Dennis Earl | Coastal Carolina University (original) (raw)
Papers by Dennis Earl
Ethics and The Environment, 2020
In this paper, I analyze the wilderness kind in terms of both natural and social elements. As a n... more In this paper, I analyze the wilderness kind in terms of both natural and social elements. As a natural kind, wilderness has a historical essentialist analysis in terms of a lineage defined by historical, relational properties. The wilderness kind also has a social component, for only those spaces humans can access and develop can count as wilderness. Advantages to the view include a good fit with intuitive cases, as well as satisfying a plausible set of general conditions on social kinds. I also consider and reply to objections concerning lineages and kind membership, vagueness, developability as accidental to wilderness, anthropocentrism, and the distinction between kinds and concepts.
Teaching Philosophy, 2021
Points-based grading, though now traditional, faces powerful critiques: Such grading creates a lo... more Points-based grading, though now traditional, faces powerful critiques: Such grading creates a low road to passing, it undermines motivation, it wastes time, and it causes stress. It creates an illusion of mathematical precision. It is unfriendly to necessary conditions for satisfactory performance. This paper defends the alternative of specifications grading. Specifications grading grades only on whether work meets a set of expectations for satisfactory performance, with the expectations set at a high but reachable level. With a high bar also comes opportunities to revise unsatisfactory work. I summarize arguments from the literature in support of the system, but I also give account of my two-year experiment in philosophy courses with specifications grading. Compared with points-based grading, specifications grading appears to motivate students better and helps them learn more. I consider objections from both traditionalists and so-called ‘ungraders’. The former hope to secure the benefits of specifications grading while still keeping points. The latter favor eliminating grading altogether.
They say that argumentative writing skills are best learned through writing argumentative essays.... more They say that argumentative writing skills are best learned through writing argumentative essays. I say that while this is excellent practice for argumentative writing, an important exercise to practice structuring such essays and build critical thinking skills simultaneously is what I call the four-sentence paper. The exercise has the template They say…, I say…, one might object…, I reply… One might object that the assignment oversimplifies argumentative writing, stifles creativity, promotes an adversarial attitude, or that students can't consider objections well anyway. I reply that a simplified form of argumentative writing is fine for beginners, especially since the template is ubiquitous in philosophy; that any assignment template has room for creativity; that considering objections is consistent with good manners; and that despite some pitfalls of trying to defend a thesis and consider objections, students are capable of considering objections well with proper instruction and practice. Most everyone reading this who is a philosopher surely assigns argumentative, " thesis-defense " papers. Most everyone reading this surely struggles with grading such papers, and most everyone reading this surely thinks about how best to help students improve their argumentative writing skills. A first thought is that if we want students to be able to write good argumentative papers, we should assign more papers. But we all know we're limited in that—in terms of load on both students and us—and most of us wind up assigning just a few papers in any one course, and the consequence is that progress is slow. What to do? I agree with the common thought just mentioned, and also with the thought that practicing various components or subskills of argumentative writing is helpful too. One of the most important of these is that of considering and replying to objections. This might be the most important skill in argumentative writing after getting the expository material right and having clear and cogent arguments of one's own. But in my experience, and my own department's assessment data confirm this, students only rarely consider objections to their own theses and arguments. Or if they do, it is usually by way of just a passing mention of an opposing view. Again, what to do? What I offer here is a tool to help build argumentative writing skills by way of making more practice of them possible, where the tool essentially includes practice at considering and replying to objections. I call it " the four-sentence paper. " It is inspired by the approach to writing favored by Graff and Birkenstein's (2014) They Say / I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, which advocates using templates to help students see general argumentative " moves " in
One way to distinguish among different varieties of supervaluationism is by their treatment of th... more One way to distinguish among different varieties of supervaluationism is by their treatment of the entailment relation. Different versions of supervaluationism differ in their plausibility depending on whether particular intuitively plausible entailments and types of entailments are treated as valid, and of what notion of validity is employed. One important collection of entailments is exemplified by what a classical-style definition asserts. At least some classical-style definitions in terms of metaphysically necessary and jointly sufficient conditions are true, and thus we have in hand another criterion by which to judge competing supervaluationist accounts. The paper considers which accounts stand or fall given this criterion, and a general conclusion is that the criterion points away from all local notions of validity. The paper also considers the clash between intuitions in support of definitions and those for and against various supervaluationist accounts of validity, whether local or not. Supervaluationism is a currently fashionable theory of vagueness in language. The theory takes truth and falsity to be relative to particular ways of making the extension of a vague expression precise, with super-truth being identified with truth on all " admissible precisifications " of the expression's extension (and similarly for super-falsity). Propositions may be true, false, super-true, super-false, or neither super-true nor super-false (or indeterminate). One way of distinguishing the different varieties of supervaluationism is by their treatment of the entailment relation. Given the motivation of preserving classical logic and respecting the intuitions supporting it, different versions of supervaluationism differ in their plausibility depending on whether particular intuitively plausible entailments and types of entailments are treated as valid. A classical-style definition asserts that two entailments hold: one from definiendum to definiens, and the other in the opposite direction. Such definitions take the form of a necessary universally quantified biconditional of the form Necessarily, for
The following three propositions are inconsistent: (I) We have moral obligations to future genera... more The following three propositions are inconsistent: (I) We have moral obligations to future generations, (II) Future generations do not exist, (III) In order to have moral obligations to X, X must exist. All three propositions are prima facie plausible. There are really two paradoxes here, one for obligations involving moral rights, and another for moral duties. The paper argues that (II) and (III) are true, thus (I) is false—we have no moral obligations to future generations. The paper considers the available views on the ontology of future generations, as well as various versions of Parfit's person-affecting principle, by way of defending the plausibility of (II) and (III), respectively.
The problem of horrendous evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of horrendous evils wi... more The problem of horrendous evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of horrendous evils with the existence of a God that is nevertheless good to individuals. A solution to the problem along the lines of that proposed by Marilyn McCord Adams resolves the problem by appeal to various sorts of intimacy with God on the part of the participants in horrendous evils. One half of the problem concerns the victims of horrendous evils. A second half of the problem of horrendous evil is the same problem for those perpetrators of horrendous evils who also potentially have their lives defeated. The present paper argues not only that the intimacy such an overall strategy appeals to fails to solve the first half of the problem, but also that it makes no progress at all on the second half.
Metaphysica, 2010
It might be thought that vagueness precludes the possibility of classical conceptual analysis and... more It might be thought that vagueness precludes the possibility of classical conceptual analysis and, thus, that the classical or definitional view of the nature of complex concepts is incorrect. The present paper argues that classical analysis can be had for concepts expressed by vague language since (1) all of the general theories of vagueness are compatible with the thesis that
Acta Analytica, 2009
Quine famously argued that analyticity is indefinable, since there is no good account of analytic... more Quine famously argued that analyticity is indefinable, since there is no good account of analyticity in terms of synonymy, and intensions are of no help since there are no intensions. Yet if there are intensions, the question still remains as to the right account of analyticity in terms of them. On the assumption that intensions must be admitted, the present paper considers two such accounts. The first analyzes analyticity in terms of concept identity, and the second analyzes analyticity in terms of the analysis relation. The first fails in light of possible counterexamples. The second is defended, both by considering test cases of intuitively clear analyticities, and by developing the account in light of possible counterexamples.
Acta Analytica, 2007
The paradox of analysis has been a problem for analytic philosophers at least since Moore's time,... more The paradox of analysis has been a problem for analytic philosophers at least since Moore's time, and it is especially significant for those who seek an account of analysis along classical lines. The present paper offers a new solution to the paradox, where a theory of analysis is given where (1) analysandum and analysans are distinct concepts, due to their failing to share the same conceptual form, yet (2) they are related in virtue of satisfying various semantic constraints on the analysis relation. Rather than distinguish between analysandum and analysans by appeal to epistemic considerations, the paper appeals to semantic considerations in giving a candidate account of the identity conditions for concepts. The distinctness of analysandum and analysans then serves to block the paradox in a straightforward way.
Book Reviews by Dennis Earl
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2015
Teaching Philosophy, 2021
Grading seems an unalterable fact of formal education. We grade assignments, we submit end-of-ter... more Grading seems an unalterable fact of formal education. We grade assignments, we submit end-of-term grades, and for most anything we think students should do, there's the basic advice "If you want them to do it, make it graded." Yet such an apparently unalterable set of practices should receive critical scrutiny, and the articles in Susan Blum's edited volume UNgrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) do exactly this. The authors represent a range of institutions and educational levels and fields, and all advocate minimizing or rejecting grading. Ungrading (or going gradeless) is rare but far from new, and those who have read, e.g., Alfie Kohn's Punished by Rewards (1993/2018) will find many familiar arguments put into practice. Mirroring and often-citing Kohn, the papers share a thread of interlocking critiques of grading:
Ethics and The Environment, 2020
In this paper, I analyze the wilderness kind in terms of both natural and social elements. As a n... more In this paper, I analyze the wilderness kind in terms of both natural and social elements. As a natural kind, wilderness has a historical essentialist analysis in terms of a lineage defined by historical, relational properties. The wilderness kind also has a social component, for only those spaces humans can access and develop can count as wilderness. Advantages to the view include a good fit with intuitive cases, as well as satisfying a plausible set of general conditions on social kinds. I also consider and reply to objections concerning lineages and kind membership, vagueness, developability as accidental to wilderness, anthropocentrism, and the distinction between kinds and concepts.
Teaching Philosophy, 2021
Points-based grading, though now traditional, faces powerful critiques: Such grading creates a lo... more Points-based grading, though now traditional, faces powerful critiques: Such grading creates a low road to passing, it undermines motivation, it wastes time, and it causes stress. It creates an illusion of mathematical precision. It is unfriendly to necessary conditions for satisfactory performance. This paper defends the alternative of specifications grading. Specifications grading grades only on whether work meets a set of expectations for satisfactory performance, with the expectations set at a high but reachable level. With a high bar also comes opportunities to revise unsatisfactory work. I summarize arguments from the literature in support of the system, but I also give account of my two-year experiment in philosophy courses with specifications grading. Compared with points-based grading, specifications grading appears to motivate students better and helps them learn more. I consider objections from both traditionalists and so-called ‘ungraders’. The former hope to secure the benefits of specifications grading while still keeping points. The latter favor eliminating grading altogether.
They say that argumentative writing skills are best learned through writing argumentative essays.... more They say that argumentative writing skills are best learned through writing argumentative essays. I say that while this is excellent practice for argumentative writing, an important exercise to practice structuring such essays and build critical thinking skills simultaneously is what I call the four-sentence paper. The exercise has the template They say…, I say…, one might object…, I reply… One might object that the assignment oversimplifies argumentative writing, stifles creativity, promotes an adversarial attitude, or that students can't consider objections well anyway. I reply that a simplified form of argumentative writing is fine for beginners, especially since the template is ubiquitous in philosophy; that any assignment template has room for creativity; that considering objections is consistent with good manners; and that despite some pitfalls of trying to defend a thesis and consider objections, students are capable of considering objections well with proper instruction and practice. Most everyone reading this who is a philosopher surely assigns argumentative, " thesis-defense " papers. Most everyone reading this surely struggles with grading such papers, and most everyone reading this surely thinks about how best to help students improve their argumentative writing skills. A first thought is that if we want students to be able to write good argumentative papers, we should assign more papers. But we all know we're limited in that—in terms of load on both students and us—and most of us wind up assigning just a few papers in any one course, and the consequence is that progress is slow. What to do? I agree with the common thought just mentioned, and also with the thought that practicing various components or subskills of argumentative writing is helpful too. One of the most important of these is that of considering and replying to objections. This might be the most important skill in argumentative writing after getting the expository material right and having clear and cogent arguments of one's own. But in my experience, and my own department's assessment data confirm this, students only rarely consider objections to their own theses and arguments. Or if they do, it is usually by way of just a passing mention of an opposing view. Again, what to do? What I offer here is a tool to help build argumentative writing skills by way of making more practice of them possible, where the tool essentially includes practice at considering and replying to objections. I call it " the four-sentence paper. " It is inspired by the approach to writing favored by Graff and Birkenstein's (2014) They Say / I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing, which advocates using templates to help students see general argumentative " moves " in
One way to distinguish among different varieties of supervaluationism is by their treatment of th... more One way to distinguish among different varieties of supervaluationism is by their treatment of the entailment relation. Different versions of supervaluationism differ in their plausibility depending on whether particular intuitively plausible entailments and types of entailments are treated as valid, and of what notion of validity is employed. One important collection of entailments is exemplified by what a classical-style definition asserts. At least some classical-style definitions in terms of metaphysically necessary and jointly sufficient conditions are true, and thus we have in hand another criterion by which to judge competing supervaluationist accounts. The paper considers which accounts stand or fall given this criterion, and a general conclusion is that the criterion points away from all local notions of validity. The paper also considers the clash between intuitions in support of definitions and those for and against various supervaluationist accounts of validity, whether local or not. Supervaluationism is a currently fashionable theory of vagueness in language. The theory takes truth and falsity to be relative to particular ways of making the extension of a vague expression precise, with super-truth being identified with truth on all " admissible precisifications " of the expression's extension (and similarly for super-falsity). Propositions may be true, false, super-true, super-false, or neither super-true nor super-false (or indeterminate). One way of distinguishing the different varieties of supervaluationism is by their treatment of the entailment relation. Given the motivation of preserving classical logic and respecting the intuitions supporting it, different versions of supervaluationism differ in their plausibility depending on whether particular intuitively plausible entailments and types of entailments are treated as valid. A classical-style definition asserts that two entailments hold: one from definiendum to definiens, and the other in the opposite direction. Such definitions take the form of a necessary universally quantified biconditional of the form Necessarily, for
The following three propositions are inconsistent: (I) We have moral obligations to future genera... more The following three propositions are inconsistent: (I) We have moral obligations to future generations, (II) Future generations do not exist, (III) In order to have moral obligations to X, X must exist. All three propositions are prima facie plausible. There are really two paradoxes here, one for obligations involving moral rights, and another for moral duties. The paper argues that (II) and (III) are true, thus (I) is false—we have no moral obligations to future generations. The paper considers the available views on the ontology of future generations, as well as various versions of Parfit's person-affecting principle, by way of defending the plausibility of (II) and (III), respectively.
The problem of horrendous evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of horrendous evils wi... more The problem of horrendous evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of horrendous evils with the existence of a God that is nevertheless good to individuals. A solution to the problem along the lines of that proposed by Marilyn McCord Adams resolves the problem by appeal to various sorts of intimacy with God on the part of the participants in horrendous evils. One half of the problem concerns the victims of horrendous evils. A second half of the problem of horrendous evil is the same problem for those perpetrators of horrendous evils who also potentially have their lives defeated. The present paper argues not only that the intimacy such an overall strategy appeals to fails to solve the first half of the problem, but also that it makes no progress at all on the second half.
Metaphysica, 2010
It might be thought that vagueness precludes the possibility of classical conceptual analysis and... more It might be thought that vagueness precludes the possibility of classical conceptual analysis and, thus, that the classical or definitional view of the nature of complex concepts is incorrect. The present paper argues that classical analysis can be had for concepts expressed by vague language since (1) all of the general theories of vagueness are compatible with the thesis that
Acta Analytica, 2009
Quine famously argued that analyticity is indefinable, since there is no good account of analytic... more Quine famously argued that analyticity is indefinable, since there is no good account of analyticity in terms of synonymy, and intensions are of no help since there are no intensions. Yet if there are intensions, the question still remains as to the right account of analyticity in terms of them. On the assumption that intensions must be admitted, the present paper considers two such accounts. The first analyzes analyticity in terms of concept identity, and the second analyzes analyticity in terms of the analysis relation. The first fails in light of possible counterexamples. The second is defended, both by considering test cases of intuitively clear analyticities, and by developing the account in light of possible counterexamples.
Acta Analytica, 2007
The paradox of analysis has been a problem for analytic philosophers at least since Moore's time,... more The paradox of analysis has been a problem for analytic philosophers at least since Moore's time, and it is especially significant for those who seek an account of analysis along classical lines. The present paper offers a new solution to the paradox, where a theory of analysis is given where (1) analysandum and analysans are distinct concepts, due to their failing to share the same conceptual form, yet (2) they are related in virtue of satisfying various semantic constraints on the analysis relation. Rather than distinguish between analysandum and analysans by appeal to epistemic considerations, the paper appeals to semantic considerations in giving a candidate account of the identity conditions for concepts. The distinctness of analysandum and analysans then serves to block the paradox in a straightforward way.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 2015
Teaching Philosophy, 2021
Grading seems an unalterable fact of formal education. We grade assignments, we submit end-of-ter... more Grading seems an unalterable fact of formal education. We grade assignments, we submit end-of-term grades, and for most anything we think students should do, there's the basic advice "If you want them to do it, make it graded." Yet such an apparently unalterable set of practices should receive critical scrutiny, and the articles in Susan Blum's edited volume UNgrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead) do exactly this. The authors represent a range of institutions and educational levels and fields, and all advocate minimizing or rejecting grading. Ungrading (or going gradeless) is rare but far from new, and those who have read, e.g., Alfie Kohn's Punished by Rewards (1993/2018) will find many familiar arguments put into practice. Mirroring and often-citing Kohn, the papers share a thread of interlocking critiques of grading: