Topics for the Second Paper

These topics were written by Sara Bernstein, Will Braynen, Jason Brennan, Michael Bruno, Douglas Campbell, Chris Evans, David Glick, Stephen Lenhart, Daniel Sanderman, Orlin Vakarelov, and Shaughan Lavine.

You are encouraged to consult the references listed in How to Write a Philosophy Paper and to show rough drafts of your paper to your TA or to Professor Lavine before handing in the final version.

  1. According to Kuhn a science will typically develop through a cycle of stages. Describe the stages, and describe how each stage progresses to the next. Be careful to discuss the social factors that are at work during each stage, and be sure to mention anomalies and incommensurability at the appropriate points. Why, based on his historical model of science, did Kuhn think that science does not progress towards an objective, theory-independent truth? Do you think his argument is convincing? Explain your answer.
  2. Explain why Kuhn thinks that an analogy between major scientific changes and political revolutions is useful for understanding scientific change. Evaluate Kuhn's proposal.
  3. How should scientists decide which theories are worth working on? Compare and contrast the views of Lakatos, Laudan, and Kitcher. What is the best standard to apply to decide which theories are worth working on, that of Lakatos, of Laudan, of Kitcher, or do you advocate some other standard?
    • Make sure to clearly distinguish between descriptive and normative parts of your answer to the question.
  4. What is the reward system in science and what should it be?
    1. Would it be better to motivate scientists using recognition, money, or simply the satisfaction of discovery?
    2. Would it be better for science if it were more of an individualistic, competitive enterprise, or a collective, communitarian one?
    • Make sure to compare and contrast the views of Merton, Hull, and Kitcher and to consider feminist criticisms of scientific practice.
    • Make sure to clearly distinguish between descriptive and normative parts of your answer to the question.
  5. In his characterization of the Strong Program in the sociology of science, Bloor suggests symmetry as one of several "tenets for the sociology of scientific knowledge." Explain what Bloor means by symmetry and why it is important for the Strong Program. How does the tenet depart from the more traditional philosophical conceptions of scientific knowledge as a subject of study? Are Bloor's considerations valid or are those of a more traditional philosophical approach? What about a combination?
  6. According to some feminist epistemologists, one's gender affects the way one does science.
    1. What are two ways that have been proposed in which that might be the case?
    2. Does gender play a role in the practice of science? Why or why not? Defend your view, using examples.
    3. Should it? Why or why not? Defend your view, using examples.
    • Be careful to focus on feminist epistemology, not feminist politics.
  7. We spent a lot of time discussing ways in which observation is theory laden and the challenges that poses for simple empiricism. What does it mean to say that observation is “theory laden”? Is the theory-ladenness of observation a problem for empiricism or scientific practice? If so, how can experience be relied upon to do work for science? Use examples from “Edible knowledge” (Collins and Pinch) to illustrate your claims.
  8. Compare Van Fraassen's brand of anti-realism with that of the metaphysical constructivists. Argue either for or against one of the two views. Note that arguing against one of the two views is not the same thing as arguing for the other.
  9. Compare the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation with the causal model of explanation and with the unification model. Which model do you take to be superior and why?
    • Be sure to be fair and accurate in your treatment of all the models.
  10. Analyze, from the viewpoint of Lakatos or that of Laudan, the series of events concerning the study of the chemical transfer of memory described in Collins and Pinch.
  11. Are the different attitudes about the Michelson-Morley experiment described in Collins and Pinch evidence that special relativity and the ether theory are incommensurable?
  12. Show how events in the debate about spontaneous generation in the 1860s provide evidence for Kuhn's ideas about anomalies.
  13. How does Darwin's theory differ from that of Lamarck?
  14. What does Darwin's theory substitute for explanation in terms of “tendencies” and “internal impulses” in biology? Give examples.
  15. What is the Argument from Design? Is it “good science”? Is the theory of evolution “good science”? Who provides a more convincing case: Paley or Darwin? Be sure to explain the views of Paley and Darwin clearly, and to discuss their scientific merits and failings.
  16. Was Darwin's work an incremental change in science, or a revolutionary one? Was it commensurable with what came before it? Explain.
  17. What is the Argument from Design? Did Darwin's work support or undermine it? Give the details
  18. You may write on a topic of your own choosing. You must, however, get the approval of your TA, either in office hours or after class, by 30 November.

Instructions

The paper is due in section on 7 December. The final is 16 December, 11 A.M.–1 P.M. Remember to bring a blue book.

Your paper should be 5–8 typed, double-spaced pages (that is, approximately 1,250–2,000 words, or 6,250–10,000 characters). When you hand in your paper, keep a copy.

Your paper should concern one of the assigned topics, presenting the relevant positions in the philosophy of science clearly and briefly and assessing their strengths and weaknesses using examples from the text. If we can't tell which topic you have chosen by reading your paper, you have not addressed that topic. Note that if you get a position wrong, you are unlikely to assess it well. There is rarely only one correct interpretation of anything, but—whatever your interpretation—you must document it by giving page or line references to the passages on which the interpretation is based. Do not use quotations unless the precise wording of a passage is crucial. Explain the views in your own words.

The paper is not a research paper. You must show that you have read the assignments carefully, thought about them, and made some sense of them. Do not report the views of others. Struggle with the material on your own.

We are not interested in the opinions you express in your paper, only in whether you give good reasons for or against them. Any unargued positions in your paper should be edited out before you hand it in.

In grading we shall take into account the precision with which your thesis is stated, the care with which your interpretations are documented, and the strength of your argumentation. When necessary, show that you understand the merits of competing positions: Don't only consider easily refuted arguments against your position, take account of the best versions. And argue from common ground, that is, from assumptions that will appeal to someone who disagrees with you. (This statement on grading is based on one by Ruey-Yuan Wu.)

If you do consult works other than the assigned text, list them in a bibliography with additional acknowledgment given to any writer who influenced your thinking. If you quote from any work, or paraphrase it, you must note explicitly that you have done so—in the case of direct quotation, the use of quotation marks will suffice. Failure to acknowledge sources or to note quotation or paraphrase constitutes plagiarism—intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise, which is the ultimate academic crime—see the Code of Conduct in the ABOR Policy Manual, beginning at 5-301.C.1 Any cheating, fabrication, or plagiarism may result in a failing grade for the work concerned or for the course, at Professor Lavine's discretion, and he may recommend additional penalties ranging from making the infraction a permanent part of your academic record to expulsion from the University, in accordance with the UA Code of Academic Integrity.

Page references to the assigned texts should be given in parentheses in the body of a paper. Secondary literature should usually be mentioned in footnotes. The Chicago Manual of Style is a useful reference for other matters of style.

The paper will count for 25% of your course grade.

-- ShaughanLavine - 15 Nov 2005