History
and Philosophy of Biology: Life and Consciousness
Faculty: Kevin Francis, History and Philosophy of Science, Office: Sem2 E2102 francisk@evergreen.edu
David Paulsen, Philosophy and Cognitive Science, Office Sem2 E3110 paulsend@evergreen.edu
The most reliable way to contact faculty is by e-mail
All Level Program. Interest and some background in biology
required. Interest in history and
philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, or cognitive neuroscience
relevant.
Revised Program Description:
What is life? What distinguishes a living organism from the sum total of its chemical and physical properties? What is consciousness? What makes an organism capable of feeling pain or becoming self-conscious? Such questions lie at the heart of many historical and contemporary debates in neurobiology and cognitive science. The way that biologists define “life” and “consciousness” shapes their research programs, methodologies and ethics. As one example, depending on how a biologist defines “life,” he might use the same approach to study organisms that other scientists use to understand chemical reactions and computer systems, or he might recognize unique properties of living systems that require special methods. As another example, depending on how a biologist defines “consciousness,” she might conduct experimental research on human emotions as unique and uncomparable to animal behavior, or she might compare images of human brain activity to images of animal brain activity when they both experience the same kind of emotion.
These
classic questions continue to vex and motivate biologists, cognitive
scientists, and philosophers. This program will examine the history of biology
as a window on the contemporary discussion of life, consciousness, free will
and the nature of mind. We will use a variety of historical case studies to
illuminate such issues (e.g. Pasteur’s work in microbiology, Watson and Crick’s
research on DNA, Golgi’s research on neurons, Kandels work on the neuronal
basis of learning and persistent
debates over animal experimentation). We will also read contemporary
philosophical and scientific discussion to explore whether the history of
questions about life and the nature of being alive provide lessons for current
research in the science of mind.
READINGS (Books available from Bookstore)
Oliver Sacks,
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat: And Other Clinical Tales
V S Ramachandran A Brief
Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers
Claude Bernard, Introduction to Experimental Medicine
John R Searle Mind:A
Brief Introduction
Eric R Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a
New Science of Mind
Patricia Smith Churchland, Brain-Wise: Studies in
Neurophilosophy
Kenneth Miller Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s
Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution
Daniel M Wegner The Illusion of Conscious Will
ADDITIONAL READING ASSIGNMENTS available as handouts in class or on the Internet.
MEETING SCHEDULE (Tuesday all day, Wednesday until 1 pm, Friday all day)
Tuesday, 9-12 Lecture/Workshop Sem 2 E1107
Tuesday 1-4 Seminar Sem 2 D3105, D3107
Wednesday 9-1 Lecture/Workshop Sem 2 A1107
Friday 9-12 Seminar Sem 2 C3105, C3107
Friday 1-4 Lecture/Workshop Sem 2 A1107
REQUIREMENTS (for evaluation)
Seminar and Workshop: This program has extensive seminar and workshop activities. Attendance and participation at these activities is mandatory. You should come prepared by having read the assigned readings, bringing the assigned texts to class, and taking thorough notes. At the end of the quarter, you will be required to submit a portfolio that includes all written work—commentaries and replies, papers, research paper and presentation materials, reading notes and seminar/workshop notes. It is especially important to submit seminar/workshop notes if you think that your participation in seminar/workshop does not adequately reflect your engagement with, or understanding of, the course material. Missing more than 3 class sessions may result in loss of credit.
Commentaries: A concise, substantive commentary on the seminar reading for Tuesday seminars must be posted to our program’s web forum by noon on the Monday before seminar. The minimum length for commentaries is 300 words. The commentary is not a summary of the reading, but rather a careful analysis and development of one aspect of the reading. You might pick one passage that is especially interesting or problematic, and discuss the meaning and implications of this passage. You might also select a theme that appears in multiple passages in the reading and discuss how these passages relate to each other. Your commentary should be firmly grounded in the text. (It should be apparent that the commentary could not be written by someone who has not read the text.) You should include page numbers of key passages and quotes that you discuss, but should not include long quotes as part of the 300-word length.
Late or missing commentaries might result in loss of credit.
Replies: A brief, substantive reply to another student’s commentary must be posted to our program’s web forum by noon on the Thursday after seminar. You should reply to someone in the other seminar group. Your reply should not merely agree or disagree. If you agree, you should elaborate and extend the ideas in the commentary. If you disagree, you should point out explicit points of disagreement and explain the reasons behind your view. Make sure to use an appropriate, constructive tone. Late or missing replies might result in loss of credit.
Papers: Three 3-page papers must be completed during the quarter. (See syllabus for due dates.) We expect the topics for these papers to grow out of the seminar questions that are handed out in class. If you would like to address a different question, you should run it by a faculty member prior to writing the paper.
Team Research Projects: Each student will participate in a team research project that involves regular faculty guidance. Each group should have 4 or 5 students and select a theme related to the program. During the last week of classes, each group will make a coherent one-hour presentation of the results of their research. The presentation should use PowerPoint or some other visual material and should leave some time to answer questions. Each student will write a 6-8 background paper that articulates their research and conclusions that relate to the common theme. Each paper must include a bibliography. We will schedule time during the first three weeks to develop ideas and form groups; we will also schedule some time during the rest of the quarter for groups to meet about their research topics.
Self-Evaluation: A draft of the self-evaluation is due at evaluation conference.
Faculty Evaluation: Students must submit an evaluation of each faculty before their evaluation is submitted to the registrar. Students may bring them to the evaluation conference or submit them to the program secretary, Sherri Willoughby, in Sem 2 A2117 by the end of evaluation week.