Write a research paper discussing the compatibility of free will and soft determinism.Length: The paper should be around 2000 words. Yes, I can count the number of words. Making it 2.1 spaced with 12.4 sized font is just going to make it look bad. It should be no more than 5000 words. [My time is finite.] The word count is just a rough proxy for philosophicaI content. I have a certain expectation for the quality of an argument that an average undergraduate can present in a 2000 word paper. You are graded by that standard. It is possible for a 1200 word paper with clever, novel philosophical reasoning to get a better grade than a 3000 word paper that is nothing but summary and padding. However, it is much harder to make a good 1200 word paper than a good 2000 word paper. There is always more you can say, so there is little excuse for not meeting the word count. File Format: it submitted as a .doc, .docx, or .pdf. file, or as text in the assignment box. Do NOT submit a .pages document. Do NOT type the whole thing out in the text box in blackboard as it might get eaten. Type it out in a word processor and then paste it. Plagiarism: The document will be checked by SafeAssign for plagiarism. Content: The paper should flesh out your outline into a 2000 word paper. Guidelines: See the Writing Tips document for more information, and the example paper for example. Here are the most important guidelines: IT’S ALL ABOUT THE ARGUMENT!!! The primary purpose of the paper is to gague your ability to engage in novel philosophical reasoning of the sort that you find in the readings. The paper is graded primarily on the quality of this reasoning. The argument should be novel. Do not just repeat points made in the lectures or readings. Do not just describe an argument that someone else makes in a article you found. Do: try to construct your own argument to push the debate forward. The argument should be clear. Do NOT introduce technical notions without defining them or at least describing what they mean. E.g., Do not just start talking about substance dualism without saying what substance dualism is. It should always be clear whether you are describing someone else’s claim or are making a claim of your own. When you are describing someone else’s claims, say ‘X says …’, ‘According to X, …’ etc. When you switch to making your own claims, signal this by saying something like ‘One problem for X is …’, ‘We can supplement X’s argument by …’, etc. Always try to illustrate general claims with examples. E.g., “Libertarians hold that determinism is false. This means that at least some of the phsycial processes in our brain responsible for our decisions cannot be perfectly predicted even if you knew all of the laws of physics and the exact properties of every physical object we interact with prior to making the decision.” Try to avoid overly abstract language. E.g. do not say “mentality corresponds to physicality” when what you mean to say is something like “there is a correlation between conscious mental states and brain states”. The argument should be focused. Avoid the “kitchen sink” approach: listing every possible objection or point you can think of in favor or against a general position will keep your thinking shallow. Instead, Telecope: present your main argument, consider objections, respond to them, then consider objections to your responses and respond to them, etc. Summarize the readings ONLY when it is NECESSARY FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. Do Not bring up all of the claims Descartes makes if you are just responding to his version of substance dualism. Do Not discuss an author’s arguments for every premise in their argument if you only intend to raise objections to a specific premise. DON’T PAD THE PAPER! I am not stupid. I know when you are just trying to get to the word count. Again, the paper is graded by its novel philosophical reasoning. The word count is just a rough proxy for this. A 1500 word paper that presents a clever novel argument and considers objections will get a better grade than a 2000 word paper that presents almost no novel arguments and consists entirely of filler. If you run out of things to say, try the telescoping method. Consider objections your opponent might raise to your position and then respond to them. Trying to make your sentences longer to get to the word count will hurt your grade. You are still making the same points (no increase in content). This will just make your writing more awkward and your point less clear. INTRODUCTION should be SHORT and should CLEARLY STATE your THESIS. Get to the Point! Present only information that is relevant to the argument you are going to make. The introduction should not introduce any unnecssary background information about philosophers (e.g., like where Descartes was born, etc.), since this is irrelevant to your argument. Avoid Cliches: Do not say things like “Since the beginning of time, philosophers….”. This is just filler. A CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH/SECTION is UNNECESSARY FILLER. You should have already stated your thesis (conclusion) in the introduction, so there is no need to state it again. Since it is only a 2000 word paper there is no need to summarize your argument. The paper should be WELL ORGANIZED. It should be broken down into sections. E.g., if you are defending a complex argument, have a section devoted to defending each premise. E.g., if you are criticizing someone else’s argument, have one section where you describe their argument, and then present your objections in separate sections. Each paragraph should aim to establish a specific thesis. (E.g., one paragraph to describe a claim the author makes and their argument for it, then another paragraph to present an objection to their argument.) EDIT, EDIT, EDIT!!! Go back and re-read your paper! Does each paragraph have a thesis? If not, break up some of them so that they do. Does each sentence in a paragraph support its thesis? If not, move it to where it makes more sense or delete it. Does the structure of the paper make sense? PROPER CITATIONS! Every time you attribute a specific view to someone, you should cite a source. Every time you quote someone, you should cite a source with a page number. In-text Citations should follow the (NAME DATE, pg. #) format. You MUST Include a Works Cited at the end of the paper. All works cited should be in a single consistent format (e.g., all MLA).
