Philosophy of Science
SECTION A
1 “It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one
begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts” (Sherlock
Holmes). Is this good advice for scientists?
2 Is philosophy of science about what science is, or what it ought to be?
SECTION B
3 Either (a) Is any regularity theory of causation defensible?
Or (b) Evaluate the “best system” account of laws of nature.
4 Is induction rational if it is reliable?
5 Do all of an event’s causes explain it?
6 Either (a) Does evolutionary psychology provide good reasons for
thinking there is a single human nature?
Or (b) Does inference to the best explanation demand assent to the
intelligent design hypothesis?
7 Either (a) Do social interests explain what is accepted as scientific
knowledge?
Or (b) Faced with the sociology of scientific knowledge, is it rational
to become an epistemic relativist?
8 Either (a) What, if anything, does the Experimenters’ Regress show?
Or (b) Can knowledge be both scientific and tacit?
9 Compare Popper’s and Kuhn’s views of scientific progress.