Promoting a Learning Community

Class Participation Assessment Rubric

Meritorius Post

1. View this document in page layout. There are 3 pages that are required to be completed.
2. Copy and paste your meritorious post in this text box. Indicate location of post.

What is knowledge in philosophy? Discussion forum

Original post by Kassan Borthwick
Jan 12, 2018

Subdiscussion Ed Pawliw
Ed Pawliw
Jan 13, 2018 Jan 13 at 2:19pm
Hi Kassan
Welcome to the course and my response is by no means meant to tear apart your
understandings. Your questions have evoked thoughts I'd like to share.
I found the concept of the Gettier cases very interesting. When one thinks of the
knowledge we deem as absolutes, this is where the water muddies on how susceptible
knowledge is to Gettiers. We require a specific range of oxygen concentration in the air
we breathe in order to survive. If these types of absolutes are then shown to pass any
vetting through Gettier examinations (or other investigations/proofs), then should we have
qualifiers for levels of knowledge that have been scrutinized and proven true in all
respects? Just because we haven't evolved to being able to exist using a different ratio of
oxygen in the atmosphere to stay alive, does this make it an absolute? Our knowledge is
merely based on a snapshot taken in time (or a time period), of information we have at
our disposal. There are knowledge groups that are open to further modification. When I
was in grade school, we were consistently told there were 9 planets. Recently this has
been revised to 8 with Pluto being added to the classification of dwarf planets. This
determination is based on a new definition of what we classify as a planet. Was the old
definition faulty? Not necessarily according to the previous classification we used to
identify what constitutes a planet based on observation and knowledge available at the
time the classification was made. This indicates that our knowledge is susceptible to
modification and can be influenced by knowledgeable others, thus propositional
knowledge can be seen as an artificial time-based state that really can never be
absolutely nailed down. So, in answer to your question, given enough time, I believe that
the vast majority of propositional knowledge could be proven to be fallible in some
manner. I cannot make the statement that there is some absolute knowledge out there as
what I may determine what is infallible may differ from others and be proven false at a
later time and my reference point for knowledge in a certain area is different from others.
Having said that, we live using a system that we personally develop and trust to provide
us with a personal classification of knowledge that in a specific moment supplies us with
the basis for further knowledge acquisition that has to have an element of trust, otherwise
we exist in a sceptical vacuum.
Propositional knowledge must at least be true and justified. To me, this is where we have
troubles with the criteria for knowledge. Each individual will have their own guidelines that
determine what, for them, qualify a belief as true and justified. We have many instances
in society where individuals' actions are based on justifications that we see as flawed but
to them they see rational explanation. With this in mind, how do we make distinctions? In
society we have set a 'norm' based on reasoning that the vast majority agree on as true
and justified. But this is just an arbitrary setting, just as each individual's personal
conceptualization of what is knowledge and their personal parameters that determine it is.
Personally, any definition we may settle on as a society, or as a class cohort, is really an
arbitrary negotiation and modus vivendi based on pre-existing influences we each bring in
and the external resources we seek out while in the class to help in the process. Your
sentence on how does ego play into our conceptualization of propositional knowledge
made me think of professional gamblers. How many base their decisions on luck,
justifiable truths, or even knowledge?
Page 1 of 3
Document Policy #81
3. Apply the assessment rubric below to your post. Don’t forget to total the scores.
Criteria Indicators Score (total 15/ 5 each)
Sense-making  Post demonstrates an understanding of  4/5
and application readings and texts using quotations and all
claims about education are substantiated
with references to the literature
 Post is original and attempts to make
meaning of prior personal experiences and
identifies applications from the literature to
a current context
 Post introduces new factual, conceptual,
and theoretical knowledge into the
discussion
Building  Establishes a social and cognitive  5/5
community and presence online with the expression of
leadership constructive perspectives and affect. (This
can take the form of agreeing or
disagreeing to a comment, evidence that
you are attending to, understanding, and
thinking about other’s responses,
consensus building, forming goals,
objectives, encouraging, acknowledging,
and reinforcing one another’s
contributions).
 Extends discussion by asking peers or
group members literal questions
 Instructor posts are responded to where
appropriate (eg. where the instructor has
asked a question to you personally or
invited a class response)
 Post is on time
 Rules of netiquette are observed; all posts
are constructive in nature and show
evidence of application of course concepts
Communicating  Posting makes a concise point that is  5/5
clearly relevant to the topic and falls within
the realms of discussion on epistemology,
constructivism, and learning and e-learning
 Subject header is a unique summary of the
topic and promotes readership
 Spelling and grammar do not detract from
the message
 Where applicable, references are cited
with at least author, year, and title of
publication
TOTAL  14 /15

Page 2 of 3
Document Policy #81
4. Provide in 1 paragraph, a rationale for the self-assessment and grade allocation. Submit to the
assignment dropbox.

The reply in this post was in response to the discussion questions asked in Kassan’s discussion
post:
“Questions:
 Is all knowledge susceptible to the Gettier Cases? Could we find fault in most propositional
knowledge?
 In the first chapter Pritchard describes propositional knowledge and uses an ant as an
example of being unaware of possession. How does ego play into propositional
knowledge and does that cloud a human’s ability to judge whether something is lucky or
justified?”

The reply posted to these questions, while not quoting course material directly, used the
concepts presented in-course to further a concept that knowledge, no matter the type, cannot
be taken in isolation as we function where we use all the tools in our cognitive toolbox when
processing information and that this process is specifically time based. Since no direct quotes
were used, I submit a grade of 4/5. The post was submitted in a timely manner, with netiquette
appropriate to an academic environment. The post was an attempt to extend discussion on
how we, as individuals, formulate our own personal conceptualization of knowledge. An
attempt was made to extend discussion through the question,
“Your sentence on how does ego play into our conceptualization of propositional
knowledge made me think of professional gamblers. How many base their decisions on
luck, justifiable truths, or even knowledge?”
As a result of matching stated criteria, I submit a grade of 5/5. The posting was in answer to
the discussion questions posted by Kassan. The reflective response was partly consensus
building and partly a presentation of a gestating personal conceptualization of knowledge
placed into the cohort space for feedback. There are no to minimal grammatical or spelling
errors. There were no quotes used in the response that required due recognition. Adhering to
these criteria, I submit a grade of 5/5.

Page 3 of 3
Document Policy #81