1
Philosophy 452: Philosophy of Science Dr. Jacquelyn Ann Kegley
Office: Faculty Towers 103-D 664-2249/2291 Fax: 665-6904
E-mail: (I do not accept any assigned work by e-mail)
Website: http://www.csubak.edu/~jkegley
Office Hours: Mon. 9-12 and 6-7 p.m.; Wednesday 8-9; and Tues. 1-2 p.m. and by appointment.
This syllabus and other class materials can be found on Web CT.
Required Text
David Boersema, Philosophy of Science, 2009, Pearson Education Incorporated, ISBN- 10: 0-321-43711-X or 13:987-0-321-43711-2.
. I also recommend the Oxford Concise English Dictionary or equivalent.
Course Description
The course will critically examine the underpinnings of scientific knowledge through an analysis and evaluation of various scientific concepts such as “scientific laws,” “explanation,” “observation,” and “theory.” It will seek to provide an understanding of the methods, presuppositions and biases of scientific knowledge claims.
Course Goals
A student who successfully completes this course should be able
· To philosophically examine, critically analyze and compare various views of the nature and goals of the scientific enterprise.
· To read philosophical texts with critical understanding.
· To have improved skills in thinking, writing, and reading.
Course Requirements
Your success in this course will be assessed by
· Participation and class attendance. This is a class in which we will share our observations, ideas, and critical reflections. In this process, we should gain a wider understanding of the philosophical texts and hopefully will learn much from each other. Attendance and participation is thus mandatory. If you must miss class for a legitimate reason, please contact me ahead of time. Each unexcused absence warrants a five-percent reduction in the final grade. In addition to the necessity of attending class, you need to come prepared. This means that you have to read the entire assignment, have thought about it, and are ready to discuss it.
· Preparation for Class: You will be asked to hand in written answers to selected study questions in each section of the text. (These efforts will be worth 30% of the final grade.) You should also be prepared to discuss the case study and may hand in your analysis of that for extra credit. In all of your assignments, you must write grammatically correct English that is spelled correctly. You should use your dictionaries and consult the writing center if you need additional help.
· Mid-Term Examination: The exam will require you to write critical, analytic answers to short essay questions. The exam effort will be worth 35% of the final grade.
· Final paper: This paper is due on the last day of the class and a paper proposal is expected April 27. Further instructions are provided below. This is worth 35% of the final grade.
Final Paper
Term paper proposal – Due April 27
This proposal should be about two printed pages identifying
· The topic you propose to explore in your term paper research,
· The sources you intend to use in your term paper research and
· The type of paper you expect to write (see below).
Term paper - Due June 3
This paper should be about 10 printed pages not including bibliography. Below are some possibilities for the paper.
· A critical analysis of some scientific or science-related concept such as “explanation,” model,” “observation,” or “reductionism.”
· A critical exposition and analysis of a specific philosophical theory about science such as those about scientific change and progress.
· A critical case study of an important scientific experiment, discovery, or theoretical development and a discussion of its significance for some issue in the philosophy of science.
· A critical analysis of the question “Are there values within science?”
· A critical analysis of the “race question” and science.
· A critical discussion of the various philosophical issues related to the mass extinction debates.
· A critical discussion of question: “How are science and religion related?”
· A critical discussion of the question: “Is science exist?”
Academic Integrity- The principles of truth and integrity are recognized as fundamental to a community of teachers and scholars. The University expects that both faculty and students will honor these principles and in so doing will protect the integrity of all academic work and student grades. Students are expected to do all work assigned them without unauthorized assistance and without giving unauthorized assistance. Violating the academic integrity violates trust and relationships.
Academic dishonesty (Cheating) is a broad category of actions that involve fraud and deception to improve a grade or obtain course credit. Academic dishonesty (cheating) is not limited to examination situations alone, but arises whenever a student attempts to gain an unearned academic advantage. Plagiarism is a specific form of academic dishonesty which consists of the misuse of published or unpublished works of another by claiming them as one’s own. Plagiarism may consist of handing in someone else’s work as one’s own, copying or purchasing a pre-written composition and claiming it as one’s own, using paragraphs, sentences, phrases, words, or ideas by another without giving appropriate citation or using data and/or statistics compiled by another, without giving appropriate citation. Another example of academic dishonesty is the submission of the same, or essentially the same paper or other assignment for credit in tow different courses without receiving prior approval from the instructors of the affected courses.
If academic dishonesty in any form occurs, I am required to notify the CSUB Dean of Students and CSUB Student Conduct Coordinator. A course grade of ‘F’ may be assigned or another grade penalty may be applied. Additional academic sanctions such a disciplinary probation, suspension or permanent expulsion may be determined by the student conduct coordinator. I take this matter of betrayal of trust very seriously. If you have questions about this, please ask.
Special Needs: To request academic accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) as soon as possible. Their office is located in SA 140, and they may be reached at 661-654-3360 (voice), or 661-654-6288 (TDD). If you have an accommodations letter from the SSD Office documenting that you have a disability, please present the letter to me during class or during my office hours as soon as possible so we can discuss the specific accommodations that you might need in this class. Please do let me know of any special needs that you might have.
PAPERS MUST BE YOUR OWN WORK. Plagiarism is grounds for failure of the course. Plagiarism includes the use of someone else’s ideas or words without giving the appropriate reference or credit. If you are in doubt, ask me.
Letter grades and equivalents
93-100= A 83-86= B 73-76=C 63-66=D
90-92 = A- 80-82= B- 70-72= C- 60-62+ D-
87-89 = B+ 77-79= C+ 67-69= D+ Below 60 + F
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Wednesday, 1/6 Introduction to some of the issues and history.
Monday, 1/11 Read: Karl Popper, “Science, Conjectures and
Refutations,”pp. 48-47; and John Ziman, “What is Science?” pp.48-53.
Prepare to hand in Study Questions 1-5, p.100.
There will be no class session today, but Katy
Kessler will come to collect the Study Questions.
Discussion of Popper and Ziman- re-read
Popper and Ziman
Wednesday, 1/13 Read: Carl Hempel, “Studies in the Logic of
Explanation,” pp. 206-224. Prepare to hand in Study Questions, 2-5.
Monday, 1/18 No Class- Martin Luther King Day
______
Wednesday, 1/20 Read: Wesley Salmon, “Scientific Explanation:
How We Got From There to Here,” pp.241-263.
Study Question 20.
Monday, 1/25 Read: Bras C. van Frassen, “The Pragmatics of
Explanation,” pp. 264-277 and Philip Kitcher,
“Explanatory Unification,” pp. 278-301. Study
Questions: 19,22,23,24 and 25.
Wednesday, 1/27 Read: Rudolf Carnap, “The Nature of Theories,”
pp. 316-332. Study Questions: 1-2
Monday, 2/1 Read: Hilary Putnam, “What Theories Are Not,”
333-337; N.R. Hanson, “Observation,” pp. 339-
350; and T. Stace, “Science and the Physical
World,” 351-357. Study Questions: 3-8.
Term Paper Proposals Due
Wednesday, 2/3 Read: Stephen Toulmin, “Do Sub-Microscopic
Entities Exist?” pp. 358-373. Study Questions
9 and 10.
______
Monday, 2/8 Read: Carl A. Matheson & A. David Kline,
“Is There a Significant Observational-Theoretical
Distinction?”pp. 374-389. Study Questions 11-14.
Wednesday, 2/10 Read: Ernan McMullin, “A Case for Scientific
Realism.” – handout. We will return to this piece
again later in the quarter.
Monday, 2/15 Mid-Term Examination
Wednesday, 2/17 Read: W.V. Quine & J.S. Ulian, “Hypothesis,”
pp. 404-414. Study Questions: 1-5
Monday, 2/22 Read: Ronald Giere, “Justifying Scientific
Theories,” pp. 415-434. Study Question 6.
Wednesday, 2/24 Read: Thomas S. Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value
Judgment and Theory-Choice,” pp. 435-450.
Study Question 9.
Monday, 3/1 Read: Carl C. Hempel, “Scientific Rationality:
Analytic vs. Pragmatic Perspectives,” pp. 450-464
& Philipp G. Frank, “The Variety of Reasons for
the Acceptance of Scientific Theories,” pp.465-
475. Study Questions: 10 & 12-16.
Wednesday, 3/3 Read: Richard Rudner, “The Scientist Qua
Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” pp.492-498 &
Carl G. Hempel, “Science and Human Values,”
499-14. Study Questions: 1-3.
Monday, 3/8 Read: Ernan McMullin,” Values in Science,”
pp. 515-538. Study Questions: 4-7. Helen E.
Logino, “Can There Be a Feminist Science?”
Wednesday, 3/10 Read: Robert Hollinger, “From Weber to Habermas,” pp. 539-549. Questions 8-11.
______
Monday, 3/15 Read: Ronald Giere, “The Feminist Question in
The Philosophy of Science,” pp. 550-564.
Study Questions 12-10.
RESEARCH PAPER DUE