Philosophy of Science - Spring 2017

Post date: Sep 28, 2016 8:29:55 PM

In Spring 2017, I'll be teaching an upper-level course in Philosophy of Science at UAH. (Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11:10-12:30, MOR 337, CRN#10639.)

*No science involved.* *No science knowledge required.*

This course examines the grounds for considering modern scientific method the paradigm for reliable knowledge of the world. This involves thinking about how science works, how best to interpret what science tells us about the world, what makes explanations scientific, how social convention affects objectivity. It also involves talking about some science--but I'll provide the details in an accessible and science-for-humanities-majors way.

If you're majoring in a science--such as physics, biology, chemistry, psychology--the course is an opportunity to reflect upon what you're doing. We won't argue against any piece of scientific knowledge: in fact, philosophy of science typically accepts scientific theories as (approximately and probably) correct. We will, however, consider arguments about how best to understand that knowledge. If you're not majoring in a science, this is an excellent chance to develop some chops for thinking more intelligently about one of the major social influences of our age.

The best analogy for what we'll do is this: Olympic athletes need to perform at very high levels, and this involves being very good at specific techniques; but the effort required to develop those skills often leaves little opportunity to reflect upon how, for example, a body is able to twist in the air without losing its spatial orientation--you need physiologists and sports scientists for that, not (only) athletes. This is why athletes are often so bad at explaining how they do the amazing things they do. Similarly, doing science well requires being very good at scientific techniques, and the effort requires to develop those skills often leaves little opportunity, in science courses, to reflect upon why (and whether) those methods have good claim to the reputation society accords them--you need philosophers of science for that, not (only) scientists.

If you have more material concerns: I haven't yet settled on assignments for the course. Likely we'll do two essays (one explicating ideas, another making an argument, both 4-6 pages or so), some brief (1-page) write-ups and presentations about assigned readings, and a final paper with associated "conference." We'll read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions as well as Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis by Barnes, Bloor, and Henry. We'll also read some material from Carnap and Hempel (representing logical positivism) and an assortment of more recent philosophers (representing scientific realism).