1 Either (a) ‘If you can spray them, they are real’ (HACKING). Are they?
Or (b) Is Fine’s ‘Natural Ontological Attitude’ coherent? Does it
represent a revolutionary approach to understanding science?
2 Is arguing that a theory is likely to be true because it is empirically successful
any better than arguing that my lottery ticket is likely to be a winner because
the first two of its six numbers have come up?
3 What sense can we make of the claim that one false theory is nearer the truth
than another?
4 What is the best sense you can give to the Kuhnian claim that theories before
and after a scientific revolution are incommensurable? Is the claim thus
understood true?
5 Either (a) Are laws of nature in any sense necessary?
Or (b) Is the Ramsey-Lewis account of laws the best ‘Humean’
account?
6 When, if ever, should we seek to reduce one theory to another?
7 What, if anything, is wrong with the Bayesian account of theory
confirmation?
8 Either (a) Do the biological sciences feature a distinctive kind of
explanation?
Or (b) ‘Explanation is unification.’ Discuss.
9 Does physics raise insurmountable difficulties for the relationist view of
spacetime?
10 How far does our choice of a geometrical theory of the world depend on
adopting arbitrary conventions?
11 In what sense, if any, does quantum mechanics need an interpretation?
12 What is the philosophical significance of Bell’s Theorem?