to cause me to believe that someone in my class owned a Ford.  So the fact that someone in my class owned a Ford is, indirectly, the cause of my believing that someone in my class owns a Ford.  But this is still not anything I know." (GS, p. 24)
A close reading of Goldman, however, seems to reveal that this counterexample does not threaten his account.  Carefully explain Goldman’s causal account of knowledge, and then attempt to defend Goldman’s account against Lehrer’s counterexample – Lehrer thinks that a causal theory of knowledge is committed to the unintuitive claim that the speaker in the above example knows that someone in his class has a Ford; explain what Goldman could say in response.  Do you think this response is successful?  Why/why not?

Topic #2: Knowledge and Certainty
One potential flaw with the traditional (JTB) account of knowledge is that it fails to include a component labeled "certainty."  First, explain and motivate the JTB account, and then critically discuss whether a certainty component should be added to it.  Whichever way you argue, in addition to giving reasons for your own view, be sure to present and defend against the opposing view as well.  That is, if you are arguing for a CJTB account, be sure to explain why someone might think we should not add a certainty component, and then explain why you disagree with this opponent; if you are arguing against a CJTB account, then be sure to explain why someone might think we should add such a component, and explain why you disagree with this opponent.
(Note.  This paper asks you to target one potential problem with the JTB account of knowledge, and not simply to criticize the account.  Even if we were to add the certainty component, we would still have problems arising from the Gettier cases.  So the question you are addressing is not whether a CJTB account is perfect, but whether it is better than a JTB account.)
 
 
 

Further remarks.
Whether you choose Topic #1 or Topic #2, for the purposes of this paper, you should set skeptical worries aside.  That is, for the purposes of this paper, you should assume that knowledge is possible.

These two topics draw on different philosophical skills.  Topic #1 requires you to do some careful analysis of what a particular philosopher has said.  Topic #2 requires you to develop philosophical arguments of your own (though you have a starting-place in Dancy).