Phil 488: Independent Study: Contemporary Philosophy of Science
(1 credit version)
Professor Patrick R. Frierson
http://people.whitman.edu/~frierspr
Class Meets: Wednesday, 5:30-7, Olin East 123.
Course Purpose: This version of “Contemporary Philosophy of Science” is a one-credit course designed to introduce students to a few key topics in the Philosophy of Science. We will read the most important book in 20th century philosophy of science – Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – and a few of the best articles written in the past few decades. We will discuss general issues in the philosophy of science (such as the nature of scientific “rationality,” whether scientific theories contribute to understanding what is real, the nature of scientific evidence and scientific laws, etc.) as well as some specific issues in the philosophies of physics and of biology. The overall purposes of the course are as follows. Students will
Requirements: Each week, students are responsible for completing the assigned reading, thinking carefully about it, and writing a short response to the reading. Specific paper topics are listed on the timeline below.
Course Timeline
|
Date |
Readings |
Paper Assignment |
|
Jan 20 |
Karl Popper, “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” |
None |
|
Jan 27 |
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Preface and Chapters 1-8 (focus on chapters 2, 3, 5, and 6). |
For this paper, you should defend the thesis: “The most important difference between the philosophies of science of Kuhn and Popper is____.” Your paper should be two paragraphs long. In the first, you should include one quotation from each figure that, in abstract terms, captures what is essential about their philosophy of science; and you should use explanations of these quotations to defend your thesis. In the second, you should choose one particular case study from the history of science (e.g., the nature of Marxist history or the discovery of X-rays) and use this to highlight the difference between them in a way that supports the contentions of one or the other. |
|
Feb. 3 |
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, chapters 9-13. |
Choose one key claim that Kuhn makes in the reading for today. With textual support, explain what this claim is and briefly summarize Kuhn’s evidence or argument for it. Then explain why you think the claim is false, overly simplistic, or in some other way defective. |
|
Feb. 10 |
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Postscript. “Scientific Revolutions,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/ Optional: Thomas Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice” in The Essential Tension (Q175 K954, in Penrose) Karl Popper, “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions” in Scientific Revolutions (Q175.S4, in Penrose) |
Come up with one question you could ask about the readings in the course up until today. Formulate a clear, complex, and controversial thesis that answers that question, and note at least three passages you would use in defending that thesis. Note that in order to be controversial, you should be able to formulate a seemingly good argument against it. In order to be complex, the thesis should provide a structure for the rest of the paper. Given your thesis, the reader should have a good idea of how the rest of your paper will go, that is, what the rest of your paper will need to do. (Something like “Although it might seem like X because of A and B reasons, in fact Y is the case because of C, D, and E reasons” is a complex thesis that tells the reader what’s coming.) |
|
Feb. 17 |
Imre Lakatos, “Science and Psuedoscience” Imre Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” |
For this assignment, let’s work on building and responding to a strong counterargument. First, formulate a thesis based on the readings in the semester so far. (If you can’t think of one, you can try something like “The best way to distinguish science from pseudoscience is _____”, but you could also have a thesis like “Lakatos’s philosophy is not essentially different from Popper’s (or Kuhn’s); he just ____,” or really, any clear, complex, controversial, and interesting thesis. Then, think about how you would defend your thesis, but don’t write this down. Instead, think of the best counterargument to your thesis and clearly articulate that counterargument. Finally, offer your clearest and most concise response to that counterargument. This may involve getting into some of the detail of how you would defend your thesis in general, but focus on specifically addressing the counterargument. |
|
Feb. 24 |
Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What?, pp. 1-35, 63-99 (BD175.H29) David Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery, pp. ix-x, 3-23, 55-62, 157-62, 183-6 (BD175.B57) |
For this assignment, let’s apply theory to a (new) particular case. Draw on your own experience with science (broadly construed) to evaluate the claims of Hacking and Bloor. Clearly explain one key claim that they make and provide an example from your own experience that confirms, rebuts, complicates, or extends that claim. |
|
March 2 |
“Scientific Objectivity,” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Helen Longino, “Scientific
objectivity and the logics of science,” Inquiry
26(1983):85-106 (handout). (Or see the selection
linked here,
with questionable copyright status.) Helen Longino,
“Beyond
‘Bad Science’ |
Comprehensive short paper, part one. Based on the readings
for this part of the semester, write a paper of at least 600 words that
starts with an important question; answers that question with a clear,
controversial, and complex thesis; offers both textual |
|
March 9 |
Evelyn Fox Keller, “Gender in Science: Origin, History, Politics,” Osiris 10 (1995): 26-38, available here. Helen Longino, “Can There Be a Feminist Science” |
Comprehensive short paper, part two. Based on the readings for this part of the
semester, write a paper of at least 1000 words that starts with an important
question; answers that question with a clear, controversial, and complex
thesis; offers both textual For March 9, you should revise the paper in the light of comments from your classmates. |
|
March 30 |
Ernan McMullin, “A Case for Scientific Realism” Bas vanFraassen, “Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” McMullin, “Van Fraassen’s Unappreciated Realism” Van Fraassen, “On McMullin’s Appreciation of Realism” |
Take-a-side paper. For this paper, I want you to take a side in the debate between McMullin and van Frassen regarding scientific realism. What you should NOT do for this paper: Do not simply explain what McMullin’s view is, what vanFrassen’s view is, and then say what your opinion is. What you SHOULD do: Lay out, as rigorously as possible, an argument for one position in the debate (e.g., a McMullin argument for realism or a vanFrassen argument for anti-realism). Then lay out, as rigorously as possible, an objection to that argument, or a strong argument for an alternative position. Then give an argument of your own that contributes to the debate. The result should be a clear defense of your own thesis regarding realism, one that draws from but moves beyond the arguments laid out by vanFrassen and McMullin. |
|
April 6 |
Nancy Cartwright, “The Truth Doesn’t Explain Much Nancy Cartwright, “Do the Laws of Physics State the Facts?”, which is Essay #3 in How The Laws of Physics Lie (I am unsure of the copyright status of this link.) Optional: Nancy Cartwright, “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies” Nancy Cartwright, “Where Do Laws of Nature Come From?” |
Revise your short paper (from March 9th) in the light of our further readings and my comments on your drafts. For the sake of class discussion, also come with an opinion about whether the laws of nature state the facts, and whether it matters. |
|
April 13 |
Peter Godfrey-Smith, The Philosophy of Biology, chapter two (pp. 11-27): “Laws, Mechanisms, and Models.” Peter Turchin, “Does Population Ecology Have General Laws?” |
Integrating two sources. For this short paper, I want you to think about how you can draw on both Cartwright and Godfrey-Smith to defend a thesis about the role of laws in science, but I want you to avoid doing this by taking a side in a debate between them. (That is, don’t just do what you did for McMullin and vanFrassen above.) For example, you might show how Cartwright shows the significance of a point that Godfrey-Smith makes (or vice versa), or how she raises an issue, that he resolves (or vice versa), or how he makes a distinction that clarifies something she said (or vice versa), or . . . . Try to come up with a creative way to bring them into a conversation that is collaborative rather than combative. For this assignment, you needn’t lay out the whole argument, but say enough to show how you are going to use them together, and provide at least two quotations from each source that you would use in a complete paper. |
|
April 20 |
Phillip Kitcher, “1953 and All That: A tale of two sciences” Elliot Sober, “The Multiple Realizability Argument Against Reductionism” Kirschner, Gerhart, and Mitchison, “Molecular ‘Vitalism’” |
Analyze the question. Imagine that you are writing a paper answering the question, “Is cell biology reducible to chemistry?” Write a paragraph or two in which you explain at least three different interpretations of this question and give good reasons for choosing to focus on one of those three interpretations. |
|
April 27 |
Marc Ereshefsky, “Eliminative Pluralism” Kevin de Queiroz, “Species Concepts and Species Delimitation” M.S.Y. Lee, “Species Concepts and Species Reality” Optional: Michael Devitt, “Resurrecting Biological Essentialism” and Ereshefsky, “What’s wrong with the new biological essentialism” “Species,” Stanford Encyclopedea of Philosophy |
Short Paper. For today’s class, you should complete a polished draft of a paper of at least 1500 words. This can be the same paper that you have been working on since March 2, or you can write a new paper. In either case, you should aim to have this be a draft of what will become your final paper, and it should be written as though it is the final draft. This paper should have a clear, complex, and controversial thesis; at least two different ways of interacting with texts (e.g. by arguing against another author, by using an author to clarify your own arguments, etc); ample textual support for claims about texts; ample argumentative support for your own claims; at least one important objection to your thesis and a response to that objection; and a clear conclusion. In addition, your grammar should be excellent, you should have excellent paragraph organization, and the overall flow of the paper should be clear and coherent. |
|
May 4 |
Philosophy of Physics, three options: (1) String Theory and Scientific Realism (a paper by Richard Dawid) (2) Substantivalism, Relationalism, and LIGO (Gravity Waves). Maudlin, “Buckets of Water…”; Weingard, “Metric of General Relativity” (3) Time Travel[1]. Weingard, “General Relativity and Time Travel”, Arntzenius, “Time Travel: Double your fun” |
For this week, I want you to practice two related skills: clearly explaining complex scientific concepts and describing all and only the scientific details that are relevant to your broader philosophical point. So…first, formulate a philosophical thesis the defense of which requires explaining some scientific concepts. Then write an excellent paragraph in which you explain the relevant science (e.g., the basics of general relativity theory or string theory). Then cut from that paragraph all details that are not actually relevant to the philosophical point you want to make. Turn in a copy of the paragraph, and a brief explanation of why you explained the scientific concepts that you did in the way that you did. |
|
May 11 |
No reading; work on final papers. |
For this class, each of you will be expected to give a polished 3-4 minute summary of the central claim in your final paper and very brief sketch of your central argument for that claim. We will spend the remainder of class in small groups talking about those final papers. A final draft of
your final paper is due no later than May 15 (at midnight). |