Short Paper. Philosophy of science. Life Sciences Essay

Suggested topics.
1. Anything you want! You can write about anything you want so long as it is obviously related to
topics we covered or philosophy of science generally.
2. A GENERAL SCHEMA: (1) Discuss why theory X is a very tempting or compelling answer to
a philosophical question (for example, “here is why the process theory of causation is so
compelling”). (2) Now raise the biggest problem or challenge for that theory and explain why it
is so challenging. (3) What do you take to be the most plausible way for proponents of the
theory to overcome that problem. Evaluate!
3. How should we understand the core similarity that makes all of the different fields of science
the same kind of thing? What makes X count as science? Where does this leave mathematics or
computer science, compared to something like biology, or physics?
4. How should we understand what counts as a scientific explanation? Must explanations be true
in order to count as a genuine explanation of a phenomena? Must they cite laws of nature? Must
the explanandum be made highly probable by the explanans?
5. Criticize Kitcher's argumentation that the only workable understanding of “epistemic
significance” is “we are curious about it.” Maybe we should instead conclude that explanations
are significant, or discoveries about laws of nature are significant?
6. Discuss why theory X is a very tempting or compelling answer to a philosophical question.
Now raise the biggest problem or challenge for that theory and explain why it is so challenging.
What do you take to be the most plausible way for proponents of the theory to overcome the
that problem.
7. What promising answer to this question (requires some research into the philosophical
literature)? Does that answer have serious drawbacks or problems?
8. Is Kitcher right in his argument that some science is better left (temporarily) undone? Is he right
that there is a scientific equivalent of hate speech?
9. Can there be a feminist science? Is Longino right that political or moral values play a legitimate
role within scientific inference?
10. Criticize some argument about scientific realism (either for or against it). What is its biggest
drawback or problem with that argument? What could be said to defend the argument from that
criticism? Would that defense be sufficient to save the argument from the criticism?
11. Evaluate Kitcher’s schema that warns against science investigating certain topics. Is he right?
Do these things:
1. Make sure your first paragraph explains what it is exactly that you are going to argue, and very
briefly mentions your main reasons.
2. Always use simpler language when you can.
3. Assume that your reader is constantly asking such questions as “Why should I accept that?”
This will prime you to argue for your position. Substantiate your claims whenever there is
reason to think that your critics would not grant them.
4. Always cite another source that has influenced your thinking in this paper. There is no need to
cite class discussion or lecture. But other kinds of sources should be cited. As a general rule:
when in doubt, cite. What citation style you use is entirely up to you, but choose one and use it
consistently. Pretend you are someone else reading your paper, and wants to read a source you
use. Would they be able to easily find that source?
5. The RPI Center for Communication Practices exists. Use it!
6. I exist. If you are struggling, set up a time to meet with us.
7. Use phrases like “This idea seems to be supported by...” “This claim is supported/undermined
by the idea that....” “This seems to contradict the notion that...”
8. Try to avoid phrases like “It is just my opinion that...” “I feel like....”
9. Your first sentence should probably be something like “Here I will argue that (blah blah blah)
on the grounds that (blah blah blah).”
10. Make sure that your paper is focusing on a narrow claim, issue, or problem. Don't argue for
something too broad or bold. Focus on one aspect of one debate, and try to shed some light on
it. So, for example, instead of arguing that “scientific realism is true,” instead try, “this one
premise of this one argument against scientific realism seems unlikely and I will present reasons
to doubt it.”
11. Good papers all have something in common. They anticipate objections that a reasonable reader
might want to raise against the argument the author is laying out, and address such points in the
paper. These are often framed with language like: “At this point in my argument, it is worth
pausing to consider the following reasonable objection….”
Need to be full 4 pages at least.
i have some class slide for you to do topic choice