+44 (0) 123 456 789

Discuss the context of discovery versus the context of justification.

When taking the question, it would appear as:

Exam One PHIL 305

There are four questions below (and an extra credit). Answer two of them (and the extra credit, if you choose). Be mindful of leaving yourself enough time to answer both of the questions you choose to answer.

After each question, I give a list of points related to the question. I do not necessarily expect you to talk about every single one of these in answer to the question. Rather, I am looking for a high-quality essay that covers all of the central points, and incorporates some of the more peripheral ones.

(1) One long-standing idea about science is that it produces well-justified beliefs. Another is that it proceeds by induction. However, trying to show how induction could in principle produce well-justified beliefs has been a rocky road. Discuss this in an essay.

In your discussion, make sure to include all or some of the following:

The difference between deductive and inductive arguments The principle of (enumerative) induction

The problem of induction (explain this carefully and thoroughly) Similarities the problem of induction has to global skepticism Responses to the problem of induction (not including Popper’s)

(2) Karl Popper used falsificationism to try to solve both the demarcation problem and the problem of induction. In an essay, discuss his attempt to solve one or both of these problems. In the essay, talk about his motivations for trying to do what he did, how he thought falsificationism could solve one or both of these problems, and some difficulties for his account.

Be sure to include all or some of the following:

The demarcation problem

Popper’s original motivation for wanting to work on the problem of demarcation His reservations about confirmation

What kinds of Instances of confirmation he was fond of

The problem of induction

His feelings about the problem of induction

The logical asymmetry between predictions of a theory being met, and not being met How this asymmetry leads to a solution to the problem of induction

How the scientific method proceeds according to falsificationism

The problems of underdetermination and prediction for falsificationism

(3) Kuhn presented a very different view of scientific practice than many of predecessors. There were two ideas in particular for which he was known. The first was that scientific disciplines undergo cycles. The second was that theory choice involves non-rational factors. Discuss these ideas in an essay.

In your essay, be sure to include and explain some of the following (in addition to the concepts mentioned above):

The three components that compose a cycle in a scientific discipline Paradigms

Puzzle-solving activity

Kuhn’s views on falsification

The evaluation and weighting problems Historical examples

 Page 1 of 3

Preview Question – PHIL 305 PRE15 031 – Academic 6/1/15, 7:47 AM

(4) The movement of logical positivism, as it was described in class, had three goals. Describe what these three goals were, the tools the logical positivists used to try to accomplish them, and how these tools were supposed to be able to allow them to accomplish their goals

In your essay, be sure to include and explain all or some of the following:

Metaphysical problems

Empiricism and epistemology

Theoretical entities

Verification criterion of meaningfulness and meaning The logical positivist’s system for formulating theories

Extra credit: Discuss the context of discovery versus the context of justification, and what naive inductivism and falsification hold about each of them.

[order_calculator]

Page Navigation