Phil 340: Philosophical Problems

Contemporary Philosophy of Science

 

Professor Patrick R. Frierson

frierspr@whitman.edu

http://people.whitman.edu/~frierspr

 

Class Meets: Wednesday, 6:30 – 9 PM in Olin 155.

My Office Hours: 2:30–3:30 PM Tuesday, 11–12 AM Wednesday, 9–10 AM Thursday

 

 

Course Purpose: “Contemporary Philosophy of Science” is an advanced seminar in the philosophy of science.  In the course, we will read several of the best recent articles and selections from several of the best books 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

  • learn to think philosophically about the nature of science and about specific issues that arise in the sciences
  • gain skills in expressing themselves orally and in writing
  • practice reading, processing, summarizing, and critically reflecting on challenging writing in philosophy (of science)
  • learn how to engage with scientific texts in the context of philosophical reflection on them
  • develop an acquaintance with important literature in recent philosophy of science
  • learn how to find further reading relating to the philosophy of science and particular issues in the philosophy of science
  • form their own views about important issues in the philosophy of science

 

Course Texts:

These texts should be available in the Whitman College Bookstore.

 

Course Requirements:

  • Reading and Participation.  (This requirement is NOT optional.)  By far the most important part of the course is your regular participation in class discussions.  This class is a group effort, and what you gain out of this course will depend upon what you and your classmates put into the course.  A failure to prepare for class not only hurts you but also your classmates.  Thus I am prepared to significantly reduce the grades of students who fail to prepare adequately for class.  In order to participate at the minimal level that I expect, you need to have read, reread, and carefully reflected on all of the assigned readings and read and carefully reflected and commented on the seminar paper for the day.  (This means that your copy of the seminar paper should be covered with notes and comments, and you should come to every class with specific questions, criticisms, and/or suggestions for its author.)  This is a seminar that meets only once a week, but I expect you do to at least as much reading for it as for a seminar that meets more often.  Unfortunately, there is often a tendency to put off reading until shortly before class, at which point the amount of reading that I require of you will seem (and will actually be) quite overwhelming.  I strongly encourage you to read as much of the assigned reading as possible before the weekend in order to have time to finish it and then to reread it before our seminar meets on Wednesday.

 

  • Seminar Paper (up to 30 points):  (This requirement is NOT optional.)  Each week, our class period will be divided into two parts.  We will always start the class by discussing a significant piece of work by one of you.  That means that each week, one of you will be responsible for writing a paper (2000-4000 words).  This paper should engage with all or most of the readings for the day, but it may focus on whatever topic from the readings you find most interesting, and should emphasize those readings most appropriate to that topic.  Your papers should be well refined papers that defend a clear thesis using clear and convincing argument, and they should raise and address the most important possible objections or alternatives to the view that you defend.

 

Seminar papers are DUE at 7 PM on the SATURDAY preceding the seminar for which they are written.  This ensures that students (especially the commentator) will have sufficient time to comment on the papers before the seminar.  Papers that are late will suffer a reduction in grade of 1 point per hour.  (This reduction will also apply to your average score for grading purposes; see below.)

 

The Philosophy Writing Tutor (see http://www.williams.edu/philosophy/faculty/jcruz/writingtutor/), though written for papers in introductory classes, gives a good sense for how to go about writing a philosophy paper.  As you will see from that Tutor, writing good papers requires many drafts and (therefore) a lot of time.  I very strongly encourage you to start these papers as far ahead of time as possible.  You will all sign up on the first day of class for the week that you will need to write a paper.  You do not need to wait until that week to begin working on your paper.

 

I also strongly encourage you to meet with me to discuss the papers before they are due.  (Although it is not listed as a regular office hour, I have set aside 2:30-3 on Thursdays to meet with students working on their seminar papers.)  If drafts are emailed to me by 9 am on Friday morning, I will also comment on them (usually by Friday afternoon). 

 

·         Seminar Presentation (up to 20 points):  (This requirement is NOT optional.) Our discussion each week will begin with a presentation by one of you.  The presentation should focus on the seminar paper written for that day’s class.  You should be constructively critical of the paper.  You should raise significant objections and suggest ways that the argument can be fruitfully developed.  You should feel free to connect your comments on the paper with your own interests, but the focus should be on the arguments and ideas in the seminar paper.  Your comments should not take longer than 10 minutes. In addition, you should come with specific questions to guide discussion for the first part of the class.  (This might include passages from the reading that you want to read closely in the context of the seminar paper, or passages from the seminar paper that you want to look at more closely.)

 

If you are leading discussion, I strongly recommend that you meet with me prior to class in order to discuss the presentation.  I have set aside the period from 3:30—4 on Tuesday afternoon for these meetings.  If you have a conflict during this time, I can usually meet from 4-4:30.  If neither time is available for you, you need to let me know that at least one week ahead of time so that we can arrange an alternative time to meet.

 

  • Weekly Short Papers (up to 10 points each):  (This requirement IS optional.[1]) Each week, students may submit a short comment of 500-1000 words laying out the key theses and arguments of the readings for the week (including the seminar paper), the central issues in dispute between the different authors we read, your own view on these central issues, and questions that you have about the reading.  (I will aim to answer these questions, either during class or in comments on your short paper.)  These short papers should be emailed to me no later than 9 AM on the day of our seminar.

 

  • Book or Literature Review (up to 30 points): (This requirement IS optional.)  At any point up until the last day of class, you may complete either a book review or a literature review of up to 3500 words.  You should generally choose a book that has been written within the last 25 years (exceptions can be made if warranted); models for the kinds of review that I have in mind can be found at http://ndpr.nd.edu.  For a literature review, you should choose a particular issue in the philosophy of science and use the Philosopher’s Index (available in online resources at Penrose) to look up recent books and articles in that area.  Write an overview of the key philosophers and philosophical stances taken with respect to that issue recently.

 

  • Final Paper (up to 100 points): (This requirement IS optional.)  The final paper should be a substantial piece of original philosophical work in the philosophy of science.  It is appropriate to do additional reading beyond the texts in the course, but this is not necessary.  You should think of this paper as a kind of “mini-thesis.”  The paper must show a thorough understanding of any arguments from our readings this semester that relate to the topic about which you chose to write.   In addition, you must present your own ideas and defend them with appropriate and effective argument.  The final version of this paper should be 3000-6000 words.  I strongly encourage you to turn in a rough draft of your final paper (the draft due date is Nov. 30).  I will get comments on this draft back within three days, and you will then have time to revise the draft before turning in the final version.  The purpose of this paper is to give you the opportunity to develop your own views about an important issue in contemporary philosophy of science and to engage in a sustained philosophical defense of those views.  The final paper is due on the last day of class.

 

 

Procedure for turning in papers:  All papers must be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu by the time they are due.  Papers for public distribution (i.e. seminar papers) should be emailed to the entire class.  Papers must be emailed in .DOC (Word) format.  If you have a Mac, be sure to save your paper in a PC friendly format.  When you send you paper to me, you should save the paper with the following title format: [FirstName LastName PaperTypeAndNumber].  For example, when I turn in the weekly short paper for week three, I will entitle the document “Patrick Frierson Weekly Paper 3.doc”.  I would entitle the book review “Patrick Frierson Book Review.doc”.  Papers turned in with any other name will be considered late.


 

Grading:  Your grade for this course will be based on a combination of the total number of points that you earn in the course and the (weighted[2]) average score on your assignments.  I will also modify your final grade – sometimes downward – based on course participation.  Each assignment will be scored from 1-10, according to the criteria laid out in my “Grading Criteria.”  (As you will see on that sheet, you should not expect to get higher than an 8 on these assignments, no matter how good a student you are.)  The number of points that you get on each assignment will be based on this score.  For example, a score of 6 on a seminar paper is worth 18 points, a score of 4 on the final paper is worth 40 points, and a score of 9 on a weekly paper is worth 9 points.  Grades will be given out as follows (all grades higher that F require the completion of both a seminar paper and a presentation):

 

A

Weighted average of at least 7 and at least 175 points total

A-

Average of at least 7 with at least 105 points total; or an average of at least 6 with at least 165 points total

B+

Average of at least 6 with at least 80 points total; or an average of at least 5 with at least 150 points total

B

Average of at least 5 and at least 75 points total

B-

Average of at least 4.5 and at least 75 points total

C+

Average of at least 4.3 and at least 75 points total

C

Average of at least 4 and at least 70 points total

C-

Average of at least 4 and at least 65 points total

D

Average of at least 3 and at least 40 points

F

Any average score of 3 or below or any total number of points below 40 or failure to complete non-optional course requirements (see above)

 

What this means is that, to some extent, more work can make up for lower scores on individual assignments; and an insufficient amount of work, no matter how excellently done, cannot earn a good grade.[3]  It also means, for those of you not quite as quick with numbers, that you can get an A- in the course if you do the required seminar paper and presentation and either the regular weekly papers or the final paper (as long as you do sufficiently well on them), but that in order to get a solid A, you will almost certainly need to do both regular weekly assignments and the final paper (and do well on all of them).  Go figure; it’s hard to get an A.

Course Timeline[4]

 

Date

Readings (from Curd and Cover unless otherwise noted)

Topics

August 29
  • pp. 7, 11-12, 23-24 (top ¶), 25-26, handouts in class

Science vs. Psuedo-Science

Sept. 5

Induction

Sept. 12
  • pp. 3-19, 83-118, 139-56
  • Stephen Toulmin, “Does the Distinction Between Revolutionary and Normal Science Hold Water?”, pp. 39-47 in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Q175.I514, on reserve)
  • Karl Popper, “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions” in Scientific Revolutions (Q175.S4, on reserve)
  • OPTIONAL: pp. 156-209
  • OPTIONAL: Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, entire (Q175.K95, on reserve)

Kuhn and Scientific Objectivity

Sept. 19
  • pp. 170-91, 257-79, 119-138
  • OPTIONAL: pp. 280-301
  • OPTIONAL: pp. 302-319

Scientific Objectivity, cont.

Sept. 26
  • pp. 119-138, 1049 – 1087, 1114-1136, 865-877.

Scientific Realism

Oct. 3
  • pp. 1153-1185
  • Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What?, pp. 1-35, 63-99 (BD175.H29, on reserve)
  • David Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery, pp. ix-x, 3-23, 55-62, 157-62, 183-6 (BD175.B57, on reserve)

Experimental Realism and Social Constructivism

(for your short papers, you need write on only one of these topics)

Oct. 10
  • pp. 1186-1225
  • Arthur Fine, “And Not Anti-Realism Either” in Nous 18 (1984): 51-65, available on JSTOR here.

The Natural Ontological Attitude

Oct. 17
  • Michael Friedman, Dynamics of Reason, pp. 3-68, 93-103
  • “Kant’s Philosophy of Science,” by Eric Watkins, entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available online here.

Kantian Philosophy of Science

Oct. 24
  • Helen Longino, “Can there be a Feminist Science?” in Women, Knowledge, and Reality (ed. Ann Garry, Marilyn Pearsall, HQ1190.W688, on reserve)
  • Evelyn Fox Keller, “Feminism and Science” in Feminism and Science (ed. Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen Longino, Q175.5.F455)
  • Bonnie Spanier, selections (to be determined) from Im/partial Science: Gender Ideology in Molecular Biology (QH506.S66)

Feminist Philosophy of Science

Oct. 31
  • pp. 903-1003

Reductionism in Science

Nov. 7
  • P. Kosso, ch. 6, pp. 133–151 and ch. 7, pp.152–163 of Appearance and Reality (QC6.K62, on reserve)
  • Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ Physical Review 47, 777-780, available online here.
  • N. Bohr, ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’ Physical Review 48, 696-702, available online here.
  • H. Folse, “Bohr on Bell” pp. 254–271 in J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin (eds.) Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. Reflections on Bell’s theorem (QC 174.12 .P43, on reserve)

Philosophy of Physics[5]

Nov. 14
  • pp. 295-347 from Philosophy of Biology (ed. David Hull and Michael Ruse, QH 331 P468, on reserve; this selection is also available for a limited time by clicking here.)
  • Marc Ereshefsky, “Eliminative Pluralism,” Philosophy of Science 59 (1992): 671-690, available here.

Philosophy of Biology

Nov. 28
  • pp. 371-382, 414-436, Philosophy of Biology (ed. David Hull and Michael Ruse, QH 331 P468, on reserve.  These are not available on ereserve, so you’ll have to read them in the library.)
  • David Hull, “On Human Nature,” PSA 1986: 3-18, available here.
  • Evelyn Fox Keller, “Gender in Science: Origin, History, Politics,” Osiris 10 (1995): 26-38, available here.

Human Nature

Dec. 5
  • No reading: Work on your final papers!

Catch up, Conclude

 

 

 


[1] What I mean here by “optional” will be made clearer below.  Requirements that are not optional must be completed in order for a student to pass the course.  Optional requirements contribute to the total number of points that a student accumulates, and thus to the students’ grade, but no particular one of these is strictly required.  (That said, a student must complete at least some of the optional assignments to get enough points for a passing grade.)

[2] In other words, if you get a 7 on your seminar paper and a 3 on a weekly assignment, the weighted average of these would be [(7*30) + (3*10)]/40 = 6.

[3] If you do only the required work (the seminar paper and presentation) and do exceptionally well one it (getting a 9 average), you will end up with only 45 points, which is a D.

[4] In putting together this timeline, I benefited greatly from recent syllabi by Helen Longino (at Stanford) and Tom Howard (at Notre Dame).

[5] In putting together this day’s class, I borrowed heavily from Michela Massimi (University College London)