From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Feb 25 19:53:46 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q0rkdf021045 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:53:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1Q0rdsq058032 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:53:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13273 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 00:53:38 -0000 Received: from mailscan1.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.133) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 00:53:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 20284 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 00:53:38 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 00:53:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 10761 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 00:53:30 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 00:53:30 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3551001 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:53:30 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 29238 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 00:53:30 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 00:53:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 2379 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 00:53:29 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp5.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 00:53:29 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q0rT9J021039 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:53:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1Q0rTqO021038 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:53:29 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702260053.l1Q0rTqO021038@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:53:29 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: GENERAL COMMENTS ON POSITION PAPER #1 To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2653/Sun Feb 25 16:24:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 5445 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: GENERAL COMMENTS ON POSITION PAPER #1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We have looked over your position papers, and will be returning them in class on Monday (Feb. 26). Let me make some general comments about your position papers: The main problem I saw was that many of you presented your own opinions (which is good), but didn't necessarily *support* those opinions (which is not good), and--more importantly--didn't deal directly with the engineering dean's *argument*. Philosophy is a conversation--a long one that's been going on for several thousand years, on a wide variety of topics. But it's not just a lot of people shouting their own views. It's a lot of people *rationally critiquing* each others' views. The point of philosophy is not merely for each of us to present (and defend) our own theories, but to assist others in evaluating *their* theories (with the hope that they will assist *us* in evaluating our own theories!). Therefore, you must first grapple with another person's theories before presenting your own; that's how you join in the conversation. You can then present your own theory as a contrast to the other person's theory. And, so, given an argument (such as the dean's) with premises (i.e., reasons) for a conclusion, you need to evaluate *it* before presenting your own views. (If you're a good writer, you can sometimes figure out how to present your own views in the process of evaluating the other's). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And there's a technique (maybe even an algorithm? :-) for doing that kind of evaluation: 1. Evaluate each explicit premise. That is, for each premise, determine whether it's true or false (or whether you agree with it or not, or whether it's plausible or not), *and* say *why* you believe that it's true (or plausible). (In other words, give *another* argument for or against each premise of the argument that you're evaluating.) A reminder: Premises can't be "valid" or "invalid" and arguments can't be "true" or "false". Premises are sentences, so they *can* be true or false. Arguments are *sequences* of sentences that are "valid" just in case it's impossible for all of its premises to be true while its conclusion is false. 2. Identify any *missing* premises that must be assumed in order for the conclusion to follow logically (or "validly". This can be difficult (or even impossible: sometimes there are no missing premises, and sometimes there cannot be any--nothing will make the argument valid), and it takes some practice; it requires you to be a bit of a detective, as well as to be logical. For example, in the dean's argument, the only way his conclusion that computer science is not a science follows logically (i.e., validly) from his premises (whether or not his premises are true, and whether or not you agree with them) is for there to be a third premise (the missing one): that the "computers and related phenomena" that computer science is the study of (according to the second premise) are *not* among the "natural phenomena" that science studies (according to the first premise). 3. Evaluate the missing premises (as you did in step 1 for the explicit premises). 4. Evaluate the conclusion. You can criticize it for not following logically from the premises (including the hidden ones), or else you can agree with it because it does follow from them *and* because you believe the premises. If you think it does not follow from the premises (either because there's no logical argument, even with missing premises added, that leads from the premises to the conclusion, or because--even though there is--you believe that one or more of the premises is false), you might still believe the conclusion for different reasons. And *that's* where your personal opinion can come in--as long as you present your *own* argument in defense of your opinion! Following this procedure as an outline for your evaluation of an argument yields the classic structure for a philosophy paper: A. Thesis (presented as an argument for a conclusion). B. Evaluation of the thesis (usually a discussion of the problems with the argument). C. Presentation of your own (presumably better!) argument. (I should add, especially for those of you who are philosophy students, that not all philosophy papers (not even all good ones) take this classic form. But this is a good way to get started writing philosophy.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When you get your papers back, if you can't read our handwriting or don't understand our comments, please come see us during office hours, or send us email). Because this was your first position paper and you might fairly point out that you weren't sure what I was looking for (despite my having made it clear on the instructions :-), I hereby offer to drop the lowest of your 5 position-paper grades. Nevertheless, if you would like us to review this one, please indicate which part you'd like us to re-read (your analysis of premise 1, premise 2, the missing premise, or the conclusion) and give it back to us. See the next Listserv message for information on how your papers were graded. From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Feb 25 20:10:58 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1AwUO021530 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:10:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l1Q1AlE5059095 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:10:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22296 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:10:47 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:10:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 23938 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:10:47 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:10:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 27614 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:10:38 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:10:38 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 3551392 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:10:38 -0500 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 7423 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:10:38 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:10:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 19648 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2007 01:10:37 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 26 Feb 2007 01:10:37 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1Ab3V021518 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:10:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1Q1Aaus021517 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:10:36 -0500 (EST) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200702260110.l1Q1Aaus021517@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:10:36 -0500 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: POSITION PAPER #1 GRADING To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2653/Sun Feb 25 16:24:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 4026 Here's how we evaluated your position papers. In line with my comments in the previous Listserv posting, we looked for the following things and assigned them points as follows: ======================================================================== Position Paper #1 Grading Rubric Version: 22 Feb 07 ======================================================================== 1. Premise 1: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with it? 3 pts = clearly stated whether you agreed 2 pts = stated, but incorrect terminology 0 pts = did not clearly state whether you agreed (doesn't matter whether you agreed or didn't agree, only with whether you said so) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 3 = reasons given, clearly stated & pertinent 2 = partial credit: I couldn't decide between 1 & 3 1 = reasons given, but not clearly stated or not pertinent 0 = no reasons ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Premise 2: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with it? 0, 2, or 3, as for Premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 0,1,2, or 3, as for Premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Missing premise ("Computers and related phenomena are *not* natural phenomena"): Did you clearly identify it? 3 = clearly identified it 2 = only seemed to be dimly aware of it 1 = misidentified it 0 = failed to identify any missing premise ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with the missing premise? 0, 2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Conclusion: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with it? 3 = clearly stated whether you agreed 2 = stated whether you agreed, but did NOT state whether it follows validly from premises 0 = did not clearly state whether you agreed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The total is 27 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into letter grades as follows: letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 A 26-27 A- 25 B+ 23-24 B 22 B- 20-21 C+ 19 C 16-18 10-18 C- 13-15 D+ 10-12 D 6-9 F 0-5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On my grading scheme, "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", (here, that's 27 pts = 9 questions * 3 pts full credit) "B" has no direct interpretation, but comes about when averaging A's and C's, "C" means "average", (here, that's 18 pts = 9 * 2 pts partial credit) "D" means "did not understand the material, (here, that's 9 pts = 9 * 1 pt minimum credit) "F" usually means "did not do the work" (i.e., 0 pts), but can also come about when averaging D's and F's. Please see my grading website, http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/howigrade.html for the theory behind all of this, which, by the way, I'm happy to discuss on the Listserv. I don't yet have cumulative statistics on the distribution of grades for Position Paper #1; when I do, I'll post them. From ag33@cse.Buffalo.EDU Sun Feb 25 20:41:17 2007 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (root@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1fHJK022122 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l1Q1fGjS012046; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l1Q1fGKm012045; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:41:16 -0500 (EST) From: Albert Goldfain To: "William J. Rapaport" cc: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: POSITION PAPER #1 GRADING In-Reply-To: <200702260110.l1Q1Aaus021517@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Message-ID: References: <200702260110.l1Q1Aaus021517@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 Status: R Content-Length: 5604 Also, please note that the grading rubric was built *DIRECTLY* from what the assignment asked for: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Say whether you agree with premise (1), and why you do or don't. 2. Say whether you agree with premise (2), and why you do or don't. 3. Say whether you agree that conclusion (3) logically follows from premises (1) and (2) (whether or not you agree with (1) and (2)), and why you think it follows or doesn't. * If you think that it doesn't follow, is there some (interesting, non-trivial) missing premise (i.e., a "missing link" between the premises and conclusion) that would make it follow? (If so, do you agree with that missing premise? Why (not)?) 4. If you think that the argument is logically invalid, you might still agree or disagree with statement (3) independently of the reasons given for it by premises (1) and (2) (and any missing premises). If so, state whether you agree with (3), and why. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The grading rubric for Position Paper 2 will assuredly be built from what is written in the assignment, so please read it carefully and keep it in mind when peer-reviewing: http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/584/S07/pospaper2.html Albert On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, William J. Rapaport wrote: > Here's how we evaluated your position papers. In line with my comments > in the previous Listserv posting, we looked for the following things and > assigned them points as follows: > > ======================================================================== > Position Paper #1 Grading Rubric Version: 22 Feb 07 > ======================================================================== > > 1. Premise 1: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or > disagreed with it? > > 3 pts = clearly stated whether you agreed > 2 pts = stated, but incorrect terminology > 0 pts = did not clearly state whether you agreed > > (doesn't matter whether you agreed or didn't agree, > only with whether you said so) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 2. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 3 = reasons given, clearly stated & pertinent > 2 = partial credit: I couldn't decide between 1 & 3 > 1 = reasons given, > but not clearly stated or not pertinent > 0 = no reasons > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 3. Premise 2: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or > disagreed with it? > > 0, 2, or 3, as for Premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 4. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 0,1,2, or 3, as for Premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 5. Missing premise > ("Computers and related phenomena are *not* natural phenomena"): > > Did you clearly identify it? > > 3 = clearly identified it > 2 = only seemed to be dimly aware of it > 1 = misidentified it > 0 = failed to identify any missing premise > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 6. Did you state clearly whether you agreed or disagreed with the > missing premise? > > 0, 2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 7. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 8. Conclusion: Did you state clearly whether you agreed or > disagreed with it? > > 3 = clearly stated whether you agreed > 2 = stated whether you agreed, but did NOT state > whether it follows validly from premises > 0 = did not clearly state whether you agreed > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 9. Did you give your reasons for your (dis)agreement? > > 0,1,2, or 3 points, as for premise 1 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The total is 27 points, which, following my grading theory, maps into > letter grades as follows: > > letter CSE484 both CSE/PHI584 > > A 26-27 > A- 25 > B+ 23-24 > B 22 > B- 20-21 > C+ 19 > C 16-18 10-18 > C- 13-15 > D+ 10-12 > D 6-9 > F 0-5 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On my grading scheme, > > "A" means "understood the material for all practical purposes", > (here, that's 27 pts = 9 questions * 3 pts full credit) > > "B" has no direct interpretation, > but comes about when averaging A's and C's, > > "C" means "average", > (here, that's 18 pts = 9 * 2 pts partial credit) > > "D" means "did not understand the material, > (here, that's 9 pts = 9 * 1 pt minimum credit) > > "F" usually means "did not do the work" (i.e., 0 pts), > but can also come about when averaging D's and F's. > > Please see my grading website, > > http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/howigrade.html > > for the theory behind all of this, which, by the way, I'm happy to > discuss on the Listserv. > > I don't yet have cumulative statistics on the distribution of grades > for Position Paper #1; when I do, I'll post them. >