Philosophy of Science,Write in a clear, direct style. Give as much introduction as you think is needed and then get straight down to answering the question. Avoid discursive footnotes. It’s not necessary to do a lot of extra reading in order to do well, b

/in /by

Write on ONE of the topics below.

Write 2000 words (+/- 10%), including any footnotes but not including references.

Write in a clear, direct style. Give as much introduction as you think is needed and
then get straight down to answering the question. Avoid discursive footnotes.
It’s not necessary to do a lot of extra reading in order to do well, but you can contact
your tutor for suggestions for things to read. (Don’t hope for guidance from wandering the internet. Most philosophical material on the internet is not good.)

1. Do you think the interpretation of evidence for or against scientific theories requires scientists to invoke values and principles derived from outside of science? If this is the case, is it a problem?

2. Would it make sense (and might it be a good idea) to be a scientific realist about some parts of science and a metaphysical constructivist about other parts?