Answer the following questions. Aim at about 500 words per response; do not exceed 600 words on an answer. (So your answers are going to need to be concise. Don’t waste time with an introduction, conclusion, etc. Get right into it.) You may discuss the questions with other students, but you may not collaborate on the preparation of any answers. Your answers are due by 11:59pm on Sunday, April 28. You should submit them on the Assignment page on Canvas. Acceptable file types are doc, docx, and pdf.
Your goal here should be to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the arguments made (or positions articulated) by these authors, not to develop your own arguments or positions. (Of course, if there are gaps in the authors’ arguments, or questionable inferences that they make, you may point these out as a way of demonstrating your understanding.) It is a good idea to develop your own examples to illustrate your understanding of pertinent ideas. You may reference the readings and your own notes from class. You should be able to answer these questions without using outside sources, but if you do use them make sure that you cite them.
1. Explain two of Maxwell’s arguments that nothing of ontological significance should be thought to depend on the observable/unobservable distinction. (Grover Maxwell, “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities”)
2. What is Constructive Empiricism, and how does it rely on a distinction between the observable and the unobservable? How does van Fraassen defend Constructive Empiricism from Maxwell’s arguments that the observable/unobservable distinction is not ontologically significant? Bas van Fraassen, “Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism”
3. What does Musgrave mean when he says that van Fraassen is a realist about the interpretation of scientific theories? How does Musgrave argue that Constructive Empiricism incurs a comparable amount of epistemic risk to full-blown Scientific Realism? Alan Musgrave, “Realism versus Constructive Empiricism”
