Philosophy 299: Philosophy of Science

Papers should be a minimum of 5 complete pages typewritten, double-spaced, and with no more than one inch margins. (Font and line-spacing manipulators beware!) There is no maximum length, but since I value precision and conciseness (see evaluation criteria below), unnecessary filler and verbose ramblings should be avoided. If you find yourself going over 10 pages, you might want to see if you can narrow your topic or come consult with me on whether what you have could be effectively pared down.
If you wish to get some feedback prior to my grading the final paper, I will accept drafts, on or before, Thursday, November 30 for review and comments (the earlier in the semester you give me a draft, the better! You can even give me multiple drafts or pieces of drafts as long as they are all submitted before the deadline). Drafts submitted on November 30 will be available for pickup by class on Tuesday, December 5. Papers are due Thursday, December 7 at the beginning of class. Late papers will not be accepted.

Evaluation criteria (in no particular order) include:

--How well does the author understand and appreciate the complexity of the problem(s) and issue(s) he or she is addressing? To what extent has the author made judicious use of the clearly relevant concepts, categories, distinctions, positions, arguments, etc. that have been included in course readings and that have been brought out in class lecture or discussion?
--Is the paper clearly, cogently, and concisely written? Are the author's claims precise? Does the paper have an explicit overall direction? Does the paper have a clear, accurate, and informative introduction and conclusion? Would the paper be intelligible to another student at this level who is interested in the topic, but not enrolled in the course?
--To what extent has the author identified the assumptions or presuppositions underlying his or her position? And to what extent is he or she aware of the possible difficulties with them?
--Are the author's claims and positions accompanied by cogent arguments? Are the author's claims adequately justified? Are claims and arguments provided in different parts of the paper consistent with each other?
--Has the author been fairly thorough? Can the reader think of some fairly obvious objection to the author's position already raised in class or in the readings that the author has not anticipated nor addressed?
--Does the paper legitimately satisfy the length requirement? Does the meaningful and relevant content of the paper satisfy the length requirement?

Topics:

--Any topic related to the course is acceptable, but I do expect a critical paper, i.e. one that explores a particular issue related to the course and either defends a particular view of the issue against criticisms or criticizes various views of the issue. Hence, a critical examination of some article in the Klemke anthology that was either not assigned or not discussed in class might be a good topic. Also, each section of the anthology contains a bibliography which can be used to obtain further views on a particular issue.
--If you want to discuss potential paper topics with me, please do not hesitate to come talk to me. If you want to discuss your ongoing work on your topic with me, I will be happy to oblige.
--Examples of broad topics: How should we distinguish science from pseudo-science? Is there a coherent observation term/theoretical term distinction to be made? What is a scientific explanation? What is a law? Is science objective?