PHILOSOPHY OF THE SCIENCES SYLLABUS
Level 3
RUPERT READ, with Jamie Potter
Thomas Kuhn, the originator of key philosophical terms of art such as ‘new paradigm’.
Historian, sociologist, and philosopher of science: arguably the greatest philosopher of science of
the twentieth century. This course unit is about (1) getting to grips with his – literally? -revolutionary work in the subject, and then (2) thinking about various other subjects -- other
putative sciences -- to see how they measure up relative to Kuhn’s philosophy of science. A key
question for the class therefore is: What is it that makes us want to call something a science?
How does Kuhn -- how should we -- see what it is if anything that sets sciences apart from nonsciences? Are disciplines such as linguistics, psychology, economics, political theory, sociology,
anthropology, environmental science, ‘transport science’, actually sciences?
The key READING for the course is Kuhn’s ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’
(expanded edition). Basically, read this book THOROUGHLY (REPEATEDLY!) and at your
own pace; but be sure also to keep up with or ahead of our class pace in reading it! If you don’t
you will not get much out of the course. For the course will be based to quite a large degree on
close-reading Kuhn (and other related authors, principally Peter Winch, and me). If you have not
read the appropriate portions of Kuhn (and of the explanatory book/notes/papers by me, to make
it easier to understand) BEFORE you come to class, then you will miss out a lot. I give you this
as FAIR WARNING; O.K.?
To be clear: A large part of the help you will get from me during this course will consist
in my book on Kuhn and our discussions around it, followed by presentation of the manuscript
for the books I am intending to publish over the next year or two on the social and human
sciences. (I would like in detail your comments and criticisms of these notes, papers etc. (See the
‘essay’ instructions, below). IN particular, your picking up on errors and typos etc. will be
gratefully received!)
In class, we will tend to have a seminarish-dominated ‘discussion-class’ approach. I.e. These will
not be as highly-lecturer-centred as other ‘lectures’ you have most likely had. Your (intelligent)
participation is strongly encouraged!
In addition, there will of course be [fortnightly] year-specific smaller seminars with Jamie
Potter, to go into further depth, and to troubleshoot. On top of these, there will be the opportunity
for optional TUTORIALS with me, vis a vis your essay.
The topics covered in this course unit will be roughly as follows, in roughly this order:
>What is science?
>What cosmology would we construct based on observation? Plus reflections on weight.
>Kuhn: History and philosophy of the sciences;
Kuhn’s progenitors: Logical Positivism, Popper; and Wittgenstein;
Kuhn on scientific progress: ‘normal science’; & ‘scientific revolutions’;
Changes in ‘world view’;
Challenges to Kuhn;
Applications of Kuhn, and his later work.
>(Kuhn and) The (philosophy of the) non-physical sciences;
Kuhn, Winch and Wittgenstein among the human sciences; applying these three thinkers,
to (would-be) sciences.
The assessment structure, which I intend will take full account of the demanding nature
of the course, and which I think therefore you will not find too onerous, will be as follows:
1 exam (on both natural and human sciences)
1 essay (due in on May 10 [PLEASE NOTE THIS CORRECTED DATE] – though you are
encouraged to begin work in it WAY before then – see above).
The essay (no word limit, in practice -- but please practice normal constraints of
concision etc.: suggested rough target word length is 2000 words) should be on one of the
following topics:
1) Take one of the pieces of draft work of Read’s given to you in the middle portion of this unit,
on social/human etc. science. Provide a brief summary of what you take it to be saying. Evaluate
it for its comprehensibility, accuracy, interest, and so on. Include details of any obvious seemingflaws, however minor.
2) “There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a
counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times.” (T.S.Kuhn, SSR 80)
How should -- how can -- a Popperian respond to this claim? Consider this question in full depth,
and from both (all) sides.
3) Would a philosophy of science which contained no philosophical theses be worth having?
4) Are philosophers of science ever entitled to tell scientists how they ought to proceed?
5) Take one of Kuhn’s leading critics (Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Laudan, the ‘neoPragmatists’ (Davidson, Putnam and Rorty), or some other figure(s) who you clear with the
lecturer). Describe and assess their criticism of Kuhn’s philosophy of science, including Read’s
treatment of that criticism (if any), and come to a verdict of your own.
6) Are human and natural sciences two species of one genus (or two phyla of one type of thing)?
I hope selfishly that a number of you will choose essay 1 – but don’t let that prejudice
you! I am keen to look at essay plans [at an early stage]. Jamie and I are also keen to talk with
you about your proposed topic, and potentially to look at draft work.
Within the limits allowed for by UEA regulations, I encourage co-operative work on these
essays. I do not of course want any two persons to submit identical essays, and you should always
try to come up with some final judgement of what you are looking at on your own, but actual cooperative activity which may result in an overlap between answers is good. Just be clear to
acknowledge very fully indeed anything which you have borrowed from anyone else.
My office (rm. 3.55) hours will be announced shortly. R.Read@uea; Tel. 59 2079.
...I am very excited about this course, because it is so close to my own heart, and on
such important questions. I’m glad to have you aboard. Welcome, and good luck!
“Many philosophers thought that Kuhn was impugning the rationality, objectivity and progress of
science. In his later writings (especially) the ‘PostScript’ to the second edition of his book [SSR],
Kuhn tried to reassure them that this was not so. On the other hand, sociologists of science and
others anxious to debunk science responded to Kuhn’s ideas with enthusiasm. So did some social
thinkers who took Kuhn to be saying that the way to become scientific was to become
dogmatically committed to some ‘paradigm’.” (T. Mautner, The Penguin Dictionary of
Philosophy (London, 2000))
Some useful websites, to get started with:
www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html
www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhn.html
www.santafe.edu/~shalizi/notebooks/popper.html
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/2099/pottedpopper.html