The Structure of Scientific Revolutions & Kuhn Argues – Science Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Task 

Description: Select one of the following topics and write a paper on that topic, addressing all of the required elements noted in the topic’s instructions. 

Topic 1. In chapter 9 of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn argues that “the normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before” (103). Let’s refer to this as Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis. How does he defend this thesis? Does it give us a plausible account of scientific change? For example, is it compatible
with the idea of science making objective progress? Why or why not? 

A good answer to this question should:

a. clarify what Kuhn means by incommensurability, using at least one historical example (you’re welcome to draw from an example that Kuhn himself uses)
b. explain how Kuhn argues for his incommensurability thesis
c. critically assess whether Kuhn’s position gives a plausible account of scientific change. (In lecture, two distinct issues were discussed: whether his account allows for scientific change to be rational and objective, and whether his account is consistent with the idea of scientific progress. You’re encouraged to focus on one, but not both, of these issues.)
d. give a persuasive defense of your assessment of Kuhn’s position.

The only resources you’ll need are:
a. Your lecture notes / slides on the topic,
b. Chapter 5 of our primary textbook, and
c. Chapters 9 and 10 of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for Kuhn’s explanation of incommensurability Additionally, you might find it helpful to look at chapter 13 of Structure for Kuhn’s discussion of scientific progress. 

Topic 2. Do our best scientific theories provide approximately true descriptions of the world? Justify your answer.
A good answer to this question should:
a. focus on a specific argument for or against scientific realism (many arguments for/against were discussed in module 6)
b. give a persuasive defense of your assessment of that argument
c. consider how the opposing side might try to object to your assessment
d. give a compelling reply to that objection 

The only resources you’ll need are:
a. Your lecture notes / slides on the topic, and 
b. ch.4 of our primary textbook

Topic 3. In her Ted Talk, “Why We Should Trust Scientists,” Naomi Oreskes argues that the trustworthiness of science is ultimately based on the “collective wisdom” of scientists. Explain and critically assess Oreskes’ view. Can this sort of view give a satisfactory response to the worry that scientists in a given field could be led astray by underlying biases? Why or why not? 

A good answer to this question should:
a. clearly explain Oreskes’ view and how she argues for it. (To this end, you might also consider the paper by Longino from module 7, which defends a similar position.)
b. critically assess whether this sort of view can give a satisfying answer to the concern that scientists could be misled by underlying biases. (To this end, it’s highly recommended that you motivate the concern by using an historical example. You can find examples discussed in the papers by Orkuhlik and Solomon, as well as in some of the lecture videos.)
c. give a persuasive defense of your assessment of Oreskes’ view. (This means not only stating whether you think Oreskes could give a satisfactory reply to the concern, but also giving good reasons to think that this assessment is correct.)

The only resources you’ll need are:
a. Your lecture notes / slides on the topic,
b. The ted talk video by Oreskes (linked to in the module 9 reading assignment), and
c. The readings by Longino, Okruhlik, and Solomon.