The goal here is simple, use Godfrey-Smith as the author and try to distill his position to a few sentences. The best advice is to use Chapter 15 where he provides adequate quotations to present this information.
Then, discuss briefly whether you agree. This does not need to be a great tome, just a paragraph or two summing up your thoughts on his theory (is it correct, incorrect, good enough).
Finally, and honesty matters, what do you believe you gained from the course? Try to not be flippant, but present a thoughtful reflection on your experience and whether it changes the way you view science.
Be sure to review the following prior to submitting your assignment:
- We strive for academic integrity in all aspects of education, and you are expected to uphold these standards when creating and submitting your discussion. View the Standards of Student Conduct [webpage] for more information on what that means at APUS.
- Assignment Rubric
- If you do not see the rubric, select Course Tools in the blue horizontal navigation bar and then
- Assignments. Select the appropriate assignment, and the rubric will be located near the bottom of the page.
- Print a Rubric Preview [webpage
- ConclusionWe started off our course with the idea that science is about objective measurement and testing. From Copernicus proposing the radical idea that the sun is the center of our universe to Galileo testing gravity from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, we were introduced to scientists who were also philosophers, suggesting that truth was based on empirical facts rather than belief rooted in the sanctity of tradition or religion. Popper introduced us to the concept of falsifiability, and Kuhn argued that science is a social construct.If nothing else, we quickly learned that science is messy, and there is no single way to find the truth if, in fact, the truth can be discovered at all. We have discussed how science reflects the natural world, how we might define reality, and how it’s almost impossible to say that science is objective and impartial. Godfrey-Smith concludes Theory and Reality with his own attempt at a summative philosophy of science, which he freely admits is a “muddy paste” that combines empiricism, naturalism, and scientific realism into a rough mixture. His position is just one of many that current philosophers of science support. Where do you stand?
References
“An Intuitive (and Short) Explanation of Bayes’ Theorem.” Better Explained. https://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-... - BBC Archives. “A look back at the 1957 spaghetti harvest” BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68707739Mr. Bayes, and Mr. Price.
- “An Essay towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the Late Rev. Mr. Bayes, F. R. S. Communicated by Mr. Price, in a Letter to John Canton, A. M. F. R. S.
- ” Philosophical Transactions (1683-1775), vol. 53, 1763, pp. 370–418. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/105741Mlodinow, Leonard.
- The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. New York: Pantheon Books, 2008.Senn, Stephen.
- “You May Believe You Are a Bayesian, But You Are Probably Wrong.” RMM 2 (2011): 48-66. https://senns.uk/You_may_believe_you_are_a_Bayesia...