Consider two views of what makes something a science

You must bring a copy to class and submit it to turnitin.com through ecampus (see the link below).

Length:  Approximately 5 pages (double space font size 12 point).

What I Expect

This philosopher paper is not just a summary of philosophers’ positions and their arguments for them.  In a paper you must also do some philosophy (provide an argument counterexample or propose an original position along with a justification for it) of your own.  This contribution is not supposed to be a quick point made at the end, but the focus of the paper.  You are writing this paper to set things up to make your important point about the issues that other philosophers are interested in.   So you must still understand and explain the views of other philosophers, but you must then offer and explain your own ideas and show why they are relevant.

The Question

Consider two views of what makes something a science (at least one of these must be from the text, the other can also be from the text, your own, or from one of your classmates).

Which theory is right and why?  The argument that you use here will be the focus of your paper.

According to your preferred theory, is creation science a science?  Why or why not?

General Information

In order to do well in this paper (say to get better than a B) you will need to include a novel argument or defense of an argument that is not from the text.  Preferably it will be your own, but it may be a classmate’s (if it’s a classmate’s, that’s acceptable, but you must acknowledge that fact with a citation).  Your novel point should go towards the major issue in the paper and it should be the focus of your paper, not a mere comment mentioned at the end.  Think of your whole paper as a way of presenting your idea by introducing the problem and showing how your idea resolves it.  Coming up with an idea like this is hard.  REALLY HARD.  It is entirely appropriate to struggle and try out ideas and find that they don’t work.  Your classmates and I are here to help.

Generally I recommend going with your gut.  If you think that someone is wrong, then look to see what in particular you dislike about their position and then try to come up with an argument against it.  Laudan and Ruse disagree, so you’re bound to find something you don’t like.  If this has already been criticized in the reading, I still want you to come up with something original to include.  You may criticize some defense of the work you disagree with that has not been addressed.  The defense may come from you, the text or a classmate (remember to cite classmates).

Please appreciate that your argument may well be new to me.  You will have to explain it well so that I know what argument you are making.  You already know, but I do not.  You are responsible for presenting your point in such a way that I understand it.  So be explicit about the argument you are making and how it is relevant to the issue.  If you run out of space, sacrifice other parts of the paper, not this bit.

Note that this is not a long assignment (do not go beyond six pages) so, you will have to decide what is necessary for the project and what is not.  This can be a very hard decision and will force you to think about the problem and the structure of a solution.  There is no room to include unnecessary things.

Composition & Style

Most importantly, a paper must be composed in such a way that it is clear.  You are using written language to discuss ideas.  You cannot do this well without using language well.  You could have the best ideas, but if you can’t write them down, how is anyone to know?  So proof read your work.  Make sure that your sentences make sense and there is no excuse for spelling words incorrectly when there is a spell checker on your computer.

You should assume that the reader is smart, but unfamiliar with the philosophies and your ideas that you discuss.  So you must explain every important concept and complete every argument.  For example, it is not enough to offer a counterexample.  You must also explain why it is a counterexample.  But remember that space is limited, so don’t spend so long explaining the debate or a philosophers’ position’s that you don’t have time to get on to your own ideas.  Try to be clear and concise.  Don’t begin with an empty paragraph like; “Since earliest civilization, great thinkers have struggled to understand…”.  Explain the problem and move on.

I suggest that you pay special attention to a problem that arises in writing about philosophy that will not have come up in much of the other writing that you have done before.  Philosophical writing involves discussing arguments and ideas, some of which you don’t agree with.  Be explicit and clear about which views you actually agree with, and which you don’t agree with, but are introducing and explaining so that you can later reject them.  Otherwise, you will appear to contradict yourself when you argue against a position. English allows many was to do this      (e.g. “Socrates believes…  However, I contend that… According to this objection….  My response to the objection is… etc.).

Try to figure out the best and clearest way to write what you want to say.  A good way to test your composition and style is to ask someone who has not taken the course (such as a room mate) to read your paper and ask them if they understood it, and which parts were confusing etc.

Citations

It must be clear in your paper which ideas are yours and which should be credited to others.  For quotations, summaries, and paraphrases of items from the course textbook you should make a brief citation in the text of your paper (e.g. “Ruse, Text, p. 215”).

It is perfectly okay to use arguments and ideas, which were suggested to you by your classmates.  However, you must cite them too  (e.g. This idea was suggested by Michael Jordan, or if you don’t know your classmate’s name, this was suggested to me by the girl with the red hat).

I do not think that you need to look to other books for this assignment, but if you do use ideas from them, they must be cited briefly in the text and in full using any complete and adequate form of citation in a bibliography at the end of the text, such as: (for books): H. J. Paton, The Categorical Imperitive, Harper and Row, N.Y.,1947, p5, (for journal articles):  Michael Levin, “Kripke’s argument against the identity thesis”, Journal of Philosophy, 72 (1975), P. 149.