SECTION A
1. If scientists sometimes ignore inconvenient observations, how is science
different from pseudo-science?
2. Why should we believe scientists’ claims?
SECTION B
3. Did Popper solve the problem of induction?
4. Is incommensurability compatible with scientific progress?
5. Do physicists and astronomers have good reasons to believe that the
unobservable entities postulated in their theories are real?
6. If most theories have been shown to be false, do we have any reason to
have confidence in our theories?
7. Are explanations in chemistry incompatible with physics?
8. Understanding social action requires interpretation. Does this fact make
the social sciences fundamentally different from the natural sciences?
9. Is Darwin’s case for evolution inductive, deductive, abductive or
something else?
10. Does the observation of a white shoe confirm the hypothesis that all
ravens are black?
11. Is it wrong to fund research into racial IQ differences?
12. Is informed consent of subjects necessary for medical research to be
ethical?
E