To be finalised

Part 1: Inductivism and its problems (CD)

1. Describe the structure of the unit and what is expected in terms of assessment.
2. Explain the meaning and interrelation of the terms: Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logic and Ethics.
3. Indicate the ways in which the practise of science inevitably involves explicit or tacit assumptions of a philosophical nature.
4. Characterise the two broad schools of thought in epistemology known as Empiricism and Rationalism.

1. Begin to outline, in very broad terms, the changes in the character of scientific knowledge and philosophy of science, over the last 300 years. Aristotelian-> Newtonian -> post Newtonian.
2. Explain the reason for the strong inductivist/empiricist tradition of "Newtonian" philosophers of science.
3. Outline the empirical method in the sciences.
4. State the three main principles of inductivism as a method for the justification of scientific knowledge.
5. State Mill’s canons.
6. Explain what is Hume’s " problem of induction".

1. List and discuss, giving illustrative examples, the limitations of the principles of inductivism both as a method for justifying scientific knowledge and as a description of the actual practice of science.
2. List and discuss some of the possible responses to the problem of induction.
3. Describe the problems which arise in the attempt to verify or confirm theories by observations
4. Give examples of the problems which arise in the attempt to establish formal measures of the degree of confirmation.
5. Discuss the problems which arise even in the attempt to establish the weaker claim that theories can be rendered "probably true" by confirming instances.
6. State Bayes’ theorem and discuss its application to describe the way in which the probability assigned to a theory should be modified in the light of new evidence.

 Lecture 4

1. Describe and appraise the evidence for the claim that observations are inevitably theory-dependent, giving specific illustrative examples.
2. Describe the problems which arise in the attempt to identify a level of observation which is theory-independent, yet may also serve as the secure foundation required by inductivism.
3. Rehearse the arguments for the claim that, "Observations are as fallible as the theories on which they depend."
4. Discuss the degree to which observation and experiment may be considered objective in spite of theory dependence.

1. Rehearse Popper’s criticisms of the positivists.
2. Describe and assess Popper’s reasons for emphasising falsifiability as a demarcation criterion between science and non-science.
3. Explain the logical form of universal statements and their connection with existential statements.
4. List and discuss the problems which arise in the attempt to compare the degree of falsifiability of theories.
5. Assess the difficulties which arise in judging when ad hoc additional hypotheses should be disallowed.

1. Describe the argument for the view that hypotheses are not tested in isolation and discuss the consequences for falsificationism.
2. Discuss the extent to which Popper can encompass the idea of theory-laden observations in his philosophy without destroying its basis.
3. Give a critique of falsificationism.
4. Compare the relative success of inductivism and falsificationism as candidates for the definition and justification of scientific method.
5. Compare the relative success of inductivism and falsificationism and with respect to the descriptions of scientific progress that they entail and with reference to the historical record.

1. Summarise the reasons why theories must be considered as structural wholes.
2. Outline Lakatos’ notion of research programmes.
3. Discuss the role of methodology within research programmes and the role of the negative and positive heuristics.
4. Critically appraise the problems involved in the comparison of different research programmes as defined by Lakatos.

1. Outline Kuhn’s characterisation of science in terms of paradigms, normal and revolutionary periods.
2. Discuss Feyerabend’s arguments against the existence of a scientific methodology.
3. Compare the views of Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend

1. Outline the basic tenets of the rationalist and relativist schools in philosophy of science.
2. Describe the different forms of relativism.
3. Assess the competing claims of the rationalists and the relativists in the light of the historical record.

1. Assess the evidence for the notion that science is a social construct.
2. Discuss the impact of the notion of social construction on issues in philosophy that have been discussed throughout the unit.
3. Critically appraise the recent arguments given by Sokal, Wolpert and the Edingburgh school.

Part 5: The Impact in Psychology  (AN)