Topics for the First Paper

1. What is empiricism? Explain thoroughly. What is external world skepticism? Hume's problem of inductive skepticism? Why are these problems for empiricism? How might an empiricist reply to each of the problems? Are the replies successful?
2. What is the observational–theoretical distinction? What does it have to do with logical positivism? Describe a serious problem with the distinction, using examples. How might one respond to the problem? Is there a clear distinction between the observational and the theoretical?
3. What is the analytic–synthetic distinction? What does it have to do with logical positivism? What is the most serious problem with the distinction? (Use at least one example.) How might one respond to the problem? Is there a clear distinction between the analytic and the synthetic?
4. What is induction? What is a formal theory of induction, and why did the logical positivists and empiricists want one? What are the two problems with the distinction that Goodman discussed? How might a logical empiricist reply to one or both of the problems? Is the reply successful?
5. How are induction and deduction alike and unlike? How do the similarities and dissimilarities affect the roles induction and deduction play in logical positivism and logical empiricism?
6. The logical positivists and empiricists believed that the only source of scientific knowledge is observation, and that all observation is describable in observational language, but they never reached an agreement about where to draw the line between observational and theoretical language. Did that indicate a fundamental problem with logical empiricism?
7. Logical positivists contended that what makes a hypothesis meaningful is that it is testable. Quine thinks that you cannot test a single hypothesis in isolation. Can they both be correct? Give an example of a scientific experiment used to test a hypothesis and explain what the logical positivists would say about the test and what Quine would say about it.
8. The logical empiricists tried to devise a formal inductive logic. Goodman's "New Riddle of Induction" is an attempt to show that there cannot be a formal inductive logic. What feature would a formal inductive logic have to have that Goodman tries to show it cannot? Does he succeed?
9. Compare and contrast the roles observation and experiment play for the development of scientific theories according to the logical empiricists and according to Popper.
10. According to Kuhn, scientific theories fail experimental tests all the time, but we hold on to them anyway. Why?
11. You may write on a topic of your own choosing. You must, however, get the approval of your TA, either in office hours or after class, by 16 September.

Instructions

The paper is due in section on 28 September. The midterm is 3 October. Remember to bring a blue book.

You should consult How to Write a Philosophy Paper before beginning to write your paper.

Your paper should be 5–8-page typed, double-spaced papers (that is, approximately 1,250–2,000 words, or 6,250–10,000 characters in length). When you hand in a paper, keep a copy.

Your paper should concern one of the assigned topics, presenting the relevant positions in the philosophy of science clearly and briefly and assessing their strengths and weaknesses using examples from the texts. Note that if you get a position wrong, you are unlikely to assess it well. There is rarely only one correct interpretation of anything, but—whatever your interpretation—you must document it by giving page or line references to the passages on which the interpretation is based. Do not use quotations unless the precise wording of a passage is crucial. Explain the views in your own words.

The papers for the course are not primarily research papers. You may do supplementary research if you wish, but the main requirement is that you must show that you have read the relevant texts carefully, thought about them, and made some sense of them. Do not report the views of others. Struggle with the texts on your own.

Page references to the assigned texts should be given in parentheses in the body of a paper. When you consult works other than the assigned texts, list them in a bibliography with additional acknowledgment given to any writer who influenced your thinking. The Chicago Manual of Style is a useful reference for other matters of style. If you quote from any work, paraphrase it, or your work has been substantially influenced by it, you must note that explicitly—in the case of direct quotation, the use of quotation marks will suffice. Failure to acknowledge sources or to note quotation or paraphrase constitutes plagiarism—intentionally or knowingly representing the words or ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise, which is the ultimate academic crime—see the Code of Conduct in the ABOR Policy Manual, beginning at 5-301.C.ShaughanLavine - 14 Sep 2007 - 06:36 - 1.1 " class="twikiCurrentTopicLink twikiAnchorLink">¹ Any cheating, fabrication, or plagiarism may result in a failing grade for the work concerned or for the course, at Professor Lavine's discretion, and he may recommend additional penalties ranging from making the infraction a permanent part of your academic record to expulsion from the University, in accordance with the UA Code of Academic Integrity.

The paper will count for 40% of your course grade

-- ShaughanLavine - 11 Sep 2005-- ShaughanLavine - 14 Sep 2007

ShaughanLavine - 14 Sep 2007 - 06:36 - 1.1 " class="twikiCurrentTopicLink twikiAnchorLink">¹In writing the instructions, I have drawn liberally on previous ones of others, especially those of Healey, Kent, Lindt, Nichols, Reimer, and Yool, sometimes using extensive passages verbatim. Additional passages have been adapted or excerpted from various University of Arizona statements of policy. The topics were written by Shaughan Lavine, William Braynen, David Glick, Daniel Sanderman, Sara Bernstein, Jake Daly, Helen Haberman, and Victor Kumar.