Week 4 Discussion — Certainty, Reason, and Experience — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Descartes set aside every belief he could find any reason to doubt, and the first belief to survive was that he exists whenever he thinks. Most of us never ask for that much certainty before we trust a weather forecast, a friend's text, or our own eyes. So who has the better standard, and where does the knowledge we do have come from?
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Descartes searched for a belief that no doubt could touch. Should knowledge require that kind of certainty, or can you know something that you could still, in principle, be wrong about? Take a position, and support it with one belief from your own life, such as something you rely on at work, at home, or in a class.
Option B: Rationalists say some real knowledge of the world comes from reason alone; empiricists say all of it comes from experience. Think of one thing you are sure you know, such as a rule, a skill, a fact, or a pattern you rely on. Did that knowledge come from experience, from reason, or from both? Take a position on which side your example supports best, and say why.
There is no single right answer. Careful thinkers still disagree about whether knowledge needs certainty, and about whether reason alone can ever be its source. Pick the option you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, say whether knowledge should require certainty, and describe one belief from your own life that tests your view; for Option B, name one thing you are sure you know, and say whether it came from experience, from reason, or from both.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (rationalism, empiricism, methodical doubt, the dream argument, the evil deceiver, the cogito, white paper, sensation, reflection, the problem of induction) correctly.
- State the view you reject in its strongest form, give your reason, and say what would change your mind.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
- Keep any example you give away from hot-button topics, and never name a real person in a case.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: state the strongest version of the poster's view in your own words, ask whether their example really comes from the source they name, or offer a case that pulls the other way. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option B. I am sure that a recipe doubled needs twice the flour, and I think that piece of knowledge supports rationalism best, because I can work it out without baking anything. An empiricist would answer that I first learned what flour and cups are by handling them, so even this started in experience. I grant that the ideas came from experience, but what makes me sure of the doubling is the reasoning, not a test in the kitchen. What would change my mind is a case where reasoning alone told me something about the world that turned out false.
Notice how it takes a position, states the other side at its strongest, ties the reason to rationalism and empiricism as the course defines them, and says what would change the writer's mind. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Strong | Developing | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position on certainty or on the source of knowledge, with a reason, an example from the student's own life, and the rejected view stated at its strongest | A position is present, but the reason is thin or the example is not tied to the position | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeps rationalism apart from empiricism and doubt apart from denial, and credits each view to its source | Uses a term loosely, or blurs one pair once | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that state a classmate's view fairly and then extend or challenge it | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com