This paper explores philosophy of Science & Scientific Entry’s. Directions: Describe one scientific entity (scientist, discipline, or subject) that deserves to be regarded as authoritative. Why do you think they deserve this?

Philosophy of Science

Directions: Describe one scientific entity (scientist, discipline, or subject) that deserves to be regarded as authoritative. Why do you think they deserve this? Explain. Now describe an entity that purports to be scientific (a pseudo-science or scientist), but which doesn’t deserve to be regarded as authoritative. Why do they not deserve this? Explain. Then answer the additional questions below in regards to the reading below.

Philosophy of Science

Pages 1-30 from the The Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed., by Steven Shapin, The University of Chicago Press, 2018. (Rev) 1. State what you think is the main point or thesis of the reading assigned above. 2. Explain why you think that, and provide textual justification for your claim in the form of exegesis, not direct quotation. 3. Share some critical remarks about the article. What did the author overlook, get wrong, or what are some potential implications of the author’s claims that may be problematic in some way? https://youtu.be/NmKLZ0eZpdY

Attached Files

Download  |