1. Formulate the most defensible version of falsificationism. Can it stand
up to objections?
2. Is it possible to know the entity that we see through a microscope is not
an artefact of the technology or scientific theory?
3. Does the history of theoretical change in the sciences show that
science is an irrational enterprise?
4. What are the weakest aspects of the ‘argument from the success of
science’ for scientific realism? Are they fatal?
5. Does the historical development of science support the reductionist
ambitions of physics?
6. ‘Explanation is an entirely subjective affair. The only thing that all good
explanations have in common is a feeling of understanding that they
generate in the listener.’ Discuss.
7. What are laws of nature? Are they independent of us?
8. ‘Although no philosophical account of the confirmation of theories by
evidence is fully satisfactory, some accounts are more satisfactory than
others.’ Discuss in relation to TWO of the following accounts: (a)
Hypothetico-deductivism, (b) Hempel’s account, (c) Explanationist
accounts, (d) Bayesian accounts.
9. EITHER (a) What role, if any, does probability play in providing an
account of the rationality of science?
OR (b) What relation do chances have to frequencies?
10. Can quantum theory be considered complete?