Week 4 — Reason or Experience: Sourcing and Testing Claims to Know

Assignment 4 of the term — place Descartes' famous words in the right book, reconstruct the cogito and an argument about certainty, test a prediction with the problem of induction, weigh rationalism against empiricism, and explain the problem of induction to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, and soundness, and in Week 3 you met Plato's worry that appearances might fool us. This week you learned rationalism and empiricism, Descartes' methodical doubt, the dream argument, the evil deceiver, and the cogito, Locke's white paper, and Hume's problem of induction. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Dataset B's premises are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys its arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The two everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get the source right, then reconstruct. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Descartes proved it in the Meditations: 'I think, therefore I am.' Those are his exact words." Do three things:

• Correct the post. Name the work and part the wording comes from, who translated the English words, whose insertion the Latin in parentheses is, and how the Meditations themselves state the idea, in words.
• Reconstruct the cogito. Write the reasoning behind the Second Meditation's conclusion in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So"), mark any premise you add as "(added)", name the form, and say whether it is valid, with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity. Then name one premise a critic could question.
• Key argument 1. Write Dataset B's argument 1 in standard form ("If knowledge requires certainty, then I know very little. Knowledge requires certainty. So I know very little."), name its form, key it for validity, and explain in one sentence why the course does not key it for soundness.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. The Discourse on the Method dates from 1637 and the Meditations on First Philosophy from 1641. How many years separate them?

Part B — test a prediction and weigh the positions. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding has a title page dated 1690, and the Meditations on First Philosophy date from 1641. How many years separate them?

Then do three things:

• Find the hidden premise. A city bus planner says: "Ridership rose every autumn in our records, so it will rise this autumn too." Write the planner's reasoning in standard form with the premise that carries the past into the future marked "(added)". Then explain, in your own words, why supporting that added premise with past experience would be a circular argument.
• State both positions at their strongest. State rationalism and empiricism each as its best defenders would, give the strongest objection to each, and give a reply from each position's own side. Use Locke's white paper and Hume's problem of induction where they fit.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where rationalism and empiricism disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A younger cousin who has never taken philosophy reads about Hume and says, "So Hume proved that science is useless." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what the problem of induction actually asks, why it is not a claim that science is useless, and one honest limit of what the problem shows. Explain any term your cousin might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who asks why Plato's cave is not a true story about real prisoners. Model answer: "The cave is a story Plato tells to make a point, not a report of something that happened. He uses prisoners watching shadows to ask whether what we take for reality could be a kind of shadow. Philosophers call this an allegory: a story whose parts stand for ideas. One limit: the story raises the question, but it does not settle it by itself."

Use that pattern for your message to your cousin, with your own explanation of the problem of induction.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or one of your reconstructions more exact, and which definition or pinned fact showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of rationalism or empiricism stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of a position, even if your first attempt was strong, and then answer reflection option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it places "I think, therefore I am" in the Meditations, presents Veitch's English as Descartes' own words, or says which position is right, check that against Chapter 4 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: rationalism and empiricism, Descartes' methodical doubt, the dream argument, the evil deceiver, the cogito, the source of the wording "I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM)" in John Veitch's translation of the Discourse on the Method, Part IV, Locke's white paper with sensation and reflection, and Hume's problem of induction. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; and never announce a verdict on whether rationalism or empiricism is right.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Descartes proved it in the Meditations: 'I think, therefore I am.' Those are his exact words." I name the work and part, the translator, whose insertion the parenthetical Latin is, and how the Meditations state the idea in words. I reconstruct the cogito in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So") with any added premise marked "(added)", name its form, judge its validity, and name one premise a critic could question. I key Dataset B's argument 1 (illustrative): "If knowledge requires certainty, then I know very little. Knowledge requires certainty. So I know very little." Part B: I put a city bus planner's reasoning, "Ridership rose every autumn in our records, so it will rise this autumn too," in standard form with the added premise marked and explain why supporting it from experience would be circular; I state rationalism and empiricism at their strongest, each with its strongest objection and a reply from its own side; and I end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree.
PROBLEM P1: The Discourse on the Method dates from 1637 and the Meditations on First Philosophy from 1641. How many years separate them?
PROBLEM P2: Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding has a title page dated 1690, and the Meditations on First Philosophy date from 1641. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction and both reconstructions. For P2 I must also supply the bus planner's reasoning, the two positions with objections and replies, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a cousin who thinks Hume proved science is useless. After revising, I answer reflection option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction names the Discourse on the Method, Part IV, names John Veitch as the translator and the parenthetical Latin as his insertion, states the Meditations' version in words, and works the P1 year gap; 10 if two or three of those four parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if the cogito is in standard form with its added premise marked, its actual form named (modus ponens in the chapter's version; another valid form if my reconstruction has one) and judged valid with a reason, with one questionable premise named, and argument 1 is in standard form, named as modus ponens, keyed valid, and explained as not keyed for soundness; 15 if one of the two reconstructions is complete and the other has one gap; 5 if at least one form is named and judged with a reason but both reconstructions have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the two positions (P2): 25 if the bus planner's reasoning is in standard form with the added premise marked and its circularity explained, both positions are stated at their strongest each with an objection and a reply, the plain sentence names the disagreement, and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or a position is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what the problem of induction asks, explains why it is not a claim that science is useless, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, the two reconstructions, the bus planner's reasoning, both positions with objections and replies, the plain sentence, and the cousin message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my evaluation, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction, the cogito reconstruction, and argument 1 with the first year gap; the bus planner's reasoning, the two positions with objections and replies, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your cousin; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 4 skills — crediting a famous line to its right work and translator, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, finding the hidden premise in a prediction, stating rationalism and empiricism at their strongest with objections and replies, and explaining the problem of induction to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your cousin, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check the work, part, translator, and Latin against Chapter 4's record; for each reconstruction, underline the added premise and check the form's name against Week 2's list; for each position, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it; and check that your cousin message separates what justifies a prediction from whether a prediction is useful. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned fact that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, evaluation, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com