Written assignments
Please use 1 margins in 12 point font. The papers should be double-spaced. There will be a deduction of .5 points on 4.0 scale for each day the paper is late. Please turn the paper in electronically.
The paper should be primarily about the reading in question; page numbers in the original should be given for direct quotations, though block quotes from the readings should be avoided and you should summarize the ideas, for the most part, in your own words. If you draw on other sources, which is not encouraged, you must list them on an additional bibliographic page.
Choose one of these paper topics:
Topic I: On Oreskes’ book
Please discuss Oreskes’ argument for
(a) what can actually make science trustworthy,
(b) why Oreskes thinks her worst or most egregious example of scientific malpractice doesn’t invalidate her argument for the trustworthiness of science, and
(c) how scientific commitment to certain values can actually make science more trustworthy.
Then (d) discuss the criticism made of her arguments by one of the respondents in the book and
(e) her reply to that criticism. Make sure
(f) to evaluate the arguments on both sides and draw your own conclusions.
Topic II. On Oreskes’ critics
You can restrict yourself to d-f above.
Topic III. On the value-free ideal of science
A. what is it? B. Is it realizable? C. What problems does the pursuit of value-free science cause? D. What are its advantages? E. Discuss this with a specific example in mind. Sources for this paper would be the Coda in Oreskes; the different places S-F shows how scientific practice is shot through with values; Lewens’ chapter on values and veracity and Lewens’ argument that objectivity is compatible with values in science.
Topic IV. Why is Science not trustworthy?
Here you could make an argument for more organized, considered and rational criticism of science. Schrader-Frechette’s work is a book-length argument for this, but you could supplement her argument with Marks’ and Sarkar’s skepticism of the biological sciences.
