History and Philosophy of Science

PHL 339: History and Philosophy of Science

Winter 2018

Essay #1 Prompts

Due Wednesday, February 7

Write a 3 to 4 page, double-spaced typed, critical essay on any one question. Consult at

least five other sources including our course textbook, and list all sources on a separate

page.

Formatting guidelines for writing assignment: The following applies to all written

assignments:

 Use APA, MLA, or Chicago writing standards to cite sources; include a reference
page at the end.

 Essay must be typed, double-spaced on standard-sized paper (8.5″ x 11″) with 1″
margins on all sides. Use a clear font that is highly readable. I recommends using 12

pt. Times New Roman font. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

 Include headers with your last name and page number.
 Late assignment: Subtract 5 points for each late day.
 Please turn in hardcopies of all written assignments. You can submit an

electronic copy via email to avoid late penalty, but you must still bring a hard

copy.

1. The author James Ladyman defines logic as ‘the study of reasoning abstracted from what

that reasoning is about.’ What are the two types of reasoning we discussed in class?

Briefly explain each type of reasoning with examples. What are some of the similarities

and differences between the two types of reasoning?

2. Francis Bacon, often called the father of modern philosophy of science, challenged

Aristotle’s science and advocated for strong inductive reasoning for reaching conclusions

about things. He lists what he calls four Idols of the Mind that could get in the way of

rightful inductive reasoning. List and briefly outline the main ideas of each Idol.

3. Scientific knowledge derives its credibility from its method, principally inductive

method. Briefly describe the central tenets of inductive method. Briefly outline the

central argument launched by the Scottish philosopher David Hume against inductive

reasoning. Conclude your response with your own analysis of Hume’s criticism of

inductive reasoning-do you agree or disagree with his criticism?

4. What does Karl Popper mean when he argues that falsifiability is the assertion that for

any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become

accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory? Explain the idea of falsification with an

example. Popper claims that falsification overcomes the problem of induction. Do you

agree? Critically evaluate.

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Writing a philosophy paper

Three parts:
1. Introduction and thesis: Context and what you plan to argue for
2. Body of the essay: develop your thesis logically and systematically, provide evidence/support
from scholarly sources, and cite sources properly
3. Conclusion: upshot of your argument
4. Bibliography/work cited page (on a separate page)

Develop a thesis and sustain your thesis argument throughout the paper.
Your essay should be organized in terms of a thesis that emphasizes an argument, rather than a mere summary of the texts or a general theme. Essays that are not built on a thesis tend to summarize the text and to wander aimlessly from point to point.  

Your conclusion should accomplish three major goals:
Restate the main idea of your essay, or your thesis statement.
Summarize the three subpoints of your essay.
Leave the reader with an interesting final impression.

Sample introductory paragraphs

Values and Science: An Argument for Why They Cannot Be Separated
Josh Reeves
A distinction between facts and values is often assumed when people in the modern West talk about science. The biologist Stephen Gould, for example, famously argued that religion covers questions of meaning and moral value, but science deals with empirical facts. This paper challenges the traditional fact/value distinction by questioning the presuppositions about science upon which it depends. It begins by describing the origins of the fact/value distinction in the Scientific Revolution and then gives three reasons for the inseparability of facts and values in scientific inquiry, drawing upon themes from the “practice turn” in recent scholarship on the sciences.
Theology and Science, Volume 14, 2016 – Issue 2

Conclusion
My paper argues that the fact/value distinction is mistaken because it depends on faulty assumptions about science, specifically the intellectualist image of science that was presumed by its advocates…Belief in value-free science is not only mistaken, it can be dangerous because science in the last century has become too large and powerful to leave it alone…Understanding science as an activity refigures the debates on fact and values, and raises all sorts of value questions: who is making decisions about where a scientist should explore? What are their interests, and do they represent the larger society?…In the end, facts and values are inseparable in scientific inquiry because of the nature of those who undertake the research.

The Epistemic Status of Evolutionary Theory
Gijsbert van den Brink, Jeroen de Ridder & René van Woudenberg
The theory of evolution continues to be a bone of contention among certain groups of theistic believers. This paper aims to bring some light to the debate about it, by introducing a framework for epistemic appraisal which can provide a realistic and sober assessment of the epistemic credentials of the various parts of evolutionary theory. The upshot is a more nuanced epistemic appraisal of the theory of evolution, which shows that there are significant differences in epistemic standing between its various parts. Any serious conversation about the theory of evolution ought to reflect these facts.
Theology and Science , Volume 15, 2017 – Issue 4

Conclusion
Where does all this leave us? We hope to have shown that it makes little sense to speak in a general and unqualified manner about the merits or problems of “the theory of evolution.” The theory has at least three layers or parts, which ought to be distinguished, not only for analytical purposes, but also because there are very different strands of evidence bearing on them…While there can be little doubt that the mechanism of natural selection operating on random mutations is one of the forces that drive evolution, it is controversial in contemporary biology whether it is the only or most important one. Hence, the thesis of Natural Selection as we have formulated at best has some presumption in its favor, as it has long been the orthodox view.