1. Essay Writing in Philosophy
A starter’s guide

2. Agenda A brief word on the exam Unpacking the question
General principles
Specific principles

3. The exam Section D is an essay
Examiner’s reports consistently refer to weakness in essay technique
Practice, practice, practice.

4. Unpacking the question
What is the question asking you to do?
Is there a specific context?
Question 3 – 2008
Does science provide truth? Discuss with reference to at least two of the following: Plato, Popper and Kuhn.
Context – is the question in terms of a particular text?
Is there a specific issue?
Here you are required to select at least two of these philosophers and:
analyse their view/argument on the extent to which science gives us knowledge (so you will choose only what is relevant to this from the set text)
evaluate each view. The question does of course allow for your own arguments as well.
Reach a conclusion on whether science provides truth
The context is whether science provides truth.

5. Unpacking the question
Analysis and evaluation are a given in philosophy essays, even if not explicitly stated
Identify the key philosophical concepts
Discuss – set out arguments, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these positions
Terms like outline and explain refer to analysis of a view.
The key concepts in our essay question are: science, truth and ‘provide’ (is there a link to certainty here?)

6. General Principles First person and passive Plagiarism
Answer the question
Do only what is asked of you.
Stick to the topic
cover every aspect of a question
Link your paragraphs and sentences to the question
Write in a natural style
First person is fine.
It is a strength to acknowledge another source, not a weakness
Make every word count
only write what is relevant to the question
if a question asks for two texts do both, if it wants you to compare, then compare
Show that you are in control of the question. One way to do this is by linking the points to the topic. E.g. “Kuhn argues that science progresses, but not towards a fixed truth.”

7. General Principles
Choose a topic where you feel that you have something to say.
Use clear and precise language
Organise the essay so that it is coherent
This may only be one significant and interesting thing. But you will carefully argue it and set out a position acknowledging its strengths and weaknesses. This becomes then a contribution to philosophical debate of some quality even though it may not be wide ranging.
Spend some time during the year developing positions on fundamental areas of the course. Develop arguments
Coherency: decide if you want to analyse each argument and evaluate as you go or do one at a time. How will you weave in your own arguments?

8. Specific Principles Introduction
Define the key philosophical concepts in the essay topic
If appropriate highlight what the main issue is (why are we interested in this?)
Relate the issue to a set text/s
State what it is you will do and briefly indicate what it is that you will conclude
If a definition is contentious, just say you will adopt it for the purposes of the essay.
Use the set texts to answer the question. Depending on the question, you may need to bring them in to support another text or as an objection.
Be brief in the introduction

9. Introduction Sentence starters for an introduction
For the purposes of this essay, I will define…
A major issue raised by this topic is…
In this essay I will….
I will conclude that….
Example of an introduction:
Example of an introduction
Note here the attempts to define the key terms, state what it is that i am going to do and what I want to say about whether science does provide us with truth.
Popper and Kuhn would both argue that science does not provide us with truth. Popper infers that it is not possible for science to prove what is true, merely what is false, while Kuhn argues that science progresses, but not towards a fixed truth. Through a critical examination of their arguments, I will aim to show neither theory would claim that science provides us with truth as conceived by the correspondence theory of truth, but that Kuhn’s theory is compatible with a pragmatist conception of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that something is true if it corresponds with what is actually the case, so for example snow is white if and only if snow is white, while a pragmatist conception of truth (at least the version from Peirce) seeks a standard for truth in the usefulness of predictions. I will conclude that a pragmatist conception of truth is unsatisfactory and yet it is not possible for science to provide truth in the correspondence sense either.

10. Body of the essay Generally analysis followed by evaluation Analysis
Set out the premises and conclusions of the argument
Try to capture the logical flow of the argument
Only include what is relevant to the essay topic and express the analysis in these terms
Set up your evaluation
Do what you said you would do in the introduction.
Define any new terms introduced
Sometimes it is useful to begin with the conclusion and work backwards
The question governing the analysis is – what view did the author have on this topic? Why? What steps – both implicit and explicit - did they take to get there?
Capture the logical flow – help the reader to follow each step of the argument.
Put in any implicit steps or unstated assumptions that are important to the argument.
Set up your evaluation – for example if you are going to attack an example, mention the example

11. Analysis Sentence starters: I will now set out….
The author reaches the conclusion that….
The reasons given for this are…
A key example used to support this point is…
The author reasons that….
An assumption here is that….
An implicit step in the argument here is ….
Of course your more natural style may be not as clunky as this, but this is a starter’s guide!
Note that in this example, while I am aware that Popper writes elsewhere that he agrees with the problem of induction and indeed that falsification solves it, I can’t refer to that here, but can only infer it from the set text. Note also that the analysis is in the context of the question. It is not just a mere description of the argument. I am constantly relating the argument back to the question and selecting detail where it is relevant to the question.
In the set text, Popper claims not to be concerned with truth, but rather the difference between science and pseudo-science. However there is much that we can infer about science and truth from this enterprise. Popper points to a tendency in pseudo-science for theories to be vague and also for evidence being made to fit the theory (often because it is interpreted in the light of the theory in the first place), so that confirming evidence is found everywhere and taken as truth manifest. But if all evidence fits the theory and it is not possible to conceive of a case that would be contrary, how can we have confidence in the theory? This can lead to a position where two quite different theories on human behaviour, for example Freud and Adler, can claim to both explain the same human action. How do we know which is right? Popper argues that for a theory to reach a scientific standard, it must put itself at risk, crucially, a test where unless armed with the theory, we would expect an incompatible result. Taking this risk of an incompatible result amounts to an attempt to falsify the theory and if the theory does not pass the test, we refute it. Popper falls short of stating that compatible evidence proves a theory, merely stating that it is corroborating evidence. It could be inferred from this that Popper agrees with the problem of induction; why else would he claim that an observation has the power to refute a theory (and incidentally here giving us a truth about what is not the case) and yet not have the power to prove it, even when passing a risky test? Popper believes that we can logically deduce from the general to the particular and appears to believe that we cannot go from the particular to the general – so for example while we cannot say that because all swans so far are white means that all swans are white, we can say that if all swans are white and we find a black swan, that not all swans are white. Finally Popper argues that any human, even scientists, go to any observation with a theory in mind, that it is not possible for an observation to be made free of a theory. Thus a human element can never be taken out of observation.

12. Evaluation Outline objections and any counter-objections to the view
Outline why you may support a view
Objections
Those that challenge the plausibility of one or more of the premises
Those that challenge the link between the premises and conclusion
You could show support by raising an objection and then a counter objection to preserve the strength of the argument
If you support an argument, you must state why (give your own argument in support, even anticipating objections to it).
Make sure you set out what the objection is and what it is an objection to and also the reasons given to support the objection.

13. Evaluation Things to consider:
What are the strongest/most relevant objections?
Think critically about your evaluation – what are its strengths and weaknesses?
Are there ambiguities in the argument?
Are examples given appropriate?
What are the consequences of what is said?
When thinking of counter objections imagine – what would someone in opposition say to this?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of your objection?
Sometimes you may wish to add in a point that could save the argument.

14. Evaluation cont’d Is the author consistent?
Which points are the most relevant to the topic?
How do the claims fit in with another text? Does any similarity or difference matter?
Do the evaluation in the context of the question asked.
I will not raise evaluations here as I do not want to give the impression that there is a right evaluation that you should then spit back in the exam to get good marks.
Hopefully your teachers are challenging you.

15. Conclusion State what it is that you are concluding
State briefly your own opinion if relevant
Indicate any unanswered questions or where we go from here.
Where do you stand on balance? What are the major points that have led you to this?

16. Conclusion Sentence starters: From ….it can be concluded that…
In my opinion….
Some questions that still remain are…

17. Example
Question 2
Outline and critically compare the views of Descartes, Turing and Armstrong with respect to the possibility of thinking machines.

18. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
Whether computers could have minds and think for themselves is a heavily discussed philosophical theory. Many say the proof for thinking machines is there to be seen while others believe their lack of complexity in relation to ourselves as humans means they could never have our level of rational thinking. [01] Descartes and Turing both discuss this topic, openly expressing their opinion on the matter[02] . Armstrong on the other hand never openly dismisses the possibility of artificial intelligence (AI) however conclusions can be drawn from his theory of the mind[03] .
[01]Outlines the issue. Does not define key term of thinking machine as this will be done in the body of the essay. But could have defined what counts as thinking for the purposes of this essay.
 [02] Could have briefly stated their position
 [03]Could have briefly stated position and whether it contrasted with the other two.

19. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
Descartes believed [01] that as humans we are above machines. We are able to think and reason and a machine is not. He believed that language was the mark of a mind and without it we are unable to determine whether something can think. Descartes thought that machines were unable to communicate meaningfully with us in conversation and it was this that proved they were unable to think for themselves[02] .
 [01]Analysis here followed by evaluation
 [02]Defines thinking machine for Descartes. Note that question asks about possibility of thinking machines. Would Descartes accept a thinking machine of the future if it had language?

20. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
While Descartes’ idea was strong there were flaws in his [01] arguments. His major point is that machines are unable to communicate but this is wrong. All computers use text or sounds to communicate with us when we make a mistake and some use sounds or words to indicate problems. This ability to communicate ideas is even further advanced that some humans who either have mental disabilities or lost their speech or hearing. Surely this ability to communicate would be proof enough for Descartes that computers can indeed think. His other idea that language is the maker of a mind is also flawed. When I see a person I have never met before they speak and I attribute a mind to them. We attribute minds to other humans because they look similar and act in similar ways to ourselves. If we saw a machine with similar physical characteristics to ourselves then we would attribute to it a mind. Language can be used to demonstrate the presence of a mind but it is not the determining factor.
[01]Attempts to give reasons for there being flaws and uses examples to illustrate

21. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
Unlike Descartes, Turing believed the concept of a thinking machine was a perfectly valid one. He thought that if a machine was successfully able to pass itself off as a human then it proved the presence of a mind. Turing didn’t argue to back up his claims with evidence, but to refute those who argued against him. He outlined nine claims against him then refuted each. He believed that as machines became more powerful they would be able to accomplish more, if it appears to think and we doubt it then we doubt other humans and that while a machine can’t replicate the central nervous system (CNS) if it gets the right results there is no problem.

22. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
Turing raises some very valid responses to his critics[01] . Machines have already proven their increasing capacities has resulted in more functions being performed. His major point though is that imitation of a human is enough to prove the presence of a mind. This is a valid point because it is the similarities we see in other humans that allows us to attribute to them a mind, not the presence of language. While it appears Turing uses a solipsistic argument saying if we doubt machines then we doubt humans it is a valid point because we can’t see the thought processes of others [02] and have to rely on trust. His other refutation about the CNS is also strong. In life different actions can achieve the same results so why worry about whether their process is the same as ours?
[01]Would Descartes be a critic? What would Turing say about Descartes argument?
 [02]Aniticipates objection and mounts counter-objection

23. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
Armstrong never talks about [01] the possibility of AI, but his strong belief in science and his picture of the mind suggests he believes it is possible. Armstrong attempts to create an image of the mind as a purely physico-chemical object. To do this Armstrong places his faith in science, saying science is the convergence of learned opinion and we should believe what the learned agree upon, so believe in science. This gives science the credibility Armstrong requires and allows him to describe a physicalist view of the mind.
The strongest aspects of Armstrong argument is its basis in science. In an age where science is being trusted more and more, Armstrong’s reliance on sciences ‘truth’ is the structure on which his arguments lean. If our mind is a purely physico-chemical object then it follows that it can be recreated in this way. If this is possible, intelligence in computers is possible because we replicate the mind, only we use different materials. While Armstrong would admit the current level of technology is not advanced enough it is likely to the future could bring the required advancements to make thinking machines a reality.
[01]Analysis of Armstrong here and inference from his theory to machines. Does not draw comparison back to Turing or Descartes though.

24. Outline and critically compare the views of D, T and A with respect to the possibility of thinking machines
In conclusion, I would [01] agree with Armstrong and Turing and reject Descartes’ view. I accept the argument that it will soon be possible to produce thinking machines, and that thought doesn’t depend on what the underlying materials are, just on what those machines are capable of doing – and if they can act and communicate like a human, then we have no reason to doubt that they really are thinking, just as we take for granted that other humans are thinking as well.[02] 
[01]Sums up what they believe the strongest argument is
 [02]Essay shows control over subject matter. Analysis is set up to then flow into an evaluation.