Philosophy of Science Contract

winter 1998-99
with E.J. Zita

Final Evaluation Conferences   and Final papers

Requirements:  Junior or senior standing and some familiarity with Western philosophy.  All students are required to read and abide by the program covenant.

Activities:  Weekly seminar component will consist of at least three 2-hour meetings, one of which will be attended by the faculty sponsor.  Each student each week will write, always with appropriate references:

• two significant questions for seminar
• one well-written and thoughtful 1-2-page paper, due at the the first meeting of each week
• 1-2-paragraph responses to classmates' papers, posted on Web Crossing
• a rewrite of the 1-2-page paper, due at the last meeting of each week

Evaluation:  based on quality and thoughtfulness of pre-seminar writings, weekly papers, responses to peers, WebX postings, final papers, and seminar participation.

Credits:  8-12

Philosophy of Science was a quarter-long group contract focused on the readings listed below.  Students examined the nature, significance, and limits of science. Students were expected to read approximately one book per week, to write and re-write a one-page paper on each work, to read and comment on classmates' writings (orally and in writing), and to participate in several in-depth discussions of the work each week.  Students were taught and expected to use Web Crossing, an online communications tool, to post their papers and their responses electronically.  Students were to write a thoughtful and carefully crafted 5-page paper at the end of the quarte, and help write final evaluations of all classmates.

A subset of students agreed to give extra presentations on research topics to peers, for extra credit.

Equivalency:  Philosophy of Science

Credits:  variable

Texts: 

• Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (1970, The Univeristy of Chicago Press)
•  Imre Lakatos, "Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes", in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. I Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp.91-196
• David Bloor, "Two paradigms of scientific knowledge", Science Studies 1 (1971): 101-15
• A.F. Chalmers "What is this thing called Science?" (1982, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.)
• Neil deGrasse Tyson, "Certain Uncertainties" in Natural History, Oct.-Nov.1998
• E.A. Burtt, "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science"
• Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers" (1959, Penguin)
• Paul Feyerabend "Against Method" (1993, Verso)
• Sandra  Harding "Whose Science?  Whose Knowledge?" (1991, Cornell University Press)
• Gonzalo Munevar, "New Directions - Really?" in Philosophy of Science Association (PSA) Vol.2, 1993, 341-350
• Werner Heisenberg, "Physics and Philosophy" (1958)
• Karen Barad, "A feminist approach to teaching quantum physics", in Sue Rosser, "Teaching the Majority" (1995, Teacher's College Press, Columbia University)
• Niels Bohr, "Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics", in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1949, Library of Living Philosophers)

    weeks 7-10 remain to be agreed upon - Zita suggests that you come seminar with Physical Systems Quantum Mechanics folks in weeks 8 and 9, from 3:30-5:00 in Lab I Rm 1040 (coming down half an hour earlier than usual)

Wk.7: Harding "Whose Science?  Whose Knowledge?" and Munevar article
Wk.8: Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (We will also read this in Physical Systems.)
Wk. 9:   Bohr and Karen Barad (building on Harding and on Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, if we have the time and inclination. We will also read this in Physical Systems. It is exciting and challenging new stuff, groundbreaking epistemology/ontology.)
Wk 10:  Write self-evals and evals of each other  (zita gone to NSF grants conference)
Wk 11:  eval conferences 

wk.2:  Meet M&M for Seminar Tuesday morning - see syllabus for rooms

wk3:  Since most folks don't yet have the Koestler or Burtt, we'll read the Lakatos and Bloor articles.  Copy them from Library Reserve.

wk.5:  Meet Zita Tuesday 4-5 instead of Thursday (going to Diversity conference)

wk.10:  Meet each other to work on evaluations together.  Write a paragraph for each classmate, and decide as a group whether/how to share them with each other and/or to compile them into a single eval "of student by peers".  I want to read everyone's eval of everyone else at your eval conferences.

Please also READ EACH OTHER'S DRAFTS OF YOUR FINAL 5-PAGE PAPERS early in week 10, and
REWRITE them to hand in to me by NOON on Friday 12 March, so I can read them over the weekend before your eval conferences.

The polished papers you hand in to me should of course contain no spelling or grammatical errors, no run-on sentences or mismatched tenses or subject/object, so please take them to the WRITING CENTER for proofreading or have classmates give you detailed feedback about mechanics as well as about content and structure.

Reference sources either with footnotes (including page number) or in your text with (author, page number), and include a bibliography at the end.  I don't care which style you adopt for bibliography and footnotes, as long as it is complete and consistent (include year and edition...)

I look forward to reading your thoughtful and carefully crafted final papers.