Week 5 Discussion — Right by Luck, or Really Knowing? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
A hiker trusts a trail sign that a storm spun around by chance, and the sign happens to point the right way. The belief is true, believed, and backed by good evidence, so the classic definition says the hiker knew. Did they, and if not, what is missing?
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: Think about the trail sign, a case written for this course on the shape of Edmund Gettier's 1963 cases. Did the hiker know that the left trail leads to the lake? Take a position. If you say no, describe what you think knowledge needs beyond a justified true belief; if you say yes, explain why the luck does not matter. Support your view with a case of your own, from work, school, sports, or home, where someone turned out right by luck.
Option B: Pick one belief you rely on every day, such as a reading on a gauge or screen, something a trusted person told you, or something you remember. Which theory of justification explains best why that belief is justified: foundationalism, coherentism, or reliabilism? Take a position, and say why your belief fits that theory better than the other two.
There is no single right answer. Philosophers still disagree about what knowledge needs beyond justified true belief, and about which theory of justification is right. 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 the hiker knew, check truth, belief, and justification one at a time, and describe one case of your own where someone was right by luck; for Option B, name one belief you rely on and say which theory of justification explains its justification best.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (justified true belief, justification, Gettier case, necessary condition, sufficient condition, foundationalism, coherentism, reliabilism) 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, check whether their example really meets all three conditions, 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 trust the step counter on my phone when it says I walked about two miles, and I think reliabilism explains that belief best, because the counter is a process that tends to get distances right and I could not list the reasons it works. A coherentist would answer that I also check the number against how tired I feel and how long the walk took, so fit is doing the work. I grant that fit helps, but the belief would be justified even on a day I did not check anything. What would change my mind is learning that the counter is often wrong and I had no way to know.
Notice how it takes a position, states the other side at its strongest, ties the reason to the theories of justification 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 whether the hiker knew or on which theory fits a belief, 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) | Checks truth, belief, and justification one at a time, keeps belief apart from knowledge and justified apart from certain, and credits the cases to Gettier | 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