Ph103: LT Final (Summative) Essay Questions

Please choose just one of the following essay prompts. Then follow the instructions and write a 1,500 word essay. Please make sure your essay includes the recommended features discussed below the prompts.

Prompt 1: Scientific Realism

There is a sense in which the success of science would seem to imply that it's getting something right about the unobservable aspects of the world. This intuition is formalised by the No Miracles argument for scientific realism. The contrary argument, that we have no reason to say whether not our successful scientific theories are even approximately true, is the pessimistic metainduction for anti-realism.

Prompt: Choose either scientific realism OR anti-realism, and in a 1,500 word essay, argue either that it succeeds or that it fails.

This statement will be the thesis of your essay, which the entire essay is built to argue for. Notice that your thesis will be a single, straightforward sentence. Everything you say in the paper should go toward supporting this thesis, and nothing more.

When you argue for (or against) either realism or scientific realism, you should focus your attention on one particular argument that is relevant to your thesis, such as the no miracles argument, the argument from underdetermination, or the pessimistic meta-induction. be sure to include the following considerations. Then, make the strongest case that you can that the argument fails, or else that it succeeds in spite of possible objections.

Your discussion should include the following.

An explanation of scientific realism that would make your essay accessible to someone outside this course. But be brief, without dwelling too much on this; with only 1,500 words, you'll need all the space you can get!
An argument for your thesis, consisting of a set of premises that leads inevitably to your thesis as the conclusion. You may wish to write this argument in concisely numbered "premise-conclusion" form, and then explain it.
A discussion of the relevant counterarguments and objections that someone might have to your thesis. If your thesis simply agrees with one of the arguments discussed in lecture, then be sure to consider some possible objections to your view as well.

Prompt 2: Hume's Problem of Induction

Francis Bacon and others have suggested that what makes modern scientific reasoning so successful is that it is inductive. Of course, induction is not without exception by its very nature. But it still works very well. The trouble is how to justify a given principle of induction.

Prompt: In a 1,500 word essay, argue either that naïve induction can be justified in spite of Hume's problem, or that some particular attempt to justify naïve induction must fail.

Your discussion should include the following.

An explanation of naïve induction and Hume's problem so that your essay would be accessible to someone outside this course. But be brief, without dwelling too much on this; with only 1,500 words, you'll need all the space you can get!
An argument for your thesis, consisting of a set of premises that leads inevitably to your thesis as the conclusion. You may wish to write this argument in concisely numbered "premise-conclusion" form, and then explain it.
A discussion of the relevant counterarguments and objections that someone might have to your thesis. If your thesis simply agrees with one of the arguments discussed in lecture, then be sure to consider some possible objections to your view as well.

Prompt 3: Laws of nature

An important part of how we learn about the world seems to be through the discovery of its laws. But specifying what it means to be a law of nature is not so easy, and even once we have done so, it is not obvious which areas of thought actually do have such laws. In this course, we considered the particular case of the social sciences as an example.

Prompt: In a 1,500 word essay, argue either that there are laws of nature in at least one social science, or that there can be no laws of nature in any social science.

Your discussion should include the following.

An explanation of what a law of nature is, and of any other concepts required for your essay to be accessible to someone not in this course.
An argument for your thesis, consisting of a set of premises that leads inevitably to your thesis as the conclusion. You may wish to write this argument in concisely numbered "premise-conclusion" form, and then explain it.
A discussion of the relevant counterarguments and objections that someone might have to your thesis. If your thesis simply agrees with one of the arguments discussed in lecture, then be sure to consider some possible objections to your view as well.

Prompt 4: Mathematical truth

When we seek to understand the nature of mathematical truth, we want an explanation both of why mathematical truths are so convincing, and also how it is that we come to know them. However, the two main proposals of how to understand mathematical truth, platonism and mathematical anti-realism, either do a good job of explaining the metaphysics or the epistemology, but not both.

Prompt: In a 1,500 word essay, argue either that one can or cannot give a purely empirical, mathematical anti-realist account of why mathematical truths are so convincing.

Your discussion should include the following.

An explanation of the debate, and of terms like platonism and anti-realism that needed to make your essay accessible to someone outside this course.
An argument for your thesis, consisting of a set of premises that leads inevitably to your thesis as the conclusion. You may wish to write this argument in concisely numbered "premise-conclusion" form, and then explain it.
A discussion of the relevant counterarguments and objections that someone might have to your thesis. If your thesis simply agrees with one of the arguments discussed in lecture, then be sure to consider some possible objections to your view as well.

Guidelines

The principle thing that you will be evaluated on in this paper is the argument for your thesis. Everything that you write should go toward supporting this argument; nothing more and nothing less. However, some of the particular parameters that you will be evalulated on in this respect include:

Expression and style
Structure and organisation
Understanding and use of literature
Quality of argument
Independence of thought

For details on how to write a philosophy that satisfies these parameters, have a look at my writing guide, 7 Steps to a Better Philosophy Paper. Please also draw on the what you learned in Chris Blunt's PAW writing workshop.