Philosophy of Mind
Information on Writing the Paper
Fall, 2011

mechanical details

The paper should be double-spaced.

The paper should be between 3000 and 4500 words in length. (Using the Times New Roman font, and MS Word's default margins, this should be somewhere in the ballpark of 10-15 pages, but depending on font, margins, and spacing, it could end up a lot different from this.)

Due date: Monday, November 28. (Recommended date to turn in a draft: Monday, November 14.) Late papers will be dropped one notch (e.g. from a B to a B-) for every week day they are late.

The paper must be turned in electronically. (If you wish, you can also give me a hard copy, but there is no need to.)

evaluation

1. The paper should have a thesis or main point. The thesis should either concern the proper interpretation of one of the thinkers we have studied (e.g. what exactly is Clark's extended mind thesis? What are the different varieties of "functionalism" and how do their differences affect functionalism's plausibility?), or the relation between two or more thinkers on a particular point (e.g. Kim and Yablo on whether there is a "causal exclusion problem" for nonreductionist materialism), or an evaluation of one or more of the arguments employed by our philosophers (e.g. does the causal exclusion argument pose a serious difficulty for nonreductionist physicalism?  Are qualia an insurmountable problem for materialist theories of the mind?). Most likely, the paper will have to involve both interpretation and evaluation to some degree: one way of defending an interpretation of a philosopher’s argument is to argue that it is less vulnerable to criticism than alternative interpretations; conversely, criticisms of a philosopher’s arguments are of little interest unless you show that your interpretation of the argument you are criticizing is plausible.

2. Argument. Your paper needs to be more than an autobiographical account of your experience in reading the material. You need to offer reasons for your position or against the one you are attacking. One very good strategy students often do not use enough is to think of possible objections to your view and respond to them. In addition, if you are criticizing someone else’s work, it is a very good idea to discuss how you think the writer would defend his or her position against your criticisms. This helps to deepen your argument. Contrary to what some students fear, it also makes your argument more persuasive. People sometimes worry that raising objections to their own view, or supplying responses an opponent might make, just needlessly makes trouble for their thesis. But a sophisticated reader will be thinking of objections to your view while reading your paper; such a reader will be helped if you show how you would deal with these objections. (It may also help to keep in mind that the goal of these papers is to work out a position as carefully and completely as you can; it is more a search for the truth than an attempt to persuade. The more objections you consider and respond to, and the more fair you are to your opposition, the more cogent and thoughtful your own view is likely to be.)

3. Clarity is vitally important: you need to write carefully and organize your paper very explicitly. If necessary, you should ruthlessly sacrifice elegance of style in favor of glaringly obvious signposting: for example, "The second argument against the identity theory is that it leads to 'species chauvinism'." That's not a great sentence, but it gets the point across clearly.

4. Use of readings. It is important that you attend carefully, accurately, and in detail to one or more specific readings. You must make use of either one or more of the class readings, or of one or more of the items you selected for the literature review. The more intensively you study a limited amount of material, the better the paper is likely to be. (This is not to say that you cannot offer generalizations about the reading, or comparisons of some readings with others or with other sources. On the contrary, such points can be very useful and illuminating. But any such general claims should be backed up with very specific references to the detail of the readings. The thing to avoid is vague generalities.)

honor code

You should be familiar with the University’s Honor Code. Information about the honor code is available in the Student Handbook and on the Honor Code web site. Note that violations include cheating, counterfeit work (i.e. turning in work that was done by someone else), unauthorized reuse of your own work ("turning in the same work to more than one class without consent of the instructors involved"), and plagiarism. The Student Handbook description of plagiarism is important enough to quote at length: "presenting as one's work the work of someone else without properly acknowledging the source. . . . Exact copying should be enclosed in quotation marks and be appropriately documented in footnotes or end notes that indicate the source of the quotation. Paraphrasing, when the basic sentence structure, phraseology, and unique language remain the same, is also plagiarism. When in doubt about these matters, it is the student's responsibility to seek guidance from the instructor of the course."  

Like most faculty at Trinity, I take academic integrity very seriously. Remember that any use of material you did not write yourself, either word-for-word or in close paraphrase, is plagiarism. This is true even if the passage is only a sentence or two long, and no matter where the material came from, including web sites, discussion groups, or the papers of other students. I will strictly follow the Honor Code policy by reporting any suspected violation of the policy to the Honor Council. (For students to whom the academic integrity policy applies, I will strictly follow that policy as well, including sending the appropriate letters of notification to university administrators.) I have had some students suggest that their plagiarism is “not a big deal.” You should be aware that I do regard it as a big deal. Other students have told me they were not aware that what they were doing was a violation of academic integrity. If you have any uncertainty about the policy, or about whether the specific use of other sources you are considering is acceptable, come and talk with me. I’ll be happy to clarify what is acceptable and what is not. Finally, I have heard from some students that they resorted to plagiarism because they were overwhelmed by an assignment and saw no way of completing it successfully without resorting to cheating. Ironically, in many cases, if these students had worked as hard at writing a paper as they did at plagiarizing, they could certainly have written an acceptable paper. If you are having trouble getting started on a paper, please come and talk with me.

Last update: October 26, 2011. 
Curtis Brown  |  Philosophy of Mind   |  Philosophy Department  |   Trinity University
cbrown@trinity.edu