Study Questions Updated + Finals Week Office Hours

I have just now updated the study questions for the final exam by removing questions #10 and #11.

My office hours for finals week will be:

M 10:10 am - Noon
T 10:10 am - 11:00 am
W 10:10 am -11:00 am

Preparing for Wed 7 Mar

On Wed 7 Mar, we will finish our discussion of Taylor and dedicate some time toward a review that will help you prepare for the final exam. To this end, please be sure to download, read carefully, and think about the Final Exam Study questions that are now posted on PolyLearn.

If you have a response paper due, you must write on the Putnam article "Objectivity and the Science/Ethics Dinstinction."

Preparing for Mon 5 Mar

Because I missed class last Wednesday, on Mon 5 Mar we will cover the material for that class (see previous post). Having now read all your response papers, I will begin our discussions tomorrow by reviewing some important details of the difference between Kitcher and van Fraassen before moving our discussion to the views of Boyd and Taylor.

Preparing for Wed 29 Feb

On Wed 29 Feb, we will continue our discussion of Boyd's article. Pay particular attention to his notion of homeostatic consequentialism. We will also discuss the reading by Charles Taylor now posted on PolyLearn.

Before you start reading the Taylor article, please read the "Guide for Reading Taylor," which includes some reading questions and some background material.

Reminder: If you are writing a response paper this week, you must write on the Taylor article.

Preparing for Mon 27 Feb

On Mon 27 Feb we will discuss Kitcher's "Realism and Scientific Progress" (Chpt. 32). As some of you know, Kitcher's article is largely as response to van Fraassen's anti-realism.

We will then begin discussing foundational issues that explore the relationship between philosophy of science and ethics. We will begin by discussing Richard Boyd's "How to be a moral realist" (posted on PolyLearn). Please be sure to read this selection before class.

Preparing for Wed 22 Feb - Readings + Response Papers

On Wed 22 Feb we will not only discuss the van Fraassen article, on which you are all commenting, but we will also discuss two other articles (see below).

If you have a response paper due this week (check the recently posted "Guidelines for Response Papers II"), you should write a response to Chpt. 32 by Kitcher, "Realism and Scientific Progress."

Here's how to prepare for Wednesday's class:

1. Be sure you have posted a comment or two on the forum concerning Chpt. 31 by van Fraassen NO LATER THAN the end of 21 Feb 2012.
2. Read the first paragraph of Chpt. 30 (p. 317) by Putnam and beginning with "Let us return to the topic of realism..." (p. 319) to the end of the article. The main things you want to understand are (a) How does Putnam characterize scientific realism and (b) According to Putnam, what is the most compelling argument in favor of scientific realism?
3. Read Chpt. 32 by Kitcher. Try to understand (a) What are the main arguments Kitcher presents against van Fraassen's view? (b) Is Kitcher a realist or an anti-realist? How do you know?

Please remember that response papers are due at the beginning of class on Wednesday.

Preparing for Wed 22 Feb - Special Assignment!

For Wed 22 Feb, you are all required to complete the special assignment I have just posted on PolyLearn. It requires that you read Chpt. 31 and make meaningful contributions an on-line class discussion on a forum. I'll be moderating the discussion and look forward to your contributions!

Please visit the PolyLearn website for further instructions.
 
Note: You must complete this special assignment before Wed 22 Feb.

Preparing for Wed 15 Feb

On Wed 15 Feb we will continue discussing the issue of scientific paradigms but from a rather different perspective. To prepare for Wednesday's class, please do the following.

Read

• Hacking, Chpt. 21
• Feyerabend, Chpt. 22

Think About

1. What is the main point Hacking is trying to make about Kuhn's view of scientific rationality?
2. Why does Hacking think that scientific revolutions do not question rationality?
3. What are the two main meanings of "paradigm" according to Hacking and what does he say about each one?
4. Why is the selection by Feyerabend titled "An argument against method"?
5. According to Feyerabend, how is the view that there is only one method in science related to humanism?
6. According to Feyerabend, why should the only method in science be "anything goes"?

Preparing for Mon 13 Feb

On Mon 13 Feb, we will be discussing Kuhn's famous philosophical account of scientific change, from which the notion of a "paradigm shift" entered our vocabulary. To prepare for Monday's class, please do the following.

Read

• Chpt. 19, "The Nature of Normal Science"
• Chpt. 20, "The Nature of Revolutionary Science"

Think About - Chpt. 19

1. According to Kuhn, what are the main features of normal science?
2. Why is normal science like a puzzle? 
3. Can you think or find a genuine example (from science) that fits Kuhn's description of normal science as puzzle solving?
4. What kind of commitments does scientists derive from a "paradigm"? Does this help us articulate what we mean by a "paradigm?" If so, what are the key elements of a "paradigm"?

Think About - Chpt. 20

1. What is a scientific revolution and how is it analogous to a political revolution?
2. What events lead to the end of normal science and the beginning of a scientific revolution?
3. Why is the debate between the revolutionary party and the establishment (in a scientific revolution) one that cannot be arbitrated by reason (according to Kuhn, of course)?
4. In what sense is a scientific theory and its successor incompatible or incommensurable?
5. In what sense does Kuhn think it is correct to say that the laws of Einsteinian physics do not reduce to the laws of Newtonian physics? What is the philosophical significance of this?

Preparing for Mon 6 Feb - Read Carefully

On Mon 6 Feb, you will be doing group work to help each other prepare for the mid-term exam (on Wed 8 Feb).

To prepare for this activity, please download the Study Questions now posted on PolyLearn and prepare answers to as many questions as you can.  Focus on the quality, not quantity, of your answers.

Preparing for Wed 1 Feb

On Wed 1 Feb, we will devote the entire class to a discussion of Quine's holism. To prepare for Wednesday's class, please do the following.

Read

• Section V of "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" -- posted on PolyLearn
• "Holism, Part I" -- Chpt. 9 -- This is Section VI of Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
• "Holism, Part II" -- Chpt. 10

Think About

1. How is Quine's rejection of verificationism related to his holism?
2. How is Quine's holism related to Duhem's holism?
3. What, according to Quine, are the principles that govern how we make changes to our "web of beliefs"?
4. Is Quine correct that any proposition is revisable in light of a recalcitrant experience? Why or why not?

NOTE: If you are writing a response paper for this Wednesday, you must write on Chpt. 10.

Preparing for Mon 30 Jan

On Mon 30 Jan, we will begin discussing the problem of underdetermination. To prepare for Monday's class, please do the following.

Read

• Duhem Chpt. 7 - Read this carefully
• Quine, Chpt. 9 - Start reading this

Think About

• What is the main argument Duhem presents to support the view that statements in physics are never tested in isolation?
• Why does Duhem believe that there is no such thing as a crucial experiment in physics?
• Does Duhem's view have any consequences for scientific realism? Why or why not?

NOTE: If you are writing a response paper for this Wednesday, you must write on Chpt. 10.

Preparing for Wed 25 Jan

On Wed 25 Jan, we will revisit the article by Maxwell (Chpt. 4) and go on to discuss van Fraassen's article (Chpt. 5). As the title of his article suggests, van Fraassen is interested in defending the distinction between observables and unobservables even though he agrees that the distinction between observation terms and theoretical terms is not well-founded (remember: language vs. world!).

Read

• Maxwell, Chpt 4.
• van Fraassen, Chpt. 5

Think About

• What are the main arguments Maxwell presents and what philosophical position is he trying to defend?
• Why does van Fraassen believe that the distinction between theoretical terms and observation terms is not well-founded?
• According to van Fraassen, what guidelines can we use for distinguishing observables from unobservables? Do his guidelines work? What consequences do they have?
• Why does van Fraassen think the distinction between observables vs. unobservables is related to the issue of scientific realism?

Preparing for Monday 23 Jan

On Mon 23 Jan, we will focus primarily on Putnam's article (Chpt. 3). Although the article is only four pages long, it has several important and somewhat subtle philosophical arguments. The most important thing to remember while you read the Putnam article is the distinction between language and wold that we have discussed.

If we have time, we will begin our discussion of the article by Maxwell (Chpt. 4)

Read

• Putnam, Chpt. 3 - study this one very carefully.
• Maxwell, Chpt. 4

Think about

• How does Putnam reach the conclusion that there are no observation terms and why should this matter to logical positivists?
• According to Putnam, why is it significant that lots of terms that refer to "unobservables" are not theoretical terms and how does he reach this conclusion?
• According to Putnam, why is it significant that there are theoretical terms that refer to observables?

Notes about Logical Positivism now available

 Since some of you have asked, I have now posted the PowerPoint slides from which I taught both the background to Logical Positivism and Logical Positivism itself. You can find these slides (as PDF files) in the PolyLearn site for your section.

Response Paper for Wed 18 Jan

 If your first response paper is due this Wed 18 Jan, your essay should be on Kitcher's "The Unification Model of Scientific Explanation" (Chpt. 17)

Preparing for Tues 17 Jan

 On Tues 17 Jan, we will begin our discussion of scientific explanation. As you will see from the readings, the logical positivists tried tried to use their account of scientific theories to give an account of scientific explanation.

Read

• Hempel & Oppenheimer - Chpt. 16
• Okasha - Chpt. 3

Think About

• What are the main features that Hempel & Oppenheimer think all scientific explanations share in common?
• Do all scientific explanations satisfy the criteria set out by Hempel & Oppenheim?
• Are there arguments that satisfy the criteria set out by Hempel & Oppenheim but which are not scientific explanations?

 

Reponse Paper Guidelines and Due Dates

Response papers will always be due on a Wednesday. The precise due date for your paper depends on your surname. Please visit the PolyLearn site and download the Response Paper Guidelines, which includes the due dates for both sections. Please make sure you know which section you are in!

Preparing for Wed 11 Jan

We covered a lot of philosophical ground last class. Do look over your notes and come prepared to ask me questions if you are unclear about anything.

During Wednesday's class, I'll begin by talking about how the development of special relativity influenced the logical positivists. We will then discuss the details of how the logical positivists answer the question "What is a scientific theory?"

To prepare for Wednesday's class, please do the following.

Read

• Chpt. 1 - Rosenberg
• Chpt. 2 - Suppe

Think About

• What are the main philosophical elements of logical positivism?

Preparing for Mon 9 Jan

On Monday 9 January we will discuss some of the relevant philosophical background to logical positivism. We will talk about a variety of important figures in the history of philosophy and science including Descartes, Newton, Hume, and Kant. However, the assigned (required) reading is about Hume's philosophy. The rest you'll learn in class. To prepare for Monday's class, please do the following.

Read

• Okasha, Chpt. 1 and 2 (recommended)
• Salmon, W., "An Encounter with David Hume" -- Posted on the PolyLearn web site for your section.

Think About

• How does Hume's analysis of causation shed light on the certainty of scientific knowledge?
• What is Hume's problem of induction, and why is it a problem?

Welcome

This blog will contain entries describing what you should do to prepare for each class. Reading assignments and reading questions will be posted here.

All documents for this course, including the course syllabus and class schedule, will be posted on the corresponding PolyLearn website.