Phil 492/Biol 492: Philosophy of Science Seminar
Spring 2004
Professor David A. Salomon
Paper One

Choose ONE and only one of the following questions. Answer it in a complete and thoughtful essay. Your essay should be a well-developed, clear, logical and complete idea developed from a definite thesis statement. Use texts where appropriate (and helpful) to support your answer. You need not consult secondary sources for this paper, but if you do, give credit for the information you use. Use the conventions of good essay writing; if you have doubts as to what those are, either see the instructor, check Thinking and Writing About Philosophy, and/or visit the Writing Center.

Essays should be typed (double-spaced) and approximately 7-9 pages in length. At least 7 full pages is needed to answer any of these questions in any kind of depth; more than that is undoubtedly necessary. Address the questions with the kind of depth and thoroughness that we have been using in seminar meetings. Papers must 12 point Times New Roman font, be double-spaced, and follow proper format. This paper is due on Friday, April 23. Papers must be submitted on time. Papers handed in late will receive a one grade deduction for each class late. I will be happy to look at drafts ahead until the end of the day on April 20; in fact, I encourage it!

Read the questions carefully. Proofread your work. All papers must have a clear thesis.

You can alter any definitions as you see fit to answer these questions so long as you explain those alterations up-front and give valid reasons why you need to impose those alterations.

1) Popper has as one of his goals the establishment of a method to distinguish good science from bad science. Discuss Popper's various criteria for good science. Discuss why astrology is considered a "bad science," according to Popper. Discuss whether or not Popper's criteria successfully separate all "real science" from all "pseudoscience."

2) Popper’s Conjectures and Refutations seems to present a complete epistemology. He writes "There are no ultimate sources of knowledge" (36). In a clearly written essay, outline Popper’s epistemology as it relates to the philosophy of science. What are the primary issues and/or problems? What are Popper’s most significant solutions and/or suggestions?

3) Consider the current weapons inspection process in Iraq as a scientific problem. What is the hypothesis under test? What are the methods that ought to be employed? Does everyone involved agree on the answers to these questions? Why or why not? What would Popper and/or Kuhn have to say about the problem?

4) Apply Kuhn’s concept of the scientific revolution to a discipline other than science. How might such an application (be specific) help improve our understanding of Kuhn’s concept?

5) Kuhn argues, at the end of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that science does not progress in the sense of getting closer and closer to the truth about the world. Indeed, he apparently rejects the idea that the idea of "the truth about the world" actually makes sense. Scientific theories or paradigms may be better and worse in various ways, but not in the sense of being closer to or further away from the truth. According to Kuhn, the aim of normal science is puzzle solving. The aim of medical research appears to be primarily finding cures for human ailments. Does this mean that medicine is not a scientific discipline?