Subject: Thinking about science

8/10/2019 Subject: Thinking about science

1/5

1

Team Assignment (teams of 3)

Liberal Arts and Sciences (1stsem. 1styear)

Essay Question

In the first couple of lectures we have talked about the rise of the idea of objectiveknowledge and science.

We all have our intuitions about what science is, for instance that science is objective,

that it progresses, that it embodies true or at least probable knowledge, that it usesspecific methods of investigations, that it applies specific principles of reasoning, that it(at least partly) defines what we ought to think about the world, etc. However, in thecourse of our inquiry into the nature of science we will see that it is very difficult topinpoint the essence of science, the true nature of science. Many of our intuitionsabout science will be challenged in the coming lectures. At many points we will have theoption to stick to our intuitions (and look for a better answer to the question What isscience?) or to give up our intuitions (and accept a philosophy of science). Even so, wewill also explore ways to view science in a new light and conclude that not all is lost.

Although we have only scratched the surface of the problem of understanding whatscience is, I want you to answer this fundamental question in thinking about a science:

The Scientific Revolution (in fact, a revolution in our thinking about the world)seems to suggest, in its most radical form, that the cosmos and everything in it,including human beings, can be mapped by using the new Baconian method ofinduction and experiment and explained in terms of (Newtonian) mechanisticmaterial processes.

Some philosophers of science, however, objected to this idea and arguedthat human beings are so special that they cannot be understood by simply usingthe method and explanation mode of the physical sciences. In their view, ascientific understanding of human beings calls for a different method ofinvestigation and a different mode of understanding.

Given the info in chapters 1-5 of Exploring Humans (textbook of thecourse) and the additional information you have found and reported in theworksheet, how would you assess or evaluate this debate between the naturalists

(a science of human beings can only refer to physical causes) and thehumanists (a science of human beings must (also) refer to the reasons peoplehave for acting in a particular way)?

To illustrate your point of view and arguments you also need to present acase (a somewhat worked out example or a small case-study) that is linked to theinterdisciplinary field of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Stage 1: Individually filling out the Information literacy worksheet (seeBlackboard for further material and instructions!)

In the first stage of your research you (individually!) need to come up with relevant and

reliable sources for (ultimately) answering the essay question.

As you will notice, the f irst two steps on your worksheet are very daring and challenging:you need to explore your topic and formulate your research question. So, here is a wayyou might want to cope with this:

First, you want to explore and take an argued position on the debate between naturalists(claiming that a science of human beings can only refer to physical causes) andhumanists (claiming that a science of human beings must (also) refer to the reasonspeople have for acting in a particular way). It might be that you want to defend thenaturalistic point of view, the humanistic point of view, or a different point of view


2/5

2

altogether. In chapter 5 you find one way to think about this debate. We did not discussthis topic in class yet, so you might find your mind to be quite blank on this issue, butthats OK. This might simply be the point where you start to think about this deepquestion. You are allowed to be inventive and creative, as long as you hold on to theargumentative mode of thinking!

The next thing to do is to think of an illustration or case: what phenomenon illustratesyour view on how to study the behaviour of human beings, what case backs up yourstance in the debate on how to study the behaviour of human beings, or what fact/whichfacts support/s your idea?

Once you have taken these two steps, it becomes easier to formulate your researchquestion. Try to combine your (provisional) point of view (naturalistic, humanistic, orotherwise) with your illustration, case or fact(s), to get to a research question thatdemands further (scientific and/or philosophical) information. Once you have thatresearch question in place it is a lot easier to take the subsequent steps on yourworksheet!

Stage 2: Giving peer feedback on 3 different worksheets

This is an important step as it will offer you the opportunity to learn from the way othershave performed their preparatory research, how they looked for reliable and relevant

sources to argue for and illustrate (to a certain degree) their point of view. Please, judgeand assess your fellow students worksheets using the Rubrics document (seeBlackboard).

Stage 3: Looking for 2 fellow students to get to a consensus on what position toexplore and defend and how to illustrate your team-view with a(somewhat) worked out example, illustration, case, or fact(s).

Once you have received the feedback on and assessment of your worksheet you areready to team up with two of your fellow students (simply ask those students you want towork with, invite students to join your team, or accept an unknown or controversial voiceto keep you alert)!

Now it is time to pick a research question all three members of the team are OK with.Check whether you have enough reliable and relevant information sources. Start to thinkof a structure of your (short) team-paper. Perhaps you decide to a form of division oflabour, but make sure there are enough opportunities to collectively discuss the progressof your paper and make sure all members can in principle explain and defend the essay.

Keep your team-answer to the essay question between 1500 and 1750 words.

The structure of the paper needs to simulate the structure of a scientific article asmuch as possible, and if it does not, it needs to be argued whythe research questioncannot be answered in any standard scientific way. Given this condition, you mightwant to know what we understand by a scientific paper! Hence, my briefelucidation of what a scientific paper is, and further instructions.

What is a scientific paper?

I can imagine that one may reason as follows: A scientific paper is a paper writtenwithin the domain of science, but as philosophers of science have aptly pointed out we do not know precisely what science is; therefore, it is unclear what falls withinthe domain of science, and so it is impossible for me to understand what turns ascientific paper into a scientific paper.


3/5

3

To this my answer would be: good point! So what I have done below is to describe, inan extremely brief account, what a good paper as suchis.

Interestingly, any good paper echoes the rules of good old rhetoric.

As you may already know, legal affairs in the first (Syracusian) democracy requiredan art of eloquence and persuasion (5th century B.C.). In this young art of rhetoricthe sophists (like Protagoras) argued that rhetoric does not just offer methods ofargumentation but must be seen as a complete educational discipline. Still, Platocriticized the sophists for merely using hollow rhetoric as a defense of relativism (theymerely bend what is straight and they straighten what is bent), while Aristotle had amore positive view of rhetoric as it promoted literacy. He wrote an important bookcalled Retorica of which the second part got lost (by the way, that part plays a majorrole in Umberto Ecos seminal The Name of the Rose). Later, Quintillian introducedGreek philosophy in the Roman world and subsequently (in the tradition of Cicero)published the standard work in rhetoric, the Institutio Oratoria.

From the Institutio Oratoriayou can deduce in brief how you structure a good paper.Of course, rhetoric was at first concerned with a good oral presentation and thepreparations for such a presentation. But even modern scientific papers closelymirror the rhetorical plan of an (ancient) oratio. The aim, means, and the general planof an oratio seem not to have changed much through the ages. The aim of a

scientific paper still is to persuade the audience by teaching, pleasing, and movingthe audience. But since the audience is restricted to an audience of scientists, wenow understand (or have learned) that the pleasing and moving have (as such) noplace in a scientific paper (although it helps when the paper is pleasing andmoving). The means once used to come up with a fine speech (the so called fiveoffices) can be seen as the means to come up with a good paper:

1. inventio(analyze topic and collect materials),2. dispositio (arranging it into a paper/essay), and3. elocutio (finding fitting words to the topic, audience, and occasion)

the memoria (learning the speech by heart) and actio (delivering the speechorally) are only relevant for a good presentation of a scientific paper.

Now, what is important to understand in the case of writing a scientific paper is that apaper has the mark of the scientific if it somehow shows the form and the contentyou think a scientific paper should have given a specific interpretation of science.

We know (or rather: we will witness) that there are many different interpretations ofscience. So what you need to do in your paper is to take some space to brieflydefend your interpretation of science, so that I can understand why the scientificpaper you wrote can be seen as a scientific paper.

But, after youve given a specific interpretation of science, the plan of the paper itselfechoes the general plan of a classical rhetorical oratio, the main difference being that

(1) your paper is not a speech but a written essay, and(2) your audience is an audience of scientists which means that the style of

argumentation must somehow be scientific (again: what you see as scientificin the context of the question you want to discuss depends on yourinterpretation of science; so you must not be ambiguous about thatinterpretation!).

With this in mind, the plan (or structure) of your paper, then, ought to look like this:

I. (exordium): introduction/opening/beginning.II. (narratio & divisio): story/main text/division of paragraphs.


4/5

4

III. (argumentatio): argumentation/plea(confirmatio/probatio/refutatio).IV. (peroratio): epilogue/afterword/conclusion.

This is the structure one can still recognize in every scientific paper:

1. intro;2. main text;3. evidence for and against the proposed hypothesis (discussion); and4. an afterword or conclusion;5. used sources: bibliography.

How to write a scientific paper.

Another good question would be: OK, but how does one actually go about writing apaper?.

To answer that question you could make use of the worksheet that we provided forthis assignment, as it also depicts the several phases you go through whileresearching and writing a scientific paper.

Phase Activity

Define the problemFormulate the central question

What do you already know?

Which info do you need?

Look for infoSelect sources of info

Generate search termsLook within a source of info

Scan and process infoJudge sources and info on reliability

Judge sources and info on relevancy

Connect info form different sources

Organize infoSave found info

Link found info to the central question

Make a bibliography

Once you have gone through these stages of creating a paper you should be able topour your central question, the info you have collected, and the ideas (hypotheses)you have come up with, into the above format of a paper. (Dont forget generating abibliography!).

What you need to do in your paper.

Now, as we discussed earlier, I do not expect you to write a complete scientificpaper on some research question in Liberal Arts and Sciences. I want you to virtuallygo through all the steps in writing a paper and make a paper/report about that

process and show me at least the following:

(1) The central research question in Liberal Arts and Sciences youd like toinvestigate;

(2) The hypothesisyou will probe;(3) The interpretation of science that you will assume for your paper (do not

simply pick one, but also try to (briefly) argue for it);(4) A brief report on what info you think you needto collect in order to answer

your question, and if you think the info is not available, how you would beable to generate the info you need;


5/5

5

(5) A brief report on how the argument would proceedif you had the relevantand reliable info. Come up with arguments for and against your initialhypothesis;

(6) A brief report on what could be your provisional conclusionand what youthink ought to be follow-up research.

Remember that you need to present these elements in the general scheme orstructure of a scientific paper.

So,

Hand in your team assignment essay (1500-2000 words) as a hard copy atthe Secretary of Philosophy on the first floor of the Dante Building on orbefore Monday, 10 November 2014, before 5 pm.

I will read your essay and give you feedback in a feedback-meeting in week 47. Wewill plan those meetings in due course, so keep an eye on the Blackboard page ofthe course.

Wishing you lots of success in writing the paper!

Herman de Regt

Subject: Thinking about science

Documents

Transcript of Subject: Thinking about science