Philosophy/History of Science 60, 2000/01

 

Final Examination

 

Answer both questions. Answers should be typed double-spaced (not 1.5 spaced). About 3 pages per answer is sufficient. Avoid unnecessary discussion of background issues, other authors etc. Focus on the question itself.

 

Hand in your papers on Tuesday June 12, by 5 pm at my office (90-92B). If you are handing the paper in late, get it signed in by one of the Philosophy Department secretaries.

 

Make sure to hand in two copies.

 

Honor Code: This is an exam. Please do not discuss your answers at all with others or read each others' work. You can use your notes and the texts, however.

 

 

1. Answer either (a) or (b).

 

(a)    Reichenbach distinguished between the "context of discovery'' and the "context of justification.'' Reichenbach and the logical positivists argued that a philosophical theory of science should be solely concerned with the context of justification, not with the actual processes (psychological and sociological) by which ideas are developed. Kuhn is sometimes taken to have shown that this distinction not a useful one for people trying to understand scientific knowledge. Does Kuhn's work really show this? Do you think the distinction is a good one?

 

 

(b)    Is it a reasonable goal of science to describe the real, underlying structure of the world?

 

 

*   *   *   *  * 

 

2. Answer either (a) or (b).

 

(a)     In 1904, Karl Pearson proposed a truce between the Biometricians and the Mendelians. The truce would last for three years, during which time each side would do its own work without attacking the other side. Imagine that you were asked by the Royal Society to make a recommendation about this proposal. Should the Royal Society encourage such a truce?

 

(b)   Latour argues that in understanding scientific controversies, we should never use Nature to explain how and why a debate was settled (Rothbart p. 364). By 1906 Bateson had convinced biologists in England that he was right. If we want to explain this outcome, is Latour correct in claiming that there is no role for Nature in the explanation?