Leonard F. Jacuzzo 316 W. Utica Buffalo, NY, 14222 (716) 874-3098 jacuzzo@gmail.com Education AS Social Science, 1991, Jamestown Community College, Jamestown NY BA Philosophy, 1993, State University of New York College at Fredonia, Fredonia NY Magna cum Laude, Philosophy Student of the Year Ph.D. Philosophy, 2005, University at Buffalo, Buffalo NY Dissertation: The Pedagogy of Logic Committee: John Kearns (Chair), Randall Dipert, Barry Smith, and David Hunter Abstract The purpose of this dissertation is to understand and assess the standard textbook conception of logic in its contemporary manifestation. In order to accomplish this, a framework theory is developed that provides a vocabulary and a philosophy of logic. A philosophically sensitive investigation into the history of the pedagogy of logic reveals the philosophy of logic contained in widely used logic texts. These are Logic or the Art of Thinking, by Antoine Arnauld 1662, and Elements of Logic, by Richard Whately, 1826 and Patrick Hurley s A Concise Introduction to Logic, 2003, Stephen Barker s Elements of Logic, 1988, and Irving Copi and Carl Cohen s Introduction to Logic, 2005. It will become apparent that the standard textbook conception is inherently flawed. The result of this is confusion of important aspects of logic including the principles of form, the distinction between implication and inference, and the nature of a logical system. Logic texts do not offer an accurate explanation of the value logic and the usefulness of a logical system. In fact, the notion of logical system, which is of extreme importance to contemporary logic, is not explained in standard logic texts. As a result of these criticisms it should be apparent that the standard conception of logic, and the pedagogical practices associated with it must change to accurately reflect the nature of logic in its contemporary manifestation. In conclusion an approach to teaching logic which is both faithful to contemporary logic and sufficiently basic for an elementary course in logic is offered. Areas of Specialization Logic, History and Philosophy of Logic, Applied Ontology, Critical Thinking Areas of Competence Ethical Theory, Applied Ethics, Biomedical Ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ancient Greek Philosophy, Modern Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Science Teaching Positions Lecturer: SUNY Fredonia, 2003 - present (3-4 courses per semester) Philosophical Inquiry Introduction to Deductive Logic, Introduction to Ethics,
The Greek Way, Contemporary Ethical Issues, Philosophy of Science. Critical Thinking Life and Death Adjunct Professor: Canisius College 2005-2010 (2 courses per semester) Reality and Knowledge Critical Thinking Assistant Professor: D Youville College, Spring 2010 Introduction to Ethics Business Ethics Lecturer: Daemen College, Fall 2008 Bio-medical Ethics Adjunct Professor: Trocaire College, 2005 Bio-medical Ethics Lecturer: Niagara University, 2003 and 2008 Introduction to Ethics Lecturer: University at Buffalo, 1995-2003 Introduction to Ethics Introduction to Deductive Logic Critical Thinking, Social and Ethical Values in Medicine Adjunct Professor: Erie County Community College (Buffalo), 2001 Introduction to Deductive Logic Knowledge and Reality Lecturer: SUNY College at Buffalo 1999-2000 Introduction to Deductive Logic Introduction to Ethics and Social Philosophy Contemporary Moral Issues: bioethics Research Positions Research Consultant for a project on Applied Ontology funded by the Volkswagen Foundation Fall, 2007-Spring 2008 Research Assistant Professor, Ontology Research Group, SUNY at Buffalo Summer 2008/Fall 2008.
Post-Doctoral Researcher, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO), SUNY at Buffalo, Spring 2009/Summer 2009. The NCBO is an NIH Roadmap Center for Biomedical Computing. Senior Ontologist, Windmill International, under contract with US Air Force. Summer/Fall 2010 Principal Consultant, Senior Ontologist, Computer Task Group, Buffalo NY, January 2011- August 2013. Presentations SUNY at Buffalo Graduate Student Conference Buffalo, NY, April 2002 Invited speaker, A Phenomenological Account of Number Fredonia Philosophical Society Fredonia, NY, Spring, 2004 Invited speaker, Why Study Logic? Buffalo NY, July 2004 Invited speaker, Asymmetry of Methods and the Purpose of Studying Logic Buffalo, NY, June 2005 Invited speaker, Principles of Form for Argumentations and the Limits of Formal Logic Buffalo, NY, July 2006 Panel member, The Pedagogy of Logic Fredonia Philosophical Society Fredonia, NY, November 2006 Invited speaker, The Relevance of Theism Buffalo, NY, July 2007 Panel member, The Pedagogy of Logic SUNY Post-Doctoral Symposium Buffalo, NY, April, 2009 The Promise of Scientific Ontology in Multiple Sclerosis Data System Integration (Poster) International Conference on Biomedical Ontology Buffalo, NY, July 2009, LBFO Toward an Artificial Language for Ontology Development (Poster), Buffalo, NY, August, 2009 Invited Speaker, The Alleged Impossibility of Independence Proofs Canisius College Ignation Scholars Fall Colloquium Series Buffalo, NY, September, 2009 Invited speaker The Role of Symbolic Logic in Critical Thinking American Catholic Philosophers, WNY Chapter Buffalo, NY May 2011, Invited Speaker The Asymmetry Paradox: a Response to the Oliver-Massey Thesis
Fredonia Philosophical Society Fredonia, NY, November 2012 Invited speaker, Ontology from Philosophy to Computer Science and Back Semtech Business Conference San Francisco, CA, June 2012 Conference Presenter Semantically Enhanced Business Analytics Publications LBFO Toward an Artificial Language for Ontology Development Proceedings of the International Conference in Biomedical Ontology July, 2007, p. 176 Absracts Allegations of the Impossibility of Counter-model Independence Proofs. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 16 (2010) 436 437 (Co-authored with John Corcoran) Multiplying Negative Integers, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 19 (2013) 233. (Co-authored with John Corcoran) Port-Royal containment principle, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic (to appear) (Co-authored with John Corcoran) Goldfarb Invalidity Proofs, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 21 (2015) 198-199. (Co-authored with John Corcoran) Works in Progress Principles of Form and the Limits of Formal Logic Allegations of the Impossibility of Counter-model Independence Proofs LBFO: An Ontologically Perfected Artificial Language The Asymmetry Paradox: a Response to the Oliver-Massey Thesis Services to the Profession Buffalo, NY, August 2006 Acting Chair. International Conference on Biomedical Ontology Buffalo, NY, July 2009 Logistics Coordinator Committer: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) Development Group BFO Ontology Web Language Development Group. BFO First-Order Logic Development Group Academic References Barry Smith, SUNY Distinguished Professor, Director of the National Center for Ontological Research, SUNY Buffalo, 135 Park Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, phismith@buffalo.edu, (716) 645-2444 Neil Feit, Professor of Philosophy, (Former Chair), SUNY Fredonia, Fenton Hall, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY, 14063, feit@fredonia.edu, (716) 673-3495
John Corcoran, Professor of Philosophy, SUNY at Buffalo, 815 Oak Drive, Bradenton, FL 34210 corcoran@buffalo.edu, (941) 756-8751 John T Kearns, Professor of Philosophy, (Chair), SUNY at Buffalo, 135 Park Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, kearns@buffalo.edu, (716) 645-2444 Raymond Angelo Belliotti, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy (former chair), SUNY Fredonia, Fenton Hall, SUNY Fredonia, Fredonia, NY, 14063, belliott@fredonia.edu, (716) 673-3495 George Boger, Professor of Philosophy, (Chair), Canisius College, Church Hill Tower, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY, 14208, boger@canisius.edu, (716) 888-2322 Professional References Harry Pape, Chief Executive Officer, Windmill International, 2 Robinson Rd. Nashua, NH, 03060, papeh@cisgroup.com, (603) 888-5502 Kumar Madurai, Principal Consultant, Computer Task Group, 700 Delaware Ave, Buffalo, NY 14209, kumar.madurai@ctg.com (716) 888-3697 Statement of Teaching Philosophy Very few people have had the opportunity to discover philosophy. Remarkably, this life-altering event was set in motion for me by attending a required, introductory, course in philosophy. I was astounded to find a rich history of other people attempting to make sense of the questions I had been pondering. Years later, I find myself fortunate to be paid to read about, think about, and talk about philosophy. As luck would have it, I have been able to spend my time sharing my discovery by teaching a variety of courses to a variety of students for many years. Thus, I am able to pursue my passion while making a living in a manner that would seem extravagant to most. I have had the pleasure of researching a broad range of philosophical subjects. Understanding the perspectives of these specializations helps me to convey the value of philosophy to my students. Through this, I have learned what is valuable to my students and have learned, from them, how the courses I teach fit into their lives. Many courses in a university curriculum focus on teaching students the truth. Students are indoctrinated into a field by learning the beliefs and practices of those in the field and learning to apply those beliefs and practices to problems they will face in their careers. Philosophy courses differ from such courses in that the main goal of teaching philosophy is not to teach students the truth. Truth is important to philosophy, however; when successful, a philosophy course teaches a student the value of truth, how to pursue truth, and how to recognize it when they find it. Learning philosophy begins with mastering what I call the principles of non-omniscience. They are not every proposition which is true is known to be true and not every proposition believed to be true is known to be true. We wonder how we can know that a true proposition is true or that a false proposition is false. In philosophy students learn to understand the principles of non-omniscience, and therefore how to treat a belief as a hypothesis. A hypothesis, in one useful sense of this word, is a proposition which is not known to be true and not known to be false. Settling a hypothesis is coming to know that it is true or that it is false. The history of philosophy is a history of attempts to settle hypotheses. Historically important hypotheses and the attempts to settle them provide a means of introducing students to the principles and methods used to settle hypotheses. One principle is every proposition which is implied by a true proposition is true. Operating on a conjecture that the hypothesis is true, a student is taught to find propositions which are known to be true and known to imply the hypothesis. Producing a deduction from propositions which are known to be true to the hypothesis establishes that the propositions imply the hypothesis. On this basis the hypothesis is known to be true. Teaching students to employ this principle is a main focus of my philosophy classes. This requires engendering sensitivity to implication and offering criteria which will allow a student to distinguish cases of merely apparent implication from instances of genuine implication. Some tools
available are principles of form for arguments. Any two arguments in the same form are either valid or invalid. Finding an argument in the same form which has premises that are known to be true and a conclusion that is known to be false allows one to determine that implication does not hold between the hypothesis and purported evidence for its truth. Considerations of subjectivism and other ethical theories provide an opportunity for students to discover hypotheses. It is quickly noticed that settling any ethical hypothesis requires a student to have an understanding of the term morally wrong. Students are surprised when they notice that they have not given the expression much thought. Attempting to determine what the expression morally wrong should be taken to mean provides a list of hypotheses for consideration. Since many students in introductory courses have a prima facie belief in subjectivism, subjectivism provides a good starting point to introduce these principles. Subjectivism is an ethical theory which entails that moral claims are reports of matters of opinion. Many who hold this view of morality support it by pointing out that different people have different ethical beliefs. However, the argument expressed here is invalid. The proposition: truths about ethics are matters of opinion does not follow from the proposition different people have different ethical beliefs. This is easily established with a coin toss. After tossing a coin I ask the class to guess whether the result is heads or tails. Inevitably, there are at least two people with different beliefs about the coin toss. This makes the proposition different people have different beliefs about the result of the coin toss true. It is easy for students to see that the conclusion: the result of the coin toss is a matter of opinion does not follow from our premise. Hence it is easy for them to see that there is no implication between the evidence offered for subjectivism and the conclusion that is reached. The difference of opinions about morality does not show that moral claims are reports of matters of opinion. Exercises like this one help to show students how to spot faulty arguments. Another principle which provides focus for my courses is: every proposition which implies a false proposition is false. This principle is useful for showing that a hypothesis is false. Operating on the conjecture that a hypothesis is false, we augment the hypothesis with propositions which are known to be true and then search for implications which are known to be false. In the case of subjectivism, we look for implications of subjectivism which are not true of our behavior regarding ethics. Since we know that evidence is irrelevant for settling disputes regarding matters of opinion, we can use this to show that if ethics was a matter of opinion, evidence would be irrelevant to ethics. Of course it is false that evidence is irrelevant to settling ethical disputes, so one can infer that subjectivism is false. In fact, one can point to many false implications of subjectivism. This shows that subjectivism is not a correct understanding of ethics. These principles are also very helpful in structuring class discussion and engaging students. Since we are focused on applying these principles, there are clear indications of what is relevant to the discussion. Also, practicing and studying the application of these principles in real-time allows for a bit of spontaneity in class which inevitably leads to rewarding participation. Students seem to find that their less scrutinized beliefs have humorous consequences. Even the most recalcitrant student is enticed to join in. Some students astutely notice that a guess about a coin toss might not be the same as a belief. This is not to say that I focus on teaching the practice of ridiculing the ridiculous. Rather, each course that I teach provides me with an opportunity not only to teach students about philosophy and the work of philosophers, but also to introduce students to these fundamentally valuable principles for the settling of hypotheses and the pursuit of truth. This structure helps students appreciate the work of philosophers. All students hone critical skills which assist them as they develop skills in meta-cognition and personalized beliefs. A few of my students have gone on to pursue advanced degrees in philosophy. For my part, careful focus on these principles and their application in philosophy guides me in designing courses which will prepare majors for future philosophical research while maximizing value for non-majors as well. Studying philosophy also requires careful writing, thus students are required to write essays in which they attempt to settle a hypothesis. This involves them in assessing the best evidence for the truth of the hypothesis and the most damaging evidence against its truth. Finding this evidence is the result of
participating in class discussion and becoming familiar with literature in the field. I help students with their writing skills by accepting rough drafts for comment prior to due dates. I often allow students in upper level courses to re-write an essay for resubmission. My approach to teaching philosophy is helpful to students for a variety of reasons. It allows them to notice that they have beliefs which are hypotheses. This helps them engage the material. By carefully articulating methods and principles and applying them throughout the discussion, I offer students a welldefined methodology with which to approach open questions. This, I believe, gives them a sense that philosophy is more than open questions that have little hope of being answered. Though many find philosophy valuable as a result of this method, those that do not will still come away with an appreciation for the methods and principles available to them as they reason throughout their lives. Learning philosophy is a great joy, witnessing enlightenment is even better.