Next: About this document ...
Up: Phil. 125paper1, Winter 06
Previous: Instructions
- What is the importance, according to the authors we've read, of
using the proper concepts (or: the proper terms, with the proper
definitions)? How (if at all) can we be sure we have the right ones?
(Is there only one way or are there more than one?) What happens if
we have the wrong ones? (The wrong concepts, that is, or: terms
improperly defined, terms without proper definitions--are all of
those the same?) What happens to science in that case? To
philosophy? Pick at least two authors to discuss, one of whom should
presumably be Carnap of the Aufbau. (You might regard
earlier and later Carnap as different ``authors'' for these
purposes).
- What, according to the authors we have read, is the relationship
between science and language, and/or between philosophical interest
in science and in language? What, if anything, makes language into
an object of special interest for philosophy and/or science? You may
want to contrast different authors, or to trace changes in a single
one (unless you've done additional reading, that would pretty much
have to mean Carnap). (If you do contrast different authors, the
contrast need not be simply between Carnap and one of his
critics. Neurath, Putnam, and Quine all attack Carnap in different
ways, though there are also similarities between all three. What
role do views about or attitudes towards language play in this?
Goodman's arguments may raise problems for any or all of these
people.)
- Discuss the meaning of and/or relationship between some of the
following things, according to authors we've read: (scientific)
theory, observation(s), common or everyday knowledge, experience,
sense data. How (if at all) do they define them? Which do they
consider most certain/reliable, or more justified, or otherwise
better, and why? (In what sense are they or are they not
``empiricists''?) How and on what grounds do they disagree with each
other about these issues? (How, if at all, is it possible to
disagree about the definitions? Can't everyone define the
terms as he or she likes? What would our various authors say about
that?)
- What was really important to Carnap, and what wasn't (in general
and/or at the various stages we've seen)? How does this explain the
adjustments in his project as time went on, and/or his response to
(one or more of) his critics? To help with this, you may want to look
at the Preface to the second edition of the Aufbau (which is
in your book), also at his ``Intellectual Autobiography'' and possibly
other items on the recommended reading list.
- Carnap was an Old Left democratic socialist, Neurath was a
Marxist, Quine was an extreme right wing conservative, and Putnam was
(in the period when he wrote ``What Theories Are Not'') a New Left
activist. Discuss the relationship between the political views of
these authors (i.e., one or more of them) and their views in
philosophy of science. (I hinted at some things about this in class,
but there's a lot more to be said.) (Note: to do this well you need to
understand and deal carefully with the philosophy of science aspect,
not just take off on the politics.)
Next: About this document ...
Up: Phil. 125paper1, Winter 06
Previous: Instructions
Abe Stone
2006-03-05