I need to write an essay.


Due Date: March 2

Length: about 2400 words

The papers should be typed, double-spaced with margins of reasonable size (1”). The
emphasis should still be on clarity and structure but I would like to see more critical
analysis and discussion than in the first paper. The discussion should, however, be
discussion of arguments and theories that you have clearly explained. If you quote,
paraphrase, or refer to particular passages from the reading, or any other source, please
give reference. It is virtually impossible for your paper to be too narrowly focused.
Popper describes good scientific practice as involving scientists putting forward bold
conjectures and then attempting to refute those conjectures. Explain what a bold
conjecture is and how conjectures can be refuted. Why does Popper think scientists
should seek to refute their conjectures rather than confirm them and why does he think
that aiming at refutation produce better science? Be sure to not only explain Popper’s
reasoning but to evaluate it.
One criticism of Popper’s method focuses on the role of auxiliary hypotheses in
hypothesis testing. Explain this criticism and evaluate it. Another criticism is that Popper
has no explanation for when we should put more trust in one hypothesis rather than
another. Explain this criticism and evaluate it. For both criticisms be sure to consider
possible responses by Popper to the criticism and evaluate those responses.

About the Author

Follow me

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}