University of Massachusetts School of Nursing



University of Massachusetts School of Nursing

Course Syllabus N 700, of Nursing Science and Philosophy Fall

2004

I. Course Number and Title:

N 700 History of Nursing Science and Philosophy

Credits: 3 credits

II. Rationale:

This course explores the evolution, fundamental assumptions and dominant themes underpinning philosophies of science, social science and nursing science. Epistemological and ontological foundations will be addressed as well. A key component of these discussions will focus on the interconnectedness among a variety of metatheoretical perspectives, theoretical thinking, scientific inquiry, and knowledge development in nursing. Current issues such as incommensurability and pluralism in the context of philosophical debate underlying science and knowledge development will be considered.

III. Course Description:

Prepares doctoral students to systematically analyze epistemological, ontological, and metatheoretical perspectives in the philosophy of science, while also considering the implications for scientific inquiry, theory development, and knowledge development in nursing.

IV. Course Objectives:

At the completion of this course, the learner will be able to:

1. Distinguish among philosophy of science, philosophy of social science and philosophy of nursing.

2. Analyze the relationship of epistemology and ontology to philosophy of science and nursing knowledge

development.

3. Describe and analyze key assumptions and central themes of selected philosophical perspectives and their influence upon nursing science.

4. Analyze designated philosophical perspectives focusing on the growth and structure of knowledge within

scientific inquiry in the human sciences.

5. Consider current issues in philosophy of science as they relate to selection of research methodology, practice and knowledge development in nursing.

6. Explore linkages among philosophy, theory, research, and practice for nursing science.

7. Prepare and orally defend a written argument related to an ethical issue.

V. Prerequisites: Matriculation into the doctoral nursing program, or consent of instructor.

VI. Time Allotment: 9am-12 noon; 13 weekly meetings Tuesdays

VII. Teaching Personnel:

Donna M. Zucker, RN, PhD

Assistant Professor

donna@acad.umass.edu

Tele: 413-545-1343 (w)

Office fax: 413-577-2550

Office Hours: Tuesdays 3pm-5 pm and by appointment

VIII. Teaching Methods:

Use of interactive TV

Lecture, discussion, seminar (class participation required)

WebCT course enhancement

Construct Groups

IX. School of Nursing Grading Policy

|A = 93 - 100 |C = 73 - 76 |

|A- = 90 - 92 |C- = 70 - 72 |

|B+ = 87 - 89 |D+ = 67 - 69 |

|B = 83 - 86 |D = 63 - 66 |

|B- = 80 - 82 |F or IF = (< 62) |

|C+ = 77 - 79 | |

X. Academic Honesty:

|Graduate Students: |

|(Excerpted from the Online Graduate Catalog): |

|Academic Honesty |

|It is the expressed policy of the University that every aspect of graduate academic life, related in whatever fashion to the |

|University, shall be conducted in an absolutely and uncompromisingly honest manner by graduate students. |

|Apparent and alleged breaches in this policy are covered in the Graduate Student Academic Policy (Sen. Doc. no. 89-026). A |

|copy of this policy is available in the Ombuds Office, Faculty Senate Office and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for |

|Research and Dean of the Graduate School. |

|Graduate Student Honor Code |

|We, the graduate students of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, hereby affirm that graduate students do not lie, cheat, |

|or steal, or willingly tolerate those who do. |

|We do not plagiarize the work of others, falsify data, or knowingly allow false data to be generated or published with our |

|compliance. |

|We do not harass or discriminate against others for reasons of race (phenotype), creed, sexual orientation, or political |

|belief, or keep faith with those who do. |

XI. Evaluation:

1. Study questions 15%

2. Argument Paper 20%

3. Seminar discussion 15% in class

4. Paper 50%: typed, double spaced, APA format, 10 page minimum (excluding references and face sheet)

Assignments:

1. Study questions. Questions are provided for each of the first three Parts of your syllabus and readings. Select two questions from the attached list. DO ANY TWO YOU WANT. Responses should be concise and at least two typed double spaced pages. NO APA required – just neat and with your name attached. *Refer to your readings when making your points.

Part I: Nature of Knowledge and Science Due: September 30

Answer question #11 in Klemke, p. 101.

Or,

Part II: Historical and Sociocultural Perspectives in Philosophy and Science Due: Oct 28

Briefly review realist and relativist ontological positions. Which of these comes closest to your position and why? *

Or,

Part III Philosophical Issues in Science: Dec 2

How do the following authors answer the question, "What is scientific explanation?" Hempel, Cartwright , Salmon and van Frassen (in Klemke). Which author's view comes closest to your answer to this question and why?

2 . Mid semester Argument Paper: Write an analysis of your own argument, and break it down into the premise-premise-conclusion model. Topics to choose from include:

Abortion Sterilization/Reproductive rights Alternative and Complementary Therapies

Capital Punishment Conscription Stem Cell Research

String Theory Cloning Active euthanasia

In vitro fertilization Genetically altered food The Big Bang Theory

I do not care if more than one of you chooses the same topic, but your paper must be unique and your own work. Typed, double-spaced, APA format, no longer than 5 pages (excluding any references).

3. Seminar discussion

The discussion is an INFORMAL overview of the progress you have made on your final paper topic to date. . Suggested readings may be shared with your class the week before the presentation, and time should be allowed for discussion (Total time up to 15 min). The purpose of this discussion is to get constructive feedback. Time slots will be made available toward the end of the semester. Sign up for a time.

4. Final Paper:

The final paper should represent a critical analysis* of an issue incorporating its major Using APA format and subheadings, include background and a description of the issue, as well as your point of view on the issue. Use the resources from the course and additional resources to support your position as needed. It is preferred you choose from the attached list of suggested topics.

*A critical analysis should be part of every paper you consider writing, not just this

final paper. Think of these main points and practice using them when forming any assignment.

• 1. What are the main points of the authors?

• 2. Compare and contrast those points.

• 3. What is your point of view/criticism.

• 4. Derive implications for nursing .

•

Suggested Paper Topics

1. Is the concept of holism compatible with science?

2. Is science sexist?

3. What are the implications of various philosophy of science perspectives?

4. Examine the impact of "new" physics on nursing science.

5. Analyze the concept of holism as utilized from a philosophy of science perspective.

6. Analyze the interrelationships among philosophy, science and ethics or values.

7. Analyze selected ontological perspectives and their relationship to knowledge development.

8. Debate traditional science vs. "new science" approaches to knowledge development in nursing.

Need writing resources?

1. Contact the University Writing Center for an appointment or assistance.



2. Consult your APA Manual and the Lunsford text – they are quite helpful.

Guidelines for Evaluation. The following guidelines are the ones that we use to evaluate qualifying exams at the end of year one and comprehensive exams at the end of year two. We introduce them now so you are used to seeing them, and used to using them as a guide for writing your papers. Your final paper grade will be based on this outline.

Criteria for Paper Submission

N 700 Philosophy of Science

1. Essential criteria. If these criteria are not met, the remaining criteria do not apply. The student automatically will receive a grade of F for the course.

Honesty. The assignment meets University standards of academic honesty. Briefly, it is expected that all references will be cited, with no evidence of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism from published references or others' work. Additional details can be found in the UMass Amherst Graduate Student Academic Honesty Policy (Sen. Doc. No. 89-026). Students whose first language is not English may obtain the assistance of an editor who may critique the paper for English usage and expression. However, the students are required to submit both the original and edited versions of their paper.

2. Feasibility and completeness. The paper contains all of the elements required for the assignment.

Undesirable characteristics include: One or more elements of the question go unanswered.

3. Clarity and consistency. Desirable characteristics include the following: Your responses are clearly stated. Terms for concepts, constructs, etc. and their meanings, are clearly provided, and the terms and their meaning are used consistently throughout. The paper as a whole is precisely and concisely worded.

Undesirable characteristics include: The language of the paper is vague, or has no systematic meaning, or other aspects of wording are unclear. Terms and their meanings, or the research question itself, change from beginning to end. The proposal is wordy, or full of jargon.

4. Logic and organization. [Same as “Logic” for Quals/Comps.] Desirable characteristics include the following: The development of the paper is logical from beginning to end. All aspects of the assignment, including title, justification, theoretical framework, literature review, hypothesis, sampling plan, instruments, procedures, and plan for data summary and analysis are consistently related to the research question and to each other. Elements of the assignment are placed in and organized by a larger context of knowledge and/or theory. The point to be made by a study or other example is introduced before the study itself; the meaning of terms to be used in the study is offered before the term is used, except for the title or research question. Major features of the paper are separated under appropriately devised subheadings, but material is integrated and the development of the idea flows smoothly from point to point both within and between paragraphs.

Undesirable characteristics include: The order of elements is of questionable logic or causes the reader to skip forward and back to make sense of the presentation. Material of questionable relevance to the research question is included. One or more elements are considered in isolation from each other. Words are used to indicate systematic meaning prior to their definition in the text. Subheadings do not pertain to the material contained thereunder, or they are excessive or missing. Studies or other information are linked together by unclear relationships, or they are merely listed or outlined, and presentation is choppy.

5. Knowledge and accuracy. [“Accuracy” and the other part of “Breadth” for Quals/Comps.] Desirable characteristics include the following: To develop the paper, the writer employs relevant studies published in current nursing research journals, research journals from other disciplines, and other current primary sources related to the question. Documentation is appropriate and accurate. Information presented is accurate, and research terminology is used fluently. Literature that may not be in line with the writer's point of view is presented fairly. The writer shows that he or she knows what he or she is talking about.

Undesirable characteristics include: The writer relies on literature expressing opinions or on secondary sources to develop the paper. Sources are seldom cited. Research terminology is not extensively used, or errors in basic terminology are made, or research terminology is used awkwardly. The writer shows that he or she has not completed a thorough search of the relevant literature in nursing and other disciplines when relevant, or has not assimilated the literature to the point of understanding. Only literature that fits the writer's bias is included, or alternate points of view are presented unfairly. Inaccurate or outdated information is presented.

6. Depth and specificity. [“Depth” for Quals/Comps.] Desirable characteristics include the following: Studies are not summarized, yet sufficient detail about them is provided to support their use in the paper. Methods are described in enough detail that any appropriately trained researcher could carry out the study with results not differing substantially from those that would be obtained by the writer. An explicit, step-by-step sequence of proceeding is presented.

Undesirable characteristics include: The proposal contains vague references to studies described only in general terms, or irrelevant study details are provided, given the purpose for which the cited study is being used. The proposal contains vague references to unspecified methods described only in general terms; there are statements such as "a sample will be located" or "a questionnaire will be developed" with no explanation of precisely how this will be done.

7. Originality. [The parallel of “Originality” in Quals/Comps.] Desirable characteristics include the following: The paper provides, in the question or the methods, some contribution that is different from work previously done and that distinctly is the product of the writer's own thinking. The research question is related to nursing phenomena via a justification explaining the choice of the question. Cited studies are critically appraised. Strengths and potential limitations of the proposed study (sample, setting, design, plan for data analysis, etc.) are presented clearly and concisely (as opposed to the more lengthy reasoning that is likely to be contained in the shorter papers); the strengths of the proposed study far outweigh the potential limitations. Conclusions derived are the writer's own and are warranted. The paper is presented in the writer's own words (as opposed to lengthy quotations). Significant aspects of assignment elements are addressed, reflecting an ability to prioritize

Undesirable characteristics include: No original contribution is evident. The writer does not make clear the reasoning underlying the choice of research questions, etc. The paper contains excessive quotations. The paper contains quotes or paraphrases of results, evaluations, or conclusions of others without criticism, synthesis, or creative development. Evaluations or conclusions are not warranted by the information presented. The writer over-generalizes from an inadequate body of knowledge or suggests conclusions that seem unwarranted by the evidence presented. Limits or weakness go unnoticed. Trivial aspects of assignment elements are included.

8. Mechanics. Desirable characteristics include the following: The paper is well-edited, with adequate attention to grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc. Words other than those defined for the purposes of the study are used as generally understood. APA style as described in the 5th edition is followed. Times Roman 12-point, or its equivalent, is used.

Undesirable characteristics include: The writer has failed to spell-check and proofread as revealed by errors in spelling, grammar, etc. Word use is awkward such as when a thesaurus has been consulted without understanding, or usage is tiresome as when abbreviations are excessively employed. APA style has not been followed.

XI. Bibliography

Alcock, J.E. (1996). The propensity to believe. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt & M.W. Lewis (Eds.) The flight

from science and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences.

Allen, D., Benner, P., & Diekelman, N.L. (1986). Three paradigms for nursing research: Methodological

implications. In P. L. Chinn (Ed.). Nursing research methodologies. Rockville, MD: Aspen, 23-

38.

Barad, K. (1999). Agenital realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M.

Biagioli(Ed.). The science studies reader. NY: Routledge, 1-111.

Bernstein, R.J. (1977). Pragmatism, pluralism, and the healing of wounds. In L. Menand (Ed.).

Pragmatism: A Reader. NY: Vintage Books, 382-401.

Boyd, R. (1991). N the current status of scientific realism. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper & J.D. Trout (Eds.). The

philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,197-222.

Bratenberg, G. (1985). Egalia's Daughters. Seattle: The Seal Press, 32-43.

Bridges, C. (1985). Strategies for theory development. In Proceedings from Boston University Nursing

Science Colloquium: Strategies for theory development in nursing II. Boston: B.U. School of

Nursing, 173-189.

Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.

Ch 15, Realism and antirealism, 226-246.

Chopra, D. (1993). Ageless body, timeless mind. NY: Harmony Books. Part 1.

Churchill, R.P. (1994). Analyzing arguments. In A.P Ionnone, (Ed.). Through time and culture:

Introductory readings in philosophy, 69-77.

Cotton, AH, (2003). The discursive field of Web-based health research: implications for nursing research in cyberspace. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(4): 307-19

Davies, P. & Gribbin, J. (1992). The matter myth. Ch 1 The death of materialism . NY: Simon & Shuster..

Feynman, R.P. (1988). What do you care what other people think? NY: Bantam Books.

Fine, A. (1991). The natural ontological attitude. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper & J.D. Trout (eds.). The philosophy

of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 261-277.

Flew, A. (1979). Dictionary of philosophy. NY: St. Martin's press

Gaarder, J. (1994). Sophie's world. NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Giere, R.N. (1988). Explaining science. A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goleman, D. (2003). Healing emotions. Conversations with the Dalai Lama. Boston: Shambhala.

Goodstein, D. (1996). Conduct and misconduct in science. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt & M.W. Lewis (eds.)

The flight from science and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences.

Gortner, S.R. (1993). Nursing syntax revisited: A critique of philosophies said to influence nursing

theories. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 30(6), 477-488.

Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Haack, S. (1996). Concern for truth. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt & M.W. Lewis (Eds.) The flight from science

and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences.

Hacking, I. (1999). Making up people. In M. Biagioli (ed.). The science studies reader. NY: Routledge,

161-171.

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Harding, S. (1996). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is 'strong objectivity'? In E.F. Keller & H.E.

Longino (Eds.). Feminism and science. NY: Oxford University Press, 235-248.

Hardy, M. (1988). Perspectives on science. In M.E. Hardy & M.E. Conway (Eds.). Role theory:

Perspectives for health professionals. (2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, pp. 1-27.

Harmon, W.H. (1991). Reconciling science and metaphysics. Noetic Sciences Review, (Winter 1990-91),

2-16.

Harman, W.W. (1991). A re-examination of the metaphysical foundations of modern science. Sausalito,

CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences.

Harris, J.F. (1992). Against relativism: A philosophical defense of method. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.

Modern science & feminism, 173-197.

Held, B.S. (1996). Constructivism in psychotherapy. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt & M.W. Lewis (Eds.) The

flight from science and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences.

Honderich, T. (Ed.). (1995). The Oxford companion to philosophy. NY: Oxford University Press. 806-812.

Horgan, J. (1993). Paul Feyerabend: Worst enemy of science. Scientific American, May, 16-17.

Iannone, A.P. (1994). What are truth, knowledge, and faith and how are they related? In A.P Ionnone,

(Ed.).Through time and culture: Introductory readings in philosophy. pp. 80-93.

Jones, R.S. (1992). Physics for the rest of us. Chicago: Contemporary Books, Chs 9 & 11.

Keller, E.F. (1991). Feminism & science. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper & J.D. Trout (eds.). The philosophy of

science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 279-288.

Kim, H.S. (1989). Theoretical thinking in nursing: Problems and prospects. Recent Advances in Nursing, 24, 106-122.

Kim, H.S. (1993). Identifying alternative linkages among philosophy, theory and method in nursing

science. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 793-800.

Klemke, E.D., Hollinger, R. & Rudge, D.W. (Eds.) (1998). Introductory readings in the

philosophy of science. (3rd ed.). NY: Prometheus Books.

Kleppner, D. (1996). Physics and common nonsense. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt & M.W. Lewis (Eds.) The

Flight from science and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences, 126-130.

Miller, J.R. & Burbank, P.M. (1994). Congruence among philosophy, theory and method in nursing

research. In Workgroup of European Nurse Researchers. The contribution of nursing research:

Past-Present-Future, Vol. 2, Proceedings at the 7th Biennial Conference, Oslo, Norway: Falch

Hurtigtrykk, 704-709.

Mitchell, G.M. & Cody, W.K. (1999). Nursing knowledge and human science: Ontological and

Epistemological considerations. In E.C. Polifroni & M. Welch (Eds.). Perspectives on philosophy

of science in nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 202-213.

Mosedale, F.E. (1979). Philosophy and science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Munhall, P.L. (1982). Nursing philosophy and nursing research: In apposition or opposition? Nursing

Research, 31(3), 176-181.

Packard S.A. & Polifroni, E.C. (1992). The nature of scientific truth. Nursing Science Quarterly, 5(4), 158-

163.

Phillips, D.C. (1987). Ch 4 The demise of positivism. Philosophy, science and social inquiry, NY:

Pergamon Press.

Richardson, L. (1993). Gender stereotyping in the English language. In L. Richardson & V. Taylor (Eds.).

Feminist Frontiers III. NY: McGraw Hill, 44-50.

Phillips, D.C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. NY: Paragon Press.

Polifroni, E.C. & Packard, S.A. (1999). Explanation in nursing science. In E.C. Polifroni & M. Welch

(Eds.). Perspectives on philosophy of science in nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 189-201.

Riegel, B. Omery, A., Calvillo, E., Elsayed, N. G., Lee, P., Shuler, P. & Siegal, B.E. (1992). Moving

beyond: A generative philosophy of science. Image. The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 24(2),

115-120.

Sarnecky, M.T. (1990). Historiography: A legitimate methodology for nursing. Advances in Nursing

Science, 121(4), 1-10.

Sheldrake, R. (1989). Cause & effect in science: A fresh look. Noetic Sciences Review, Summer, 74-83.

Silva, M.C. (1977). Philosophy, science & theory: Interrelationships and implications for nursing research.

Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 9(3), 59-63.

Suppe, F. (1997). The structure of scientific theories. (2nd ed.) Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 6-118.

Tinkle. M.B., & Beaton, J.L. (1983). Toward a new view of science: Implications for nursing research.

Advances in Nursing Science, 5(2), 27-36.

Tilden, V.P. & Tilden, S. (1985). The participant philosophy in nursing science. Image: The Journal of

Nursing Scholarship, 18(3), 88-90.

Tuana, N. (1992). Ch 1 and epilogue: Reading philosophy as a woman. Woman and the history of

philosophy. NY: Paragon House.

Weekes, D.P. (1986). Theory-free observation: Fact or fantasy? In P. L. Chinn (ed.). Nursing research

methodologies. Rockville, MD: Aspen, 11-22.

Weissmann, G. (1996). "Sucking with vampires". The medicine of unreason. In P.R. Gross, N. Levitt &

M.W. Lewis (Eds.) The flight from science and reason. NY: NY Academy of Sciences

Zajonc, A. (1994). New wine in what kind of wineskins? In W.Harmon (Ed.). (1994). New metaphysical

foundations of modern science. Sausilito, CA: Institute of Noetic Science.

XI. Required text books

Flew, A. (1979). Dictionary of philosophy. NY: St. Martin's press

Guba, E.G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Harman, W.W. (1991). A re-examination of the metaphysical foundations of modern science. Sausalito,

CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences.

Klemke, E.D., Hollinger, R. & Rudge, D.W. (Eds.) with A.D. Kline). (1998). Introductory readings in the

philosophy of science. (3rd ed.). NY: Prometheus Books.

Lunsford, A. & Ruszkiewicz (2001). Everything’s an Argument. Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Mosedale, F.E. (1979). Philosophy and science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Recommended text books:

American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 5th Edition. Washington, DC: APA.

ALL BOOKS HAVE BEEN ORDERED AT THE JEFFREY AMHERST COLLEGE STORE. 26 So. Prospect St. Amherst, MA 01002 413-253-7816. They should be available the last week of August. PLEASE call first. They will also ship for a fee. To get more information about shipping your books, email Ethan at: textbooks@

Or, You may try to order them online using:









Or any other online vendor you have worked with before.

Required Article Packet:

For sale at Copy Cat Print Store, 37 E. Pleasant St. Amherst, MA 01002, 413-549-2854. They do not ship. Please call ahead to make sure they have assembled a copy for you.

XII: Topical Outline: Date, Topic, Related Course Objectives and Assigned Readings

Week One-

Sept 14 Part I: Nature of Knowledge & Science

TOPIC: Introduction, philosophy as a perspective. Discuss Kuhn and Gaarder and Concepts

Week Two

Sept 21 TOPIC: Knowledge, truth and reality

Read: Klemke Text: Introduction , pp. 19-29.

Lunsford Text: Begin Parts 1 and 2

Packet: Week Two: Haack; Alcock; Chopra (handout) ; Davies & Gribbon; Tuana; Packard &

Polifroni; Iannone; Churchill; Recommend: Hardy & Conway

Week Three

Sept 28 TOPIC: Science & Nonscience

Read: Mosedale Text: Selections 18 & 23

Packet: Week Three: Harman; Horgan; Suppe (handout)

Week Four*

Oct 5 Part II: Historical & sociolocultural perspectives in philosophy and science.

TOPIC: Historical review & Sociocultural issues

Read: Klemke Text: Part 1 all

Packet: Week Four: Keller; Harris; Richardson; Harding; Hacking; Honderich; Recommend Brantenberg;

*Part 1 Study Questions Due.

Week Five

Oct 12 TOPIC: Historical development of views of science

Read: Lunsford text: 3-5 as needed

Packet: Week Five: Bridges; Phillips [?Gortner] Review Suppe

Week Six

Oct 19 TOPIC: Historical development cont'd.

Read Mosedale: Selections 31 & 32

Packet: Week Six: Held; Fine; Riegel; Barad; Bernstein; Recommend: Boyd

Week Seven

Oct 26 TOPIC: Science, world views & congruence

Read: Guba Parts I & II

Klemke Part II, #10 only

Harmon (text) begin

Packet: Week Seven: Weissmann; Miller & Burbank; Gortner; Tilden & Tilden, Mitchell& Cody

Mid Semester Argument paper Due

Week Eight

Nov 2* Part III: Philosophical issues in science

TOPIC: Explanation, laws & causality

Read: Harmon (text) finish

Packet: Week Eight: Sheldrake; Polifrani & Packard, Kim

*Part II study questions due

Week Nine – Guest Speaker, Arthur Zajonc, Professor of Physics, Amherst College

Nov. 9 TOPIC: Theory & observation – New Physics

Packet: Week 9: Kleppner, Jones, Zajonc, Chalmers,Weekes

Read: Klemke text Part 4 all

Week Ten

Nov 16 TOPIC; Confirmation & acceptance

Read: Klemke text Part 5 all

Guba - Goodness criteria (Ch 12, 13, 14)

Packet Week Ten: Silva; Munhall; Allen, Benner & Diekelman; Kim; Tinkle & Beaton;

Recommend: Sarnecky

Week Eleven

Nov 23 TOPIC: Science & values

Read: Klemke text Part 6 all

Guba - Values (Ch 27,28,29)

Mosedale text: Section 6 all & 54

Packet: Goodstein; Goleman

Week 12

November 30* Part IV : Methodological Issues in Knowledge Development

TOPIC: Methodological issues

Read: Guba - Methodology & training (Ch 21-26)

Mosedale: Selections 21, 26, 27

Online: Cotton ( Full text online Umass library)

*Part III Study questions due

Evaluations

Week Thirteen

Dec 7 Last Class, Wrap-Up

Final Papers

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download