Paper Guidelines—Science and Religion

Paper Guidelines—Science and Religion
These are meant to guide you in your writing.  In my intro courses, I demand that students stick to these guidelines very closely. I will not make the same demands of you. You are free to follow them closely or you may modify them where you see fit.  Also, the structure of the paper presented below will obviously be different depending on what you choose to do.  If you are defending a claim then you need to argue for it and then defend your argument against at least one possible objection.  If you are not defending a claim but trying to give a survey of something (like the various attempts and failure to demarcate science from non-science) then the structure of your paper should be stated in the intro, but you don’t have to defend anything.  
1.  No title page or title needed.  Write your name and the time of the class you are in on the BACK of the last page of your paper.  Your name should not appear anywhere else on the paper (except on the back of the last page).
2. DO NOT type more than the page limit, double spaced, 12 pt. font and STAPLE! 
3. DO NOT email the paper to me.  You must bring the paper to class on the due date.
4. No introductory paragraph needed.  DO NOT include fluff like the following: “For years man has strived to understand…” Remember, you have a small space to get a lot done—don’t waste any space.  Do not be repetitive.  
5. Be Clear!  Reread your paper out loud.  Have a friend (preferably an English major) read the paper. 
6. You must follow the due dates specified in the syllabus 
7. Here’s is the structure I am looking for:
First Paragraph(This is a very important part of your paper. If this paragraph is sloppy the rest of the paper will suffer.  This paragraph frames the entire paper):
Sentence 1: State the paper’s aim or thesis: e.g. In this paper I will argue that chocolate is better than vanilla. In this paper I will explain the deductive nomological model of scientific explanation and various problems with it.
Sentence 2 (through…): State the paper structure: i.e.  In the first section I will explain the DN-model. In the second section I will present and explain the flagpole problem.  In the third section I will present and explain the birth control pills problem….
Sentence 3 (or whatever): This answers the SO WHAT? question.  What is the significance of your thesis? E.g. This means that …; This is important because…; 
Body: This section simply does what you said you would do in the introduction.  
Conclusion: what did we learn and why should we care.  The conclusion answers the SO WHAT? Question. 
8. It is okay to use the first person, but remember this is a philosophy paper and not a diary or journal entry. You are explaining topics, defending a position, raising objections to your defenses, etc. 
9. Make sure that you use words correctly.  For example VALIDITY is a property of deductive arguments, not sentences.  Probably best to avoid using the term VALIDITY (and its cognates) unless you are sure that you are using it properly.  
10. Don’t waste space with questions.
11. If you quote, you must cite properly.  If you paraphrase, you must cite properly.  Better to be safe than sorry.  You should never quote more than two (or three) sentences at a time and you should not have many quotations in the paper.  Put it in your own words.  Please do not plagiarize; you will get a zero on the paper if you do.  
12. If you decide to write on something other than one of the suggestions I give below, you MUST get your topic approved by me.  
13. Do not simply repeat. Make some of your own points. This is your opportunity to do some philosophy of your own.
14. Here are some possible paper topics:  You may choose one of them, and you may modify the one you choose if you so desire.
a. Explain the demarcation problem and give one or more of the solutions to it. What defects arise for this (or these) solutions?  You can come up with defects of your own. You can defend one of the solutions. 
b. Present and explain one of the attempts to give an account of scientific explanation.  What defects arise for this account?  Again, you can come up with defects of your own.  You can defend one of the solutions.
c. Repeat a and b except replace the relevant words with INDUCTION
d. Repeat a, b, and c except replace the relevant words with VALUE—here you would present Quine’s critique of the analytic/synthetic distinction and how this results in his denial of the gap between philosophy and science, etc. Or you could present and critique or defend Kuhn.
e. Repeat a, b, c, and d (erase relevant stuff) and replace relevant words with REALISM and ANTI-REALISM
These are simply suggestions.  Don’t waste time trying to figure out what to write on. Pick one of the above and get going. Of course, if you have a burning desire to write on something else, feel free to do so, but it MUST be approved by me.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lakatos and Thagard: Demarcation Problem

Lakatos-Falsification and Methodology Naïve Falsificationism (NF): Rules of Acceptance:  if T is falsifiable, the T is scientific. Rules of Falsification:  If some observation statement conflicts with T, then T is falsified. Sophisticated Falsificationsim (SF):  Rules of Acceptance:  T is scientific only if T has more empirical evidence than some other T* Rule of falsification:  T is falsified iff some other theory T* has greater predictive and explanatory power than T and is confirmed to some degree. Theoretically Progressive:  T is TP if T purports to take in more empirical data than some other theory T*. Empirically Progressive:  T is EP if T is TP and some of the excess empirical data is confirmed to some degree. Progressive Problemshift:  both TP and EP If a Problemshift is TP, then it is scientific, if not TP, then it is pseudoscientific So, some theory T is  pseudoscientific  if T is an alter...
Read more

Diverse Viewpoints: Should we be open?

There are lots of different factors in not only theory acceptance but also in accepting and maintaining various beliefs. One is acquiring relevant information about the topic. Another is acquiring and assessing different interpretation of that information. Another is comparing the theory or belief with other theories and other beliefs to see if they fit together well. In some cases, embracing a new idea or theory requires changes in one’s existing beliefs, and sometimes those changes seem too drastic. If embracing theory T means I have to change my belief that 2+2=4, then I ain’t embracing T. That seems perfectly rational. What theories should we really seriously consider? By that I mean, give them serious thought, and be open to changing our minds. Are there ideas, views, theories, that we should not give any serious attention to, even if they have defenders?  We mentioned the Alien-laser theory of drunk driving, but that is not defended by anyone as far as I know.  ...
Read more

Defeaters

Undercutting : where  E  is evidence for  H , an undercutting defeater is evidence which undermines the evidential connection between E and  H .  Rebutting : is evidence which prevents  E  from justifying belief in  H  by supporting not- H  in a more direct way.  In general: a. Moving from believing that p to believing that not p requires a rebutting defeater b. Moving from believing that p to not believing that p requires an undercutting defeater Note the difference between the scope of the 'not' in a. and the scope of the 'not' in b. In a. one believes something, namely, not p. In b. one does not believe something. The 'not' in b. is negating the believing, whereas the 'not' in a. is negating the thing that is believed.  Ok, given all of that, you should be able to explain the relevance of the following cases that Plantinga brings up in Chapter 6. Are they examples of undercutting or rebutting defe...
Read more