Department of Philosophy
Fall Semester 2001
Syllabus
Philosophy of Science
Course code: Phil 221a
Instructor
Nick Bostrom
Email: nick.bostrom@yale.edu
Homepage: www.nickbostrom.com
Office: Room 204, Connecticut Hall (phone: 432-1663)
Office hours: 3 – 4 pm Mondays. You’re welcome to knock at other times. I’m also usually free to talk to after classes.
Meetings
Mondays and Wednesdays 1 - 2:15 in room 317 LC (Linsly-Chittenden, Old Campus)
Required reading

Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues by Martin Curd (Editor), Jan A. Cover (Contributor) 1998, New
York: Norton. (Available in the Yale Bookstore)

Copied papers (to be provided), and on-line documents as indicated in the outline.
Required work

Active participation in class discussions.

Two papers: First paper, 2000-2500 words, due October 15, on a topic covered in the first half of the course.
Second paper 2500-3500 words, due December 10, on a topic of the second half.
Description
To understand the contemporary world we must understand science. In philosophy of science we study the logical,
methodological, epistemological and metaphysical problems that arise from reflecting on science. We will tackle
questions such as: Is there anything special about scientific reasoning? Why do scientific revolutions take place and
what is their significance? When does evidence confirm theories? What is a “law of nature”? Is science really
objective? How are the sciences related? What is a scientific explanation? How can one correct for observation
selection effects that bias our data? We will also briefly examine what current science tells us about the pig picture of
the world and the prospects for our species in the future.
Aims

To provide a systematic understanding of some of the central issues in the philosophy of science.

To practice philosophical analysis.

To enhance critical thinking as well as writing and discussion skills.

To become familiar with some exciting recent ideas and stimulated to think independently about the world of
science and the human condition.
Grading
First paper:
Second paper:
Class participation:
25%
40%
35%
Class participation is measured by intelligent contributions to class discussions. It is therefore essential that you have
read and thought about the readings before each class. Asking good questions is a way of getting brownie points, as is
answering other students’ questions in class. Showing understanding of the literature helps, but at least as important is
the demonstrating ability to think about the issues independently of what philosopher X said. It’s ok to make errors and
to change our views as we proceed – that’s part of the fun of operating at the edge of our ability!
Course outline
Class #
Date
Sept:
1
Wed 5
Topic
Reading *
Introduction. The Demarcation
problem I: What is science?
The Demarcation problem II: The
“creation-science” controversy
Robin Hanson, “Are Beliefs Like Clothes?” [handout]
2
Mon 10
3
Wed 12
Rationality, Objectivity, and
Values in Science I
4
Mon 17
5
Wed 19
6
Mon 24
7
Wed 26
Rationality, Objectivity, and
Values in Science II
Rationality, Objectivity, and
Values in Science III
The Quine-Duhem Thesis and
Underdetermination I
The Quine-Duhem Thesis and
Underdetermination II
8
Oct:
Mon 1
9
Wed 3
10
Mon 8
11
Wed 10
12
Mon 15
13
Wed 17
14
Mon 22
15
Wed 24
16
Mon 29
Empiricism vs. Scientific
Realism I
Empiricism vs. Scientific
Realism II
Models of Explanation I
17
Wed 31
Models of Explanation II
18
19
Nov:
Mon 5
Wed 7
Laws of Nature I
Laws of Nature II
20
Mon 12
21
Wed 14
Induction, Prediction, and
Evidence I
Induction, Prediction, and
Evidence II
Induction, Prediction, and
Evidence III
Confirmation and Relevance: The
Bayesian Approach I
Confirmation and Relevance: The
Bayesian Approach II
First paper due
Improving Science: A Proposal
Observation Selection Effects I:
“Theories of Everything” and
fine-tuning arguments
Observation Selection Effects II:
Evolutionary biology – How
Michael Ruse, “Creation Science is not Science”
Larry Laudan, “Science at the Bar -- Causes for
Concern”.
Ruse’s “Response to the Commentary”
Visit Creation Science Home page:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
Thomas S. Kuhn, “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific
Revolutions”
Thomas S. Kuhn, “Objectivity, Value Judgment and
Theory Choice”
Vernan McMullin, "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and
Theory Choice"
Helen E. Longino, “Values and Objectivity”
W. V. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”
Larry Laudan, “Demystifying Underdetermination”
Karl Popper, “The Problem of Induction”
Wesley C. Salmon, “Rational Prediction”
Carl Hempel, “Criteria of Confirmation and
Acceptability”
Laura Snyder, “Is Evidence Historical?”
Peter Achinstein, “Explanation v. Prediction: Which
Carries More Weight?”
Wesley C. Salmon, “Rationality and Objectivity in
Science…”
Clark Glymour, “Why I am not a Bayesian”
Robin Hanson, “Could Gambling Save Science?”
Available at http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html
Grover Maxwell, “The Ontological Status of Theoretical
Entities”
Bas van Fraassen "Arguments Concerning Scientific
Realism"
Rudolf Carnap, “The Value of Laws: Explanation and
Prediction”
Carl G. Hempel, “Two Basic Types of Explanation”
David-Hillel Ruben, “Arguments, Laws and Explanation”
Paul Churchland, “On the Nature of Explanation: A PDP
Approach” (ch. 10 of A Neurocomputational Perspective,
MIT, 1989)
Fred Dretske, “Laws of Nature”
David Lewis, extracts from “A Subjectivist’s Guide to
Objective Chance” with postscript (reprinted in
Philosophical Papers, vol. II) [handout]
Nick Bostrom, “Fine-tuning arguments in cosmology”
(ch. 2 of Anthropic Bias, Routledge, 2002) [will be
available at http://www.anthropic-principle.com/book/
Robin Hanson, “The Great Filter – Are We Almost Past
It?” Available at: http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html
difficult was the evolution of
intelligent life?
22
Mon 19
Wed 21
Mon 26
Fall recess
Fall recess
Intertheoretic Reduction I
23
Wed 28
Intertheoretic Reduction II
24
Dec:
Mon 3
Robin Hanson, “Must Early Life Be Easy?” [you can skip
the math], available at:
http://hanson.gmu.edu/hardstep.pdf
Earnest Nagel, "Issues in the Logic of Reductive
Explanations"
Philip Kitcher, “1953 and All That: A Tale of Two
Sciences”
Science, Humanity, and the
TBA
Future I
25
Wed 5
Science, Humanity, and the
TBA
Future II
Mon 10
Second paper due
* All readings are from Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, unless otherwise noted. In addition to the texts
mentioned in the outline, it is recommended that you also read the general introductions and the commentaries provided
by the editors. You will find these very helpful in understanding the assigned texts.