PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
PHIL 430, Sec. 1001: MW 11:30am-12:45pm in CBC C148
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Spring 2023
Professor: James Woodbridge
email address:
Course Webpage: http://jwood.faculty.unlv.edu/unlv/Phil430S23.htm
Office Hours: M 2:30pm-4pm, T 12:30pm-2pm, and by appointment
Office: CDC 426
Dept. Phone: 895-3433
FIRST PAPER
Pick one of following topics and write a 6-8 page/2000-2600 word paper fulfilling the tasks assigned.
Your paper is due via WebCampus, through the Turnitin.com program linked to the Assignment listing there, before midnight, Sunday 3/12. The file that you submit for your paper must be an MS-Word file (.doc or .docx or .docm) and should have the following format for its filename: yourstudentnumber.Phil430S23.paper1.docx. Your name should not appear anywhere on your paper.
Use no resources other than the assigned readings and your own notes and thinking to write this paper.
Topics:
1. Both Hempel and Popper are concerned with the testability of scientific hypotheses, but they have different attitudes about the ways it is possible for evidence to bear on a hypothesis. Explain their disagreement, focusing on the logical difference between how positive evidence is supposed to function in confirmation and how negative evidence is supposed to function in disconfirmation or falsification. In shifting the emphasis entirely to falsification, what generally accepted aspect of science does Popper reject? Briefly explain why he is so concerned to reject this. How does Popper's Falsificationism understand the methodology of science to work? Explain how testing is supposed to provide for scientific progress and improvement in scientific theorizing on this view, even though positive evidence is denied its usual role. What is Popper's notion of corroboration, and how exactly is it supposed to differ from confirmation? Even with this attempt to accommodate positive evidence in some way, what are some of the challenges Popper's account faces? Are these challenges fatal, or are there things one might say in defense of Popper? Explain. In the end, what do you think of Falsificationism as an account of science? Support your opinion.
2. According to Nelson Goodman, the constructive task of working out an adequate confirmation theory would address the problem of induction that David Hume raised. In your own words, explain what Goodman means by this. While Goodman takes this to imply that Hume's problem is not as much of a challenge to scientific activity as some have thought, he goes on to pose what he calls the "New Riddle of Induction" as a deeper challenge to the idea of scientific confirmation. What is the problem raised by Goodman's riddle? Explain how it poses a threat to the idea that we could ever develop an adequate theory of confirmation, in particular, of the sort that Hempel and other Logical Empiricists were after. What is Goodman's response to his riddle? Is it an adequate response? Explain some worrisome consequences that Goodman's proposed solution seems to have for the idea of scientific confirmation. Can Goodman's response deal with those worries. If you think it can, explain how. If you think it cannot, do you think the New Riddle of Induction sinks the idea of confirmation, or is there some other way to respond to it that will legitimize confirmation. Support you position here with reasons.
3. In your own words, explain the basic ideas behind and general structure of Hempel's Deductive-Nomological model of scientific explanation (see Hempel, Ch. 5, pp. 50-54). Next, imagine you have the following information: for a particular given simple pendulum (a single weight on a single string) with a string measured to have the specific length L, the period of the pendulum (the time it takes to complete one complete oscillation, i.e., one swing from one outer stopping point to the other and back) is measured to have the specific value, T. It is also known that, as a matter of universal law, the period of any simple pendulum is equal to two times pi times the square root of [the string length divided by g (where g is the value of the acceleration due to gravity)]. Curiously, this law and the specific information allows for two symmetric "explanations" according to the D-N model: one of the given pendulum's period, T, in terms of the length, L, of its string; and one of the given pendulum's string length, L, in terms of its period, T. Give the full argument-forms of both "explanations" according to the D-N model, and explain why they both satisfy the model. Intuitively, this example of symmetry illustrates a worry for Hempel's view. What is the intuitive problem here? Do you think it is a problem for the view? If so, what sort of additional consideration might be added to the D-N model to get an account of explanation that avoids this kind of problem? If you think the symmetry exhibited by the D-N model is not problematic, explain why it is not.
Be sure to look at my Paper Requirements and Policies.
Keep your paper within the page/word limit!