HPS222 – Science, Paradoxes, and Knowledge

(Fall 2024)

INSTRUCTOR TEACHING ASSISTANT

Joseph Berkovitz Alexandra Calzavara
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Office Hours: by appointment Office Hours: by appointment

LECTURES: Tuesdays, 3-5pm, in-person in classroom BR200

TUTORIAL SCHEDULE: Week 2, Week 3, Week 4, Week 5, Week 6, Week 8, Week 9, Week 10, Week 11.

I. COURSE OVERVIEW

Description
The course will focus on the bearings that philosophical views had on science in different periods in history. In
our study, we shall pay a special attention to the often counter-intuitive and even paradoxical implications of
scientific conceptions of the world. We shall consider philosophical conceptions of space, time, and matter in
Ancient Greece, the Early Modern Period, and the 20th century; the influence of religious views on science in the
17th and 18th centuries; the analysis of scientific knowledge in the 17th and 18th centuries; and 20th century views of
the nature of science and its history. The course does not require any background in science.

Learning Goals
The course is designed for you to acquire some basic knowledge of the history and philosophy of science. It
emphasizes the historical/cultural/social situatedness of scientific knowledge and methodology. You will learn
how to advance your skills in critical thinking, reading, and writing. The course will also give you the background
for more advanced courses in the history and philosophy of science and technology.

Lectures, Tutorials, and Readings

The course will have both lectures and mandatory tutorial sessions. In most weeks, the lecture and tutorials will
be devoted to a detailed discussion of the assigned readings. In order to do well in the course, you will need to
attend the lectures and tutorials regularly, and come prepared, having done the assigned (main) readings. It is strongly
recommended that you revisit the assigned readings after the class and in preparation for the exams. A list of
background readings and further suggested readings will soon be posted on the course Quercus. Some of the further
suggested readings are provided in the weekly topics (see below). These readings are intended to broaden your
knowledge beyond the course basic requirements and assist you in writing the course essay.

Delivery Methods

Lectures will be delivered in person every Tuesday between 2-4pm, except for the Reading Week. Tutorials will
take care in person at their scheduled time (see below and the Arts & Science timetable).

1
 Texts and Handouts
The assigned readings and some of the further suggested readings will be available on the course Quercus or online. The
rest of the further suggested readings and the background readings will be available at the U of T libraries. This syllabus,
the lecture handouts, study questions on the readings, review questions, tips for writing essays and exams,
evaluation criteria, suggested essay topics and recommended bibliography, as well as course announcements will
also be posted on the course Quercus.

II. TENTATIVE COURSE STRUCTURE

Week Date Topics Tutorial Assigned Readings & Announcements

Part I
1 Sep. 3 Introduction N None.
2 Sep. 10 Parmenides & Zeno: Y Main: Huggett, N. 1999. Space from Zeno to Einstein (MIT Press), Chapter
The Nature of Space
3, pp. 29-50.
and Time

Further: Huggett, N. 2019. Zeno Paradoxes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition).

Zeno Paradoxes, In Our Time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyagbHkvN-c

Salmon, W. C. (ed.). Zeno’s Paradoxes (Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill),

Introduction, pp. 5-44.

3* Sep. 17 Time & Space in Y Main: Callender, C. and Edney, R. 2001. Introducing Time (Totem
Modern Physics and Books), pp. 32-51.
Metaphysics
Further: Bradley, D., Time. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Smith, Q. and Oaklander, N. L. 1995. Time, Change and Freedom

(London: Routledge), Dialogues 9-10.

*Annotation Exercise (5%) Due Tuesday, Sep. 17, before class

4* Sep 24 Religion, Metaphysics Y Main: Alexander, H. G. 1956. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence

& Science: The (Manchester University Press), Introduction (pp. ix – xxix) and
Leibniz and Clarke Leibniz’ and Clarke’s Correspondence First and Second Papers,
Correspondence pp. 11-24.
Part I
Further: Alexander, H. G. 1956. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence.

Look, B. C. 2020. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition), Sections 1-4, 7.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/

Vailati, E. 2003. Samuel Clarke. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Winter 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clarke/

*Reading Response 1 (9%) Due Sunday, Sep. 29, 11:59pm

2
5 Oct. 1 Religion, Metaphysics Y Same readings as Sep. 24th
& Science: The
Leibniz and Clarke
Correspondence Part
II
Part II
6* Oct. 8 Skepticism, Certainty, Y Main: Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Edited and
and Knowledge: translated by J. Cottingham with introductory by Bernard Williams
Descartes’ (Cambridge University Press, 1996), Williams’ Introductory Essay
Meditations on First and the First and Second Meditations.
Philosophy
Further: Cogito Ergo Sum, In Our Time:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b010mvcp

Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy, Third Meditation.

Hatfield, G. 2003. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Descartes and the

Meditations (London: Routledge), Chapter 5, pp. 141-1810.

*Reading Response 2 (9%) Due Sunday, Oct. 13, 11:59pm

7 Oct. 15 Skepticism & Y Main: Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
Knowledge: Hume Sections IV and V.
and the Problem of
Induction Curd, M. and Cover, J. A. (ed.). 1998. Philosophy of Science: The Central
Issues (W. W. Norton), Commentary on Induction, pp. 495-505.

Further: Garrett, D. 1997. Cognition and Commitment in Hume’s Philosophy

(Oxford University Press), Chapter 4: Reason and Induction, pp. 76-
95.

Millican, P. 1997. Induction. In D. Garrett and E. Barbanell (eds.),

Encyclopedia of Empiricism (Greenwood Press), pp. 180-188.

Hume, In Our Time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b015cpfp

8 Oct. 22 Conjectures & Y Main: Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations.
Refutations: Popper’s
Philosophy of M. Curd and J. A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (W.
Science W. Norton 1998), pp. 3-10.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Problem of Induction. In M. Curd and J. A.

Cover, Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, pp. 426-432.

Curd, M. and Cover, J. A. 1998. Commentary on Popper. In M. Curd

and J. A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, pp.
505-510.

Further: Popper, In Our Time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00773y4

Thornton, S. 2019. Karl Popper. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Winter 2023 edition).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

3
9* Reading Week: No lecture or tutorials. *Reading Response 3 (9%) Due Sunday, Oct. 27, 11:59pm

10* Nov. 5 Logical Positivism & Y Main: Logical Positivism: The Received View in the Philosophy of
The Received View Science. In W. Bechtel, Philosophy of Science: An Overview for Cognitive Science
of Science (Psychology Press, 1988), Chapter 2.

Kuhn’s Critique of Further: Logical Positivism: Interview with A. J. Ayer

the Received View https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6_Vy-Uzwzc

Magee, B. 2001. Talking Philosophy: Dialogues with Fifteen Leading

Philosophers, Chapter 6: Logical Positivism and Its Legacy – A Dialogue
with A. J. Ayer, pp. 94-109.

Brown, J.R. 2001. Who Rules in Science? Harvard U Press, Chapter 3:

How We Got to Where We Are.

Logical Positivism, In Our Time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00lbsj3

*Essay Abstract (8%) Due Friday, Nov. 8, 11:59pm

11 Nov. 12 Kuhn Part I: The Y Main: Kuhn, T. S. 1962. The Nature and Necessity of Scientific
Nature of Science Revolutions. In M. Curd and J. A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The
and its History Central Issues (W. W. Norton, 1998), pp. 86-101.

Curd, M. and Cover, J. A. 1998. Commentary on Kuhn. In M. Curd and

J. A. Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, pp. 211-235

Further: Bird, A. 2018. Thomas Kuhn. The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

12 Nov. 19 Kuhn Part II: The N Further: Sady, W. 2019. Ludwik Fleck. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Nature of Science Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition).
and its History https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fleck/

Fleck on the Genesis

and Development of
a Scientific Fact

13* Nov 26 Review for the End- N *Essay (30%) Due on Sunday, Dec. 1, 11:59pm
of-Term Exam
*ONLINE End-of-Term Exam (20%), Dec 5-6, on the materials
of Weeks 7-12

III. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK: ASSIGNMENTS

• Annotation Exercise: Due Tuesday, Sept 17, before class. 5% of the final grade. Complete on Quercus.

• Reading Responses:

Response 1 – due on Sunday, Sep. 29, 11:59pm

Response 2 – due on Sunday, Oct. 13, 11:59pm
Response 3 – due on Sunday, Oct. 27, 11:59pm

Each response weighs 9% of the final grade. 500 words max (each). Upload an electronic copy on Quercus.

4
• Essay Abstract and Bibliography: Due on Friday, Nov 6, 11:59pm. 8% of the final grade. 200
words, not including bibl. Upload an electronic copy on Quercus.

• Essay – Due on Sunday, Dec 1, 11;59pm. 30% of final grade.

1500-1800 words. Upload an electronic copy on Quercus.

• End-of-Term Exam Online, Thursday-Friday, Dec 5-6, 20% of final grade.

• Tutorials (attendance and participation): 10% of the final grade. (Please see tutorials’ dates and policies.)

IV. WRITING ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES

In this course, we value creative thinking and deep engagement with the material over the pursuit of
perfection. Remember, the goal is to develop your ability to critically analyze and communicate your ideas
and arguments. We are looking for work that is interesting, thoughtful, and reflective of your intellectual
journey. Your work will be evaluated on the following criteria:

Critical Engagement: Do you question assumptions and engage with the material critically?
Depth of Analysis: Have you explored your chosen topics thoroughly?
Originality of Ideas: Are your arguments creative and thought-provoking?
Clarity of Expression: Is your writing clear, even if your arguments are complex?

1. Critical Thinking:
• Show Your Thought Process: We want to see how you arrive at your conclusions. Don’t just present
your arguments—take us through your reasoning. Even if your argument has flaws, if you’ve clearly
demonstrated how you’ve grappled with the material, it will be valued.
• Question Assumptions: Don’t accept things at face value. Challenge existing interpretations, including
those of the readings or class discussions. Critical engagement with the material is more important than
simply agreeing with established views.

2. Depth Over Breadth:

• Focus Deeply: Rather than covering many topics superficially, choose a few key points and delve into
them thoroughly. Show how these ideas connect, conflict, or support each other, and explore their
implications.
• Complexity is Encouraged: Don’t shy away from difficult questions or the nuances of a topic.
Acknowledge and wrestle with the complexities rather than oversimplifying them.

3. Creativity:
• Aim for fresh perspectives: We encourage you to explore new angles, offer original insights, and push the
boundaries of conventional thinking. Your essay doesn’t have to be flawless, but it should aspire to be
creative and reflect your unique voice.
• Interesting over Perfect: It’s better to present an argument that is creative, even if it’s not entirely
polished, than to stick to safe, predictable points. Of course, we don’t expect you to fill a critical gap in the
entire catalog of relevant scholarship. Rather, we are looking for depth in your ideas and a willingness to
explore complex issues.

5
 4. Clarity and Communication:
• Be clear, but not overly simplistic: Strive for clarity in your writing. Don’t sacrifice the complexity of
your ideas for the sake of simplicity, but maintain coherence and provide thorough elaboration. Avoid
jargon or overly verbose language.
• Engage the reader: Remember that writing is a form of communication. Your goal is to engage the
reader with your ideas, so write in a way that invites discussion and further thought.

On AI Language Tools:
Please note that the use of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to generate essay content is not permitted and
considered a violation of academic integrity. While AI can produce text that may seem coherent, it often
lacks the qualities that are essential in humanities writing. AI-generated content typically misses the depth of
analysis, critical engagement, and originality that come from your unique voice as a writer. Furthermore, AI
tools are prone to inaccuracies and superficial treatments of complex ideas, which can undermine the quality
of your work.

In humanities disciplines, the value lies not just in the correctness of an argument, but in the depth and
nuance of the thought process behind it. AI cannot replicate the personal insights, reflective engagement,
and nuanced understanding that are crucial to developing a meaningful analysis. Your essays should therefore
reflect your own thinking, demonstrate your ability to grapple with challenging concepts, and engage with
the material in a way that is distinctly your own.

Formatting instructions for all assessments:

• Times New Roman, 12pt font
• Single spaced
• One-inch page margins
• PDF submission
• Name and date in header, a title of the work on the first page (no title page)
• Chicago (author-date) or (notes-bibliography) citation style*
*Page numbers must be included in all in-text citations

Reading Responses
Reading Response 1: Zeno's Paradoxes

In this assignment, you will explore the historical significance of Zeno's paradoxes and their impact on
ancient philosophical thought. Your task is to clearly explain the debate at hand and then present your own
perspective on it. You may choose to support or challenge the position, but your argument must be well-
reasoned and thoroughly explained. Your target audience are your peers—other university students who are
interested in philosophy but not experts in the field. Rather than simply stating whether you agree or disagree,
focus on articulating why you hold your position. The most effective responses will be clear, concise, and
demonstrate a fair consideration of the authors' viewpoints, regardless of your stance. Your analysis should
be no longer than 500 words and must draw upon the assigned primary source and at least one additional
secondary source.

Your response should be structured as follows:

1. Historical Context and Significance (approx. 100-150 words):

o Using at least two of the course readings, briefly discuss the historical context in which Zeno's paradoxes
were formulated. Consider the philosophical views or assumptions that Zeno was challenging with his

6
 paradoxes. What were the primary ideas or schools of thought that Zeno’s paradoxes aimed to critique or
disprove?

2. Comparative Analysis and Personal Reflection (approx. 350-400 words):

o Present an argument in favor of one side of the debate surrounding Zeno's paradoxes: compare the
interpretations and responses to Zeno’s paradoxes from at least two different philosophers covered in the
course. Argue for the interpretation or resolution that you find most compelling. Explain why you find one
perspective more convincing and how it has shaped your understanding of motion, infinity, or related
philosophical concepts.

Reading Response 2: Leibniz & Clarke

In this assignment, you will explore the historical significance of the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence and
its impact on the philosophical debates of the early 18th century. Your task is to clearly explain the central
issues discussed in the correspondence and then present your own perspective on them. You may choose to
support or challenge the positions taken by Leibniz or Clarke, but your argument must be well-reasoned and
thoroughly explained. Your target audience are your peers—other university students who are interested in
philosophy but not experts in the field. Rather than simply stating whether you agree or disagree, focus on
articulating why you hold your position. The most effective responses will be clear, concise, and demonstrate
a fair consideration of the arguments presented by both philosophers, regardless of your stance. Your analysis
should be no longer than 500 words must draw upon the assigned primary source and at least two additional
secondary sources.

Your response should be structured as follows:

1. Explanation of Central Issues (approx. 150-200 words):

o Drawing on at least two course readings, begin by discussing the central issues discussed in the Leibniz-
Clarke correspondence. What were the primary philosophical disagreements between Leibniz and Clarke?
How did these issues reflect broader debates in philosophy at the time?

2. Your Argument and Justification (approx. 300-350 words):

o Present your own perspective on the issues discussed in the correspondence. Do you find Leibniz’s or
Clarke’s arguments more convincing? Clearly articulate your reasoning, considering the strengths and
weaknesses of both philosophers’ arguments, and providing specific examples from the correspondence and
at least two course readings to support your view. Conclude by discussing how the debate has shaped your
understanding of metaphysics, theology, and the nature of space and time.

Reading Response 3: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

In this assignment, you will explore the philosophical conflict between rationalism and empiricism as
represented by René Descartes and David Hume. Your task is to clearly explain the key differences between
these two philosophical approaches and then present your own perspective on the debate. You may choose to
support either Descartes’ rationalism or Hume’s empiricism, but your argument must be well-reasoned and
thoroughly explained. Your target audience are your peers—other university students who are interested in
philosophy but not experts in the field. Rather than simply stating whether you agree or disagree, focus on
articulating why you hold your position. The most effective responses will be clear, concise, and demonstrate a
fair consideration of the arguments presented by both philosophers, regardless of your stance. Your analysis
should be no longer than 500 words and must draw upon the two assigned primary source(s) and at least two
additional secondary sources.

7
 Your response should be structured as follows:

1. Comparative Explanation of Key Differences (approx. 150-200 words):

o Summarize the central differences between rationalism and empiricism as championed by Descartes and
Hume. What are the fundamental principles of each approach? Compare Descartes’ views on reason and innate
ideas with Hume’s emphasis on sensory experience and skepticism about causality. Highlight the core aspects
of their philosophies as discussed in the course readings and how they contribute to the broader debate
between rationalism and empiricism in science.

2. Your Argument and Justification (approx. 300-350 words):

o Present your own argument on the debate between Descartes’ rationalism and Hume’s empiricism: which do
you find most fundamental to the nature of knowledge? Clearly articulate your reasoning, considering the
strengths and weaknesses of both philosophers’ arguments, and providing specific examples from the primary
texts and at least two course readings to support your view. Clearly explain why you agree with this view, and
how the debate has shaped your understanding of the nature of knowledge acquisition and justification.

Essay Abstract

The essay abstract consists of a short narrative that discusses your topic with the questions that you want to
address in your essay, and a bibliography. Both the Essay Abstract and the Essay require carrying out original
research and investigating a topic beyond the class and tutorial discussions and materials. The Essay Abstract
presents the topic you want to write your Essay on and its main ideas. The instructor will upload on Quercus
a list of Essay Topics and Directions for Writing Essays.

Essay

The Essay gives you the opportunity to study in depth some specific aspects of the course subject matter.
Planning it carefully and early is essential. You should choose a topic and a minimum of five sources and
start working on your essay as soon as possible. As mentioned in the section on the Essay Abstract, the
instructor will upload on Quercus a list of Essay topics. The Essay requires carrying out original research and
to investigate a topic beyond the class and tutorial materials and discussions.

There are many ways of writing a philosophy essay and there is no fixed recipe for writing a ‘good’ essay.
However, there are some important features that are generally common to philosophical writing. First of all,
structure your essay carefully. Essays should have an introduction, an analysis, and a conclusion. The introduction
presents the topic you intend to discuss, gives reasons for choosing it, and anticipates and summarizes the
main questions and arguments (and thus sometimes it can be helpful to write the introduction last). The
analysis constitutes the main body of your essay and it is the part of the essay where you develop and discuss
your thesis. This is the section of your essay where you present in detail your main thesis and arguments.
Always give reasons for your thoughts and claims, and build your arguments in a clear, focused, coherent and
orderly manner. It is a good idea to divide your text into sections in which you discuss one or two points at a
time. If you want to include pictures or diagrams, you should caption them and make clear why they are
relevant. The conclusion summarizes your assertions and claims, draws out their implications, and may suggest
some future possible developments of the main analysis and conclusions. An essay should include notes and
a bibliography as well as the main text. Notes may be placed either at the bottom of the page (footnotes) or at
the end of the main text before the bibliography (endnotes). Whenever you quote directly from other works
and/or paraphrase material from someone else's work, you MUST give reference for this quotation. The
references should be according to the one of the main citation styles.

8
End-of-Term exam

The End-of-Term exam will be online. It will take place within a 3-hour window of your choice within a
time frame of 2 days (Dec 5 – Dec 6). The end-of-term exam will be on the study materials in weeks 9-12. It
will have two essay questions. More information about the end-of-term exams will be made available during
the semester.

Review questions for the exam will be uploaded soon. There will a review session on Week 12 (Dec 3). In
addition to having reviews in the lectures and/or tutorials before the exam, we might organize additional an
additional review session. The date and time of the session will be announced a few weeks before the exam.

Tutorials

The grade on the tutorials will be based on attendance and participation.

V. SUBMITTING COURSE WORK & LATE PENALTY POLICY

An electronic copy of the Annotation Exercise, Reading Responses, Essay Abstract, and the Essay
should be uploaded on the course Quercus. Normally, students will be required to submit their work for this
course to University’s plagiarism detection tool for a review of textual similarity and detection of possible
plagiarism. In doing so, students will allow their essays to be included as source documents in the tool’s
reference databases, where they will be used solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism. The terms that
apply to the University's use of this tool are described on the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation
website (https://uoft.me/pdt-faq). Students should inform the instructor and the TA at the start of the course
if they choose to opt out of Plagiarism Detection tool. If you wish to opt out of uploading your assignments
to Plagiarism Detection Tool and submit their research notes and at least two early drafts of your assignments.

Students are expected to complete all assignments by the dates indicated in this syllabus and upload them in
the right place on the course Quercus.

The penalty for late assignments is 2% per day including weekends. There are NO EXCEPTIONS to this
policy except in situations that are entirely beyond a student’s control. Requests for extensions due to illness
(or other extenuating circumstances) will be considered for the number of days of illness (extenuating
circumstances) preceding an assignments’ deadline. Any request for an extension must be accompanied by
the relevant documentation. This will normally take the form of a note from a College Registrar, Academic
Advisor or, if applicable, Accessibility Services, supporting a student’s request of accommodation.
Additionally, students should report their absence on ACORN through the online absence declaration, and
submit a brief text explaining the reasons for requesting an extension and indicating the timeline to
completion for their extension request.

Please note that even when documentation is provided, extensions are not granted automatically and need
to be approved by the instructor. For extension requests, please contact the instructor or the TA in advance
of any deadlines. If you know in advance that you will be unable to meet an assignment deadline because of
an emergency, please contact the TA and the course instructor as soon as possible. Assignments that are late
by one week or more will not be accepted with the exception of those students who miss the deadline for
reasons entirely beyond their control and provide the relevant documentation.

9
VI. COURSE POLICIES

Email Policy
Most email enquiries will be answered within 48 hours. However, it may take longer to receive a reply for
emails sent over the weekend. Before emailing us, please check the syllabus to ensure that the answer to
your question has not already been addressed in this document. We are happy to answer simple questions
by email; however, if your question is more complicated, we will encourage you to set up an appointment.
Please ensure you use your official University of Toronto email address ([email protected]) when
emailing the instructor or the TA and be sure to put the course code in the subject line. Messages sent by
any other email provider may not be opened. It is the students’ responsibility to ensure that they receive
emails related to the course.

Lectures
Lectures will be held in person on Tuesdays, 2-4 pm, with a short break in the middle.

Tutorials
There will be 9 mandatory tutorials, beginning on Week 2 (please see specific dates above). A missed tutorial
will result in a 1.11-point deduction from the overall tutorial mark. Students will be graded for their
attendance and their active participation during the tutorials. The tutorials are designed to provide a forum where
students can discuss the readings, clarify the lecture content, and prepare for the assignments. Tutorials give
students the opportunity to explore the readings in depth and clear up questions related to the lectures.
Students are responsible for reading the required readings for the relevant week before the tutorial.

Appointments
Students are encouraged to make an appointment with the TA or the instructor when they need to discuss
questions that cannot be easily handled via email. In order to make sure that the process related to
appointments is equitable for everyone, we ask that students provide 24-hour notice of a cancellation.
Students are also asked to arrive on time to their appointment. Students who arrive late to an appointment
run the risk of having their appointment shortened or canceled to ensure that other students could have
their appointment in time. If something unexpected prevents you from arriving to your appointment on
time, you should notify the TA or the instructor as soon as possible. Please confirm within 24 hours your
availability to attend an appointment. The medium through which the appointment will be conducted (in
person or online via Zoom, MS Teams, etc.) will be determined by the instructor or the TA in consultation
with the student.

Quercus
Students should regularly check the course site for announcements, course materials, and other
miscellaneous course information. It is recommended that you do not disable notifications in Quercus. If
you do, you may miss important announcements.

VII. INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND SUPPORT

Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is essential to the pursuit of learning and scholarship in a university, and to ensuring
that a degree from the University of Toronto is a strong signal of each student’s individual academic
achievement. As a result, the University treats cases of cheating and plagiarism very seriously and
considers them serious academic offences, which have consequences for people’s grades and careers.

10
The University of Toronto’s Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters outlines the behaviours that constitute
academic dishonesty and the processes for addressing academic offences
(https://www.viceprovoststudents.utoronto.ca/students/#CodeAcademic).
Potential offences include, but are not limited to:

In assignments:

1. Using someone else’s ideas or words without appropriate acknowledgement.

2. Submitting your own work in more than one course without the permission of the instructor.
3. Making up sources or facts.
4. Obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance on any assignment.

On exams:

1. Using or possessing unauthorized aids.

2. Looking at someone else’s answers during an exam or test.
3. Misrepresenting your identity.

In academic work:

1. Falsifying institutional documents or grades.

2. Falsifying or altering any documentation required by the University.

All suspected cases of academic dishonesty will be investigated following procedures outlined in the Code of
Behaviour on Academic Matters. If you have questions or concerns about what constitutes appropriate academic
behaviour or appropriate research and citation methods, please seek out additional information on
academic integrity from the instructor or from other institutional resources, such as (see
https://www.academicintegrity.utoronto.ca). See also the section "How Not to Plagiarize
(https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/using-sources/how-not-to- plagiarize/ ) and other advice on
documentation format and methods of integrating sources that are listed in
http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/using-sources/

Copyright

Students can access course materials through Quercus. However, if students wish to copy or reproduce
lecture presentations, course notes, or other similar materials provided by instructors or teaching assistants,
they must obtain the instructor's or the teaching assistant’s written consent beforehand. This includes any
digital recording of lectures or tutorials. Otherwise, all such reproduction is an infringement of copyright
and is absolutely prohibited.

Student Conduct for Participating in Sessions and Discussions

Everyone’s aim in this course should be to make our shared class environment safe, equitable, and
productive for learning. There are some practical and important steps we can all take to help with this. In
the first instance, all students should familiarize themselves with the Code of Student Conduct. A few
important guidelines to follow are:

1. Always be respectful, e.g. give undivided attention to the person who has the floor and seek permission
to speak before doing so.

2. Take a non-judgmental and charitable approach to interactions even when you disagree with
another person’s position.

11
 3. Be sensitive to other people’s privacy and diversity. Members of our course may differ in cultural
background, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity or gender expression and so we need to be careful
about making insensitive or careless remarks. Please address people by the pronouns that they identify
with.

4. Learning is best carried out in a collaborative and supportive environment. Be supportive. If you
see another course member who needs support, please reach out to them or to the instructor or TA
for assistance.

In terms of good conduct for online sessions:

1. Students should mute their microphones when they are not speaking.

2. While it would be great for students to have their videos turned on, they are not required to do so.

12