The second test will be given in class on Wednesday April 5. It will cover material from the readings and from class since the first test. The test will be similar in style to the first test: It 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. 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. Knowledge and Justification: Be able to state and explain the traditional analysis of knowledge, especially the main idea involved in the “justification” component of knowledge.

 

2. The Traditional Problem of Induction: Be able explain what inductive arguments are, the ideas involved in Hume’s Argument as we formulated it (you will not be asked to state the argument from memory), how, exactly, defending induction by means of an inductive argument is supposed to work and what’s wrong with it (Rosenberg, p. 115), and the response to the problem defended in class.

 

3. Goodman’s (New) Problem of Induction: Be able to explain, using examples, what the various examples (grue/green, etc.) are supposed to show.

 

4. The Justification of Scientific Claims and Theories: a) Simple Inductivism (We didn’t talk about this a lot.) It’s the idea that all scientific claims are inductive generalizations and they justified just in case there are a lot of positive instances of them. Be able to explain why Popper thinks this is wrong and why, setting aside Popper and assuming that induction is fine, there are good reasons to reject simple inductivism. (See Rosenberg, section 5.5.)

b) Popper and Falsifiability: Be able to explain what Popper says about the justification of scientific theories and what he says about the “demarcation problem”. What are some of the problems and questions that arise about this?

c) Inference to the Best Explanation: Be able to describe how these inferences work, what the proposed criteria for a best (or better) explanation are, and why the criteria of testability and simplicity don’t work out quite as clearly as the author we read (Schick) seemed to think. Also, be able to discuss the idea that the criteria are “objective”.

 

5. The Demarcation Problem: Be able to explain what the problem is, what Popper’s solution is, what Thagard’s solution is (and the main ways in which it differs)from Popper’s. Be able to discuss the objections to these views that were raised in class. 

 

6. Be able to explain why it is common for philosophers of science to say “No scientific hypothesis can be completely confirmed, but strict falsification is impossible also.” [This a near quote from Rosenberg, p. 177.]

 

Sample Questions

 

1. Followers of Popper often argue for claims such as the following: astrology is a pseudoscience since it cannot be falsified. a) Some people, e.g., Thagard, think that it can be falsified. Explain. b) But there is something sensible that the followers of Popper were trying to get at. What is it?

 

2.What did the reading from Schick say made one theory simpler than another? Critically discuss this account, either by describing some way in which it is difficult to interpret and apply or by showing that it does not clearly apply to examples in the ways Schick intends.