The first test will be given in class on Wednesday Feb. 22. It will cover material from the readings and from class since the beginning of the semester. The test will include several short essay questions and possibly some short answer (true/false, fill in the blank) questions. The essay questions will ask you to explain some idea in a clear and precise way, usually requiring that you give an example to illustrate your point. Using an original example, rather than an example from the readings or from class, will make for better answers. The point of the test is to determine that you understand the fundamental concepts and arguments that we have discussed. You will not be asked to figure out new material during the exam, nor will you be asked to defend your own views on controversial issues.

 

Topics

 

1. Hempel’s account of scientific explanations: Be able to state its central features and to give simple examples illustrating how it is supposed to work. You should be able to make it seem like an initially sensible idea.

2. Laws of Nature: Be able to explain the main idea. Related concepts: accidental generalizations, counterfactual conditionals.

3. Proposed counterexamples to Hempel’s theory: Be able to explain and discuss the various proposed objections we considered. These include: a) explanations w/o laws; b) teleological explanations; c) non-explanatory but non-accidental regularities (the barometer, the flagpole, men not getting pregnant). Be sure that you understand the general point each proposed counterexample is supposed to illustrate, and how the objections differ from one another.

4. Possible responses by Hempel: In those cases where Hempel has a plausible response, be able to state it. The idea of an “explanation sketch” will come in here.

5. Statistical explanations: Be able to describe Hempel’s I/S explanations. What’s the puzzle about maximum specificity?

6. Alternatives: Be able to state the main ideas of a) causal accounts; b) pragmatic accounts; c) unificationist accounts.

7. Objections to the alternatives: Be able to discuss the main objections to (a) (the hexed cue ball problem) and to (b) (Rosenberg’s point, illustrated in class by an example about astrology).[There will not be a question about objections (c).]

8. The axiomatic account of the general structure of theories: Be able to explain the main idea.

9. Reductionism: Be able to explain general idea (or ideas). Related concept: supervenience.

10. The theory/observation distinction: Be able to characterize the distinction(s) and be able to discuss the question about the distinction raised in the article by Hanson.

11. Theoretical entities: Some people wonder whether theoretical entities actually exist. This can seem like a completely foolish worry. But there are some examples that can lead you to see why someone might worry about this. Explain the idea.

 

Sample Questions

 

1. One objection to Hempel’s account of explanations concerns teleological explanations. (a) Give an example of a teleological explanation. (b) Explain why it at least seems to run contrary to Hempel’s theory. (c) Describe how Hempel could plausibly respond to this objection. [Note: if you are given this question, or one like it, you will either be told what Hempel’s theory is, or else you will have had to describe it in a previous answer.]

 

2.(a) State a simple version of the causal account of explanations. (a) What is the hexed cue ball example supposed to show about this account?

 

3. People sometimes say that higher level theories can be “reduced” to lower level theories. For example, they might say that psychology can be reduced to some sort of theory about the brain. It was said in class that this reduction does not amount to either a definitional equivalence between the terms of the two theories or extensional equivalence. What reasons were given for these claims?