SECTION A
1. Does the philosophy of science have practical payoffs? If so, what are they?
2. How can science achieve objectivity if it is practised by subjective human
beings?
SECTION B
3. What conceptions of human nature, if any, are compatible with a proper
understanding of evolution?
4. “Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories
rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles.” Does
Popper justify this simile?
5. What lessons can we take about the place of social and political values in
science from Emily Martin’s critique of the common scientific narratives of
fertilisation?
6. Can there be productive interactions between incommensurable paradigms?
7. Suppose you have a rare physiological dysfunction which causes no
symptoms. Is this a disease?
8. How should scientists respond to problems of inductive risk?
9. What is the best argument for funding unorthodox scientific research?
10. What, if anything, does Newton’s bucket experiment prove?
11. Is “imitate natural science” a good piece of advice for social sciences?
12. “Only humans have conscious experiences.” Do you agree?