First, it is important to note several things. This is an excerpt of a philosopher's article, and thus is not complete. This should not be taken as a stylistic criticism of Jackson's work. Further, this excerpt is from an abbreviated version of the original argument that was more carefully presented elsewhere. Jackson is leaning on that presentation for this abbreviated version. However, for instructional purposes, pretend it is a student paper, and consider whether it achieves the goals as such. Remember: students have to be more careful. Academic philosophers have earned the right (through previous publications) to move more quickly over certain issues.
1. Has the author clearly stated a conclusion (a thesis)?
Yes. The conclusion is "physicalism is false." Notice the use of the conclusion indicator 'hence' clearly marks the conclusion. However, the student should probably state the conclusion in an introduction that clearly articulates the issue and the layout of the paper before launching into the thought experiment.
2. Has the author clearly stated the premises that will establish his conclusion?
Yes. Premise one: If physicalism is true, Mary knows all there is to know. Premise two: Mary does not know all there is to know. Again, it would be nice for a student to put these two premises in the introduction as statements that will be justified in the body of the paper that will lead to the conclusion.
3. Has the author clearly stated a version of the problem he is addressing?
Yes and no. To a seasoned philosopher, the issue would be clear. In this paper the problem is stated in a succinct and compressed way, and illustrated through a creative thought experiment. The student would need to explain more about what is meant by claims such as: "physicalists must hold that complete physical knowledge is complete knowledge simpliciter." Why must they hold that? The student would need to offer a more complete explanation and justification for that and other claims.
Also, in the initial thought experiment, the student would need to clearly specify that, unrealistic as it may be, Mary never has a visual experience of color before she is let out of the black and white room and sees the color 'red'.
4. Has the author clarified any terms and justified his premises?
Yes and no. Jackson clarified his use of the term 'physicalism' and his thought experiment motivates the justification for this use of the premises. The student would want to provide more of an explanation for the justification. For instance, why is it "rightly described as learning" when Mary first sees red?
Further, in the objection from Churchland that Jackson restates, the student would have to explain what the term 'Leibniz's Law' means. An academic philosopher has earned the right to use technical terms. A student is still demonstrating that they understand technical terms. So, if you use a technical term, you must provide a definition.
5. Has the author considered objections to his arguments?
Yes. The restatement of Churchland's first objection is quite clear. However, it is also compact. The student would need to explain a little more about Churchland's claim that the original argument equivocates on 'knows about'. You would need to further explain what Churchland meant by the premises and why the conclusion is allegedly a refutation to the so-called knowledge argument stated in the beginning. Academic philosophers can take short-cuts that students cannot.
6. Has the author established his conclusion through careful reasoning?
Yes and no.
Concerning the basic argument against physicalism given in the beginning, the answer is yes. If you accept the premises as stated, the conclusion follows. This is a very simple logical argument. The first statement is a conditional that has the form: If A, then B.
The second statement is merely a denial of the 'then' part of the first conditional statement: Not B. The conclusion (not A) then follows immediately by a rule of logic called Modus Tollens (which means, roughly, denying the consequent). Any argument that exhibits this form is a valid argument. That is, if all of the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
However, since the full paper is a reply to several criticisms, and we only have part of the paper reprinted here, we do not know how Jackson's ultimate conclusion works out. We do not know how he dismantles Churchland's objection. The student would obviously need to provide an adequate and convincing response to the objection. Otherwise, the argument stated above would be refuted and the conclusion would not be established.
|