Study Questions for HU3700 Final Exam
Fall, 2005
Terms and Names:
absolutism
accidental regularity
ad hoc modification
anarchism
anomaly
antirealism, scientific
auxiliary assumption
Bayes’s Theorem
confirmation
conjecture
crisis
deductive reasoning
degenerating research program
Dembski’s filter
disposition
Duhem-Quine thesis
empiricism
ether
evolution
experimental knowledge
explanation
falsifiable
falsificationism
falsify
Feyerabend, Paul
fossil record
Galileo
genetic drift
geocentric (Ptolemaic) model
Gestalt switch
hard core
heliocentric (Copernican) model
incommensurability of paradigms
inductive reasoning
inductivism
initial condition
intelligent design theory
irreducible complexity
Karl Popper
Lakatos, Imre
law
macroevolution
methodological naturalism
microevolution
mutation
natural selection
naturalistic hypothesis
negative heuristic
neo-Darwinism
New Experimentalism
Newton, Isaac
normal science
objective Bayesianism
paradigm
paradigm shift
positive heuristic
posterior probability
pre-science
prior probability
problem of induction
progressing research program
protective belt
pseudoscience
punctuated equilibrium
realism, scientific
regularity view (of scientific laws)
regularity view, conditional form (of scientific laws)
relativism
research program
scientific revolution
sophisticated falsificationism
speciation
specified complexity
subjective Bayesianism
sublunar region
super-lunar region
theory
theory-dependence of observation
Tower Argument
transitional form
Discussion Questions:
- Consider the following statement:
Scientific knowledge is securely established and objective knowledge about the natural world because it is based on facts which are directly given by careful, unprejudiced use of the senses and embodied in laws and theories that are derived from those facts by rigorous logical reasoning.
For each of the following, how would he/she evaluate the statement? What objections, if any, would he/she have to the statement? Be specific.
- an inductivist
- a falsificationist
- Thomas Kuhn
- Imre Lakatos
- Paul Feyerabend
- a “new experimentalist”
- a subjective Bayesian
- A scientist conducts an experiment to test a particular theory. The outcome of the experiment is not what the theory predicted. What, if anything, may the scientist conclude about the truth or falsity of the theory? Discuss in detail.
- What exactly is the problem of induction? What are the main solutions that have been proposed to the problem? What solution to the problem did Karl Popper propose? In your view, does the rationality of scientific reasoning depend on whether the problem of induction can be solved? Explain.
- In what ways do falsificationists, like Popper, argue that their philosophy of science is an improvement over inductivism? Specifically, in what respects do they claim that falsificationism is more true to the history of science than inductivism? Be specific. What are the main differences between Popper’s original version of falsificationism and sophisticated falsificationism? Does sophisticated falsificationism represent an improvement over Popper’s original falsificationism, in your view? Why or why not?
- Give a full statement and explanation of the Duhem/Quine thesis? In what ways does it present a challenge to falsificationism? Does it conclusively refute falsificationism (Popperian and sophisiticated) in your view? Why or why not?
- What was the Copernican Revolution? Why is it called a “revolution”? In what ways did it change scientists’ views about the nature of science and methods of scientific inquiry? Why is it so difficult to fit the Copernican Revolution into the falsificationist model of scientific progress? Be specific.
- What does Thomas Kuhn mean by “paradigm”? What are the main differences between paradigms and theories? What are Kuhn’s views about progress in science? What sorts of changes occur during periods of normal science? How do they differ from the kinds of changes that occur when a scientific revolution occurs? Why is the notion of progress across paradigm shifts problematic in Kuhn’s philosophy of science? Be specific.
- What were Imre Lakatos’s main criticisms of Kuhn’s views about scientific change? How did he try to correct those shortcomings in his own philosophy of science? Was he successful, in your view? Why or why not? Be specific.
- Why did Paul Feyerabend believe that there is no universally valid scientific method? What evidence from the history of science did he cite in support of his contention? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not? Be specific.
- What essentially is the Bayesian approach to the philosophy of science? What is Bayes’s Theorem? What reasons are there to believe that it is true? What important problems in the philosophy of science was Bayesianism developed in order to solve? What is the main difference between objective and subjective Bayesianism? What are the principal pros and cons of each? Be specific.
- What is distinctive about “The New Experimentalism” as a view about the nature of scientific inquiry? What is meant by the term “experimental knowledge”? What is the difference between experimental knowledge and ordinary theoretical knowledge in science? What constitutes scientific progress, according to the new experimentalist school of thought? Be specific.
- State and explain three views about the nature of scientific laws. What are the main pros and cons of each one? Does one of them seem more reasonable than the others to you? Explain. Be specific.
- What is scientific realism? What is scientific antirealism? What are the principal considerations supporting scientific antirealism? Do you find them persuasive? Why or why not? Be specific.
- What are the main points of disagreement between mainstream evolutionary biologists and proponents of intelligent design theory? On what grounds do (most) evolutionary biologists deny that intelligent design theory qualifies as genuine science? How do intelligent design theorists defend themselves against those arguments? Which side do you find more convincing? Why? Be specific.