PHIL 160

Philosophy of Science

First exam review

1. What is an argument?  What are the parts of an argument and how are they related. Explain the two steps involved in evaluating an argument

2. What is an analysis?  How can an analysis be evaluated?

3. What is it for an argument to be deductively valid?  What is it for an argument to be sound?  What is it for an argument to be inductively strong?  What is it for an argument to be cogent?

4. Explain the role of Aristotle in stimulating the scientific revolution.

6. Explain empiricism.

7. How does Russell and Whitehead’s derivation of mathematics from logic and set theory bolster empiricism?

8. Explain the verificationist theory of meaning.  How did the Logical Positivists employ the verificationist theory of meaning in their answer to the demarcation problem?

9. Explain how the verificationist theory of meaning is self defeating.

10. Explain the Logical Positivist’s views about moral claims.

11. What is a theory according to the Positivists?  Give a potential counterexample (an arguably legitimate theory of science that doesn’t fit the positivist’s analysis).

12.  Explain the Positivist’s view of laws.

13. Give a counterexample to the Positivist's view of laws.  What more general problem for their view of laws is indicated by the counterexamples?

14. What is the difference between a material conditional and a non-material conditional?  Laws appear to support non-material conditionals.  How does this present a problem for the Positivist’s view of laws?

15. Explain the deductive nomological model of explanation.  Give an example of such an explanation.  Give a counterexample to this account of explanation.