HPS 400 Capstone Course, University of Washington, Winter 2008
Instructors: Monica Aufrecht, Philosophy Department
Bruce Hevly, History Department
Office hours:
Bruce: M 1:00 – 2:30, W 11:30 – 12:30, and by appointment. Smith 203D
()
Monica: M 1-2, T 12:30-1:30, and by app’t, Condon 511B ()
Goal:
Provide History and Philosophy Majors with an opportunity to reflect on their own perceptions of the field of HPS, its aims, methods, and limits. Provide some of the experiences of acting as a professional historian or philosopher of science.
Requirements:
Participation – Each student is expected to be prepared for class. This means, in addition to reading the assigned text, also bring in questions and comments that can contribute to a productive in-class discussion. Each student is expected to attend all sessions (if a conflict arises, please contact one of the instructors in advance). 30% of the final grade
Short Paper 1 – One 3-6 page paper will be due on Tuesday, February 5th. Steve Fuller’s Kuhn vs. Popper will be divided into three sections, and each student will write a book review focused on one of the sections. A professional book review involves a constructive and critical account of a work being reviewed. Sample book reviews will be provided. (Note that we will discuss the book in class before the paper is due, so you will have an opportunity to try out your ideas and criticisms). 10 % of the final grade
Short Paper 2 – One 3-6 page paper will be due on Tuesday, February 12. Identify a problem in History and Philosophy of Science, describe how two or three authors have dealt with it, and propose a writing project of your own that will address the issue. The goal is for you to articulate something you would be interesting in studying, and to explain why it is interesting. We strongly suggest that you meet with the instructors (see “Final Paper,” below) during the week of 5 February to discuss your interests and possible paper topics. 10% of the final grade
Short Paper 3 -- One 3-6 page paper will be due on Thursday, March 13. Write a paper in which you summarize and critique one of the talks you attend over the course of the quarter, either one of the job talks in the Philosophy Department, a presentation made during the Philosophy of the Social Sciences round table, or another talk you choose in consultation with the instructors. 10% of the final grade
Presentation – Each student will present the preliminary work of his or her final paper. The goal of this talk is to teach classmates, as well as to receive comments on the work. Due date is TBA. 15% of the final grade
Final Paper – The final paper will be 12-18 pages of original research in HPS. This is an opportunity to explore a question you have always wanted to think more about. Before finalizing a topic, students must meet with both instructors to discuss the topic. Due March 19th by 3:30pm. E-mail the paper to both instructors. 25 % of the final grade.
Schedule of Readings:
Week 1What is HPS?
T 1/8/2008
Discussion: Students’ main interests and goals for the class
Th.1/10
Discussion: Impressions of HPS as a field
Week 2 Working with Primary Sources
T 1/15
1. Robert Hooke, Micrographia, available on google books, section I.
2. "The text of Robert Boyle's designe About National History" at bbk.ac.uk/boyle/; go to researchers' section, occasional papers, and click on the image of the text.
Th. 1/17
1.Elizabeth Potter, "Modeling the Gender Politics in Science,” Hypatia, Vol. 3, No. 1, Feminism and Science 2. (Spring, 1988), pp. 19-33. JSTOR
2. Elizabeth Potter, "Methodological Norms in Traditional and Feminist Philosophy of Science" PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Vol. 1994, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. (1994), pp.
101-108. JSTOR
3. Steven Shapin, “The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England,” Isis Vol. 79, No. 3, A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment (Sep., 1988), pp. 373-404 JSTOR
(HPS Talks: Joel Valesco T 1/15, Laura Franklin-Hall 1/18)
Week 3Working with Secondary Sources
T 1/22
1. Thomas Kuhn, "Second thoughts on paradigms," and "Objectivity, Value judgement, and theory choice"; both collected in Kuhn's Essential Tension.
2. Dudley Shapere, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 73, No. 3. (Jul., 1964), pp. 383-394. JSTOR
Th. 1/24
1. Paul Forman's essay on Weimar physics, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 3.
2. John Hendry, “Weimar Culture and Quantum Causality,” History of Science, 1980.
(HPS Talks: Mathew Haber 1/25)
Week 4 and 5How does history matter to the philosopher of science?
Week 4
T 1/29
Imre Lakatos, “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions,” PSA Proceedings, 1970: 91-136.
Th. 1/31
Steve Fuller, Kuhn vs. Popper (part 1)
Week 5
T 2/5
Fuller, Kuhn vs. Popper (cont); Paper 1 due
Th.2/7
1. Paul Feyerabend, “Realism and the Historicity of Knowledge,” J. Philosophy 1989 JSTOR
2. Feyerabend, “How to Defend Society Against Science” (1975)
(Schedule a meeting with the instructors to discuss topics for Paper 2/Final Paper)
Week 6 and 7: Eugenics and Feminist Epistemology
Week 6
T 2/12 Paper 2 Due
1. INTRODUCTION
By Elizabeth Anderson. Read the brief introduction and sections 6, 9, and 10 (5
if there is time).
2. STANDPOINT THEORY: "After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and
'Strong Objectivity'" By: Harding, Sandra, Social Research, Fall92, Vol. 59,
Issue 3 567-587.(Access via the UW library catalog. GO to journal title:
"Social research")
3 "After Eurocentrism: Challenges for the Philosophy of Science," pp. 311-319
Sandra Harding PSA 1992 JSTOR
Th. 2/14
1. FEMINIST EMPERICISM:"Can there be a Feminist Science?" by Helen Longino,
Hypatia, Fall 1987 vol.2, 51-64. JSTOR
2. CRITIQUE OF THE GAP ARGUMENT: "Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values inScience," by Kristen Intemann, Philosophy of Science, December 2005, 72,
1001-1012.(Access via the UW library catalog)
Week 7
T 2/19 Paul Forman, “Independence, Not Transcendence for the Historian of Science”;
Th. 2/21Genetics in the United States and Great Britain, 1890-1930: A Review with
Speculations Daniel J. Kevles Isis > Vol. 71, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 441-455
Stable URL:
Carving up Population Science: Eugenics, Demography and the Controversy over the
'Biological Law' of Population Growth Edmund Ramsden Social Studies of Science >
Vol. 32, No. 5/6 (Oct., 2002), pp. 857-899 Stable URL:
The Failure of a Scientific Critique: David Heron, Karl Pearson and Mendelian
eugenics Hamish G. Spencer; Diane B. Paul The British Journal for the History of
Science > Vol. 31, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 441-452 Stable URL:
Week 8: The Philosophy of the Social Sciences
T 2/26
"Scientific Change as Political: Action Franz Boas and the Anthropology of Race"
by Mark Risjord in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 1, 24-45(2007)
Th. 2/28
2. Cartwright, Nancy D. and Kitcher, P. 'Science and Ethics: Reclaiming Some
Neglected Questions', Perspectives on Science, Summer 1996.
(Critical Medical Humanities Talk: Susan Sherwin Dalhousie, “Whither Bioethics? From the Feminist Bioethics to Public Ethics in an Era of Global Threats.” 4pm 2/27 Communications 120)
Week 9: Applied HPS
T 3/4
"Well-Ordered Science: Evidence for Use" by Nancy Cartwright in Philosophy of
Science, December 2006.
Th. 3/6 In lieu of class, attend at least one talk, preferably Nancy Cartwright’s "Evidence-Based Policy: So, What's Evidence?" 6:30pm Kane 120.
(Phil of Social Sciences Roundtable Keynotes: Nancy Cartwright also 3/8, Charles Mills 3/7 “Philosophy and Race” time TBA)
Phil of Social Sciences Roundtable Talks TBA 3/7-3/9)
Week 10: Original Research
T 3/11
Presentations on original research (Two students)
Th. 3/13
Presentations on original research (Third student); closing discussions. Paper 3 Due
Finals Week
Wed 3/19 3:30pm. Final paper due by e-mail. Send paper to both instructors.
HPS 400
Short Paper 1
ASSIGNMENT
Write a book review on your assigned chapters of Steve Fuller’s Kuhn vs. Popper.
A good book reviews accomplishes three things:
1) Describes and explains what the author does in the book, for someone who has not
yet read it.
2) Draws on the summary provided (see 1 above) to critically engage with some key
aspects of the work. (Explain you think about what the author has done.)
In this case, your review should also:
3) Indicate how the section fits into the work as a whole.
Due Tuesday, February 5th, 2008. 3-6 pages, double-spaced. Please bring in two paper copies (one for each instructor).
SAMPLE
Here are two sample Books Reviews of Nancy Cartwright’s The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. They are both longer than your assignment, but still make a good reference. Both can be found on-line.
- Mind: A Quarterly Review of Philosophy. 2003-01. Vol. 112, Iss. 445; pg. 99 - 106
- Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Volume 66, Number 1, 1 January 2003 , pp. 244-249(6)
1