Unit 1 – Area of Study 2: Epistemology

Outcome 2:

Analyse epistemological problems and evaluate viewpoints and arguments arising from these, and analyse epistemological problems in the context of relevant contemporary debates.

Examples of learning activities

• Identify, discuss and formulate epistemological questions raised in films such as The Matrix (1999), The Truman Show (1998) or Inception (2010). Check each film's rating and seek permission from school/parents if required before viewing the film.
• In pairs, create definitions for the key terms associated with the chosen epistemological problem. For example: 'certainty', 'knowledge', 'truth', 'evidence', 'belief', 'testimony', 'intuition', 'reason', 'experience' and so on. Swap definitions and discuss any ambiguities or contestabilities that arise from these definitions.
• 
  Collaboratively develop a set of criteria for an epistemological concept such as certainty.
  
• Use a stimulus such as a story, picture or cartoon for class discussion. A catalogue of philosophical picture story books can be found at Teaching Children Philosophy 'Book Modules'.
• Develop a PowerPoint presentation that outlines and evaluates a variety of possible responses to one of the questions associated with the chosen epistemological problem. For example, 'fake news' and the role of journalism and truth in the media. 'The Real Consequences of Fake News' by Dominik Stecula in The Conversation might be useful as a resource to introduce this topic, as might the two further articles in The Conversation which present opposing arguments on registering journalists: 'We regulate doctors to protect the public from harm – why not journalists?' by David Maslove and 'Why licensing journalists won't end the scourge of "fake news"' by Christopher Waddell.
• Complete a written reflection that requires justified critical responses to questions associated with the chosen epistemological problem.
• Use a concept game to explore distinctions between, for example, belief and knowledge.
• Use a thought experiment to explore questions associated with a chosen epistemological problem. For example, one of the Gettier cases outlined in 'Gettier problems' on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.
• In pairs, map the structure of argument in a relevant philosophical text (for example, Descartes' First Meditation) and identify with annotations any problems or criticisms that can be raised in response to the argument.
• Using a software program like 'MindMap Free', construct a concept map that depicts the arguments and viewpoints of different philosophers in response to a fundamental question associated with the chosen epistemological problem.
• Organise and participate in an online class debate on one of the questions associated with the chosen epistemological problem, using a resource such as Google Docs.
• Complete a written response that discusses the implications of feminist thought for the way we think about a chosen problem in epistemology.
• Complete an essay that discusses and compares the status of knowledge claims from various sources; for example: religion, mathematics, philosophy or the arts.
• Explore questions and issues associated with the chosen epistemological problem by exploring and responding to a philosophical case study or series of case studies.
• Use Plato's Tripartite Theory of Knowledge to test the epistemological status of a claim such as 'an advocate claims that the number of asylum seekers will reduce next year'.
• Find a current affairs article and highlight the knowledge claims made. Explore how these claims are asserted and supported; by what evidence, what reference to authority is used if at all, are the claims made categorically or with exception. Reflect on issues of reliability of these knowledge claims.
• In pairs, map the structure of an argument in a relevant philosophical text; for example, Russell's Correspondence Theory of Truth, and identify with annotations any problems or criticisms that can be raised in response to the argument.
• Hold a class debate between opposing philosophical views, with students role-playing opposing philosophers.
• As a revision activity, write an epistemological question on a piece of paper and put the paper into a tub. Each student in turn takes a piece of paper and speaks for one minute on the topic. Expand into a debate with a student rebutting the original speaker for 30 seconds.
• Compare Descartes' use of scepticism and Avicenna's floating or flying man thought experiment. An interview by Peter Adamson with philosopher Nigel Warburton on Philosophy Bites about the floating man can be found at 'Peter Adamson on Avicenna's Flying Man Thought Experiment'.
• Write a meditation in the style of Descartes on a chosen epistemological question; for example: Is there any knowledge with which we were born?
• Complete a presentation (for example, in the style of a TED Talk or interview podcast) on an important philosopher of epistemology such as Locke, Berkeley, Plato, Descartes, James or Gettier.
• List and then classify examples to explore the different criteria of two opposing philosophers (such as Locke and Berkley) on what counts as knowledge.
• Compare and contrast the three traditional arguments on the nature of truth: the correspondence theory, the coherence theory and the pragmatic theory.
• Evaluate the status of knowledge if it is asserted by one person alone, then a group of people, then a nation and then the world. This may offer a good opportunity to discuss the ad populum fallacy.
• Give an oral presentation that illustrates the relationship between an epistemological position and a relevant contemporary debate.
• Consider a famous thought experiment in epistemology; for example, William James' squirrel and the tree. Use the thought experiment to illustrate responses to an epistemological problem such as the nature of truth.
• Lead a group discussion on the reliability of knowledge from different sources. If possible, see if a teacher/s of another subject/s can join the group to argue for the status of their particular area as being truthful.
• Design a poster on the problem of induction and its relevance to modern science. Make reference to important philosophers of science such as Kuhn, Popper or Feyerabend.
• Write a newspaper article, create a case study or write a story that explores a philosophical position on a contemporary debate.
• Design an advertising campaign that seeks to challenge others students' views on truth, justification or what they believe they know. This may offer a good opportunity to discuss persuasion, cognitive biases, the role of advertisements and rhetoric and emotional appeals.
• 
  Use a curated set of internet resources provided by the teacher to research a contemporary debate relevant to the chosen epistemological problem. For example, the authority of science.
• In small groups, draw a giant 'T' on a page. List on one side all the things known through sense experience and, on the other, all the things known by reason alone. Discuss the similarities and differences between the two groups.

 

Detailed example 1

Investigating certainty

1. Students are divided into small groups of four or five and given blank poster paper or butchers paper.
2. Each group writes down three examples of what they all agree they know for certain.
3. Each group completes and records the following tasks on their poster:
1. Why are these good examples of knowledge that is certain?
2. List examples of knowledge that were once regarded as certain knowledge but are now known to be false. Broadly state why they were found to be false (e.g. due to advances in science).
4. Revisit answers to Question 2 above and discuss whether the examples that were agreed upon are really certain. As they discuss, students attempt to develop a set of criteria for something to count as a certainty.
5. Students share and test their responses with the class while a definition for certainty is developed. The different groups could rotate around the room to read each other's responses or they can present to the class.

Extension:

Students could then discuss the challenge of scepticism and consider the arguments for and against sceptical conclusions as to knowledge claims. This is a good opportunity to introduce the philosopher David Hume (1711–1776). An overview of his philosophy, with a sub-section on scepticism can be found at the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy website entry on David Hume.

 

Detailed example 2

Epistemology and the authority of science

Activity One:

Exploring the implications of adopting a particular epistemological position is a focus for Unit 1 Area of Study 2. In this example, students explore the authority of science. There are many scientific journals written for the lay public that deal with current research on a range of scientific pursuits. Scientific American and New Scientist are examples of such journals and they provide rich sources of study material for the classroom. In this activity, students research an article and discuss the epistemological claims made in it. Students should be encouraged to look for key words related to epistemology, such as 'science', 'theory', 'prove', 'experimental findings', 'research', 'conclusions', 'truth', 'debate' and so on.

Activity Two:

Students use relevant sources as basis for discussion about whether the capacity for science to shed light on consciousness matters. Sources include claims made in the ABC news article by Daniel Keane; 'Philosopher David Chalmers on consciousness, the hard problem and the nature of reality' which can be compared with one of Chalmer's famous philosophical rivals, Daniel Dennett, through The New Yorker article by Joshua Rothman; 'Daniel Dennett's Science of the Soul'. Finally, 'A Test for Consciousness?' by Riccardo Manzotti and Tim Parks in The New York Review of Books examines whether science can shed any light on the nature of consciousness at all.

Activity Three:

Students complete a set of written responses after reading an article from a scientific magazine, journal or article they have sourced themselves. Students think initially about the epistemological status of the knowledge presented:

1. Can the methods of observation, experiment and/or measurement presented be trusted?
2. Does the problem of induction undermine the assertions made? Or is the problem of induction irrelevant? Why or why not?
3. Does the article provide an account of the world or reality which is objective?
4. Do scientists ever reach consensus? How should this affect the level of authority that we give to science?