Assessment
Assessment is by one 2,500 word essay (50%) and one pre-seen exam (50%).
Assessment of the Essay (and the Exam)
The feedback you receive on your essay will be divided into short sections as follows:
Relevance (in terms of chosen topic/title). To fulfill this criterion you must address the question that is asked; you’d be amazed how many essays fail to do this adequately.
Knowledge and sources (accuracy, appropriate selection, citations, bibliography).
Analysis, argument and structure (clarity, relevance, fairness, coherence).
Independence of thought (including critical engagement with other views).
Written presentation (spelling, punctuation, grammar, appropriate language).
Overall comments and mark.
You should bear all these criteria in mind when you write your essays in philosophy - indeed, in any university level writing. Use these criteria as a check list and consider the draft of your essay under each one. When you’ve done this, make the appropriate improvements to the final version of your essay. There is a description of the philosophy criteria showing the marking bands at the back of this guide.
Concerning essay presentation, please also run your essay past the following basic check list. Your essay should:
be typed/word processed;
be one and a half line-spaced with adequate margins (this is both easier to read and, importantly, allows room for written comments);
have a cover sheet (see the information on essay submission deadline below); and
please, for me, at least, have no other covering (i.e., no plastic folders/covers etc.; these just get in the way and will be discarded in the marking process).
Remember also to keep a copy of your work, including a back-up electronic copy if you word-process. I will advise you when the essays will be/are available for collection.
The Essay Question (2500 Words)
“Assess the arguments for the claim that observation is theory dependent. Does this matter for science?”
Remember the usual caveat: Make sure the essay is your own work. You are encouraged to cite other people’s work and ideas, but it is important that you acknowledge their work when you do this. To copy or paraphrase someone else’s words or arguments without crediting them - so that the reader is given the impression that this work is yours - is a form of theft called plagiarism.
Essay Submission Deadline
Monday 28th February
Essays should be EMAILED by 4.30pm to
Don’t forget to paste the cover sheet onto the front of the essay available from WebCT.
It is your responsibility to retain all marked course work until the completion of your degree.
Note that there are punitive penalties for the late submission of work unless an extension has been granted.
Information on the Exam
The exam paper is here.
The exam will be held on Wednesday 4th May 9:20 - 11:30. The seen exam paper is above. The exam paper contains six questions and you will need to choose two questions to answer in the exam. The best strategic advice anyone can give you for the exam is, of course, to spend one hour on one question and one hour on the second question. There is no point in writing a long, brilliant answer to the first question if you only leave yourself time to write a paragraph or two on the second question. This is because it’s always easier to get the first 50% of the marks than the second 50%. Two good answers will almost always average out to a better overall mark than a long, brilliant answer on one question and a one or two paragraph, five-minute scrawl on the second question.
Your exam answers will also be marked using the same criteria as essays. (although you will not receive written feedback on your exam answers).
PI2250 Philosophy of Science
Semester 2 exam paper, 2010-11
You may take NO MORE THAN 200 words of notes into the examination, which must be handed in with the script at the end.
Answer TWO questions -
1: ‘Of course, I may be mistaken; but I think that I have solved a major philosophical problem: the problem of induction.’ (Popper) Has Popper solved the problem of induction?
2: Compare and contrast dogmatic falsificationism and sophisticated methodological falsificationism. Can either provide a satisfactory account of scientific method?
3:
Either: Outline and critically discuss Hempel’s Deductive Nomological model of explanation
Or: ‘Scientific explanation concerns not just ‘Why P?’ but ‘Why P rather than Q?’ Outline and assess Lipton’s model of contrastive explanation.
4 : ‘Because scientific theories are underdetermined by observable evidence, science should aim merely at empirical adequacy.’ Discuss.
5: What is ‘inference to the best explanation’? What role, if any, should it have in scientific methodology?
6: ‘There is no reason to think that the principles that best organise [phenomena] will be true, nor that the principles that are true will organise much’ (Cartwright). How do Cartwright’s claims support, or undermine, scientific realism?
Module handbook.