Lipton -- Explanation, Causation and Law

Causation

Unless you have a better idea, try:

1. Constant Conjunction accounts of causation and their refinements.
2. Counterfactual accounts and their refinements.
3. Causal realist accounts.
4. Compare and contrast any two of the above.

Or answer the following question (which could fall under 1 or 4 above):

If the phone rings every time that I get into the bath, does that mean that getting into the bath causes the phone to ring?

Dr Lipton's lectures are highly recommended -- miss them at your peril. The reading list is very full, and any attempt to read everything on it is doomed to failure. My recommendations are given here, but feel free to read different things if you want. All the books listed below are on reserve in the Whipple Library.

• Hume. Absolutely essential, because all modern approaches to the problem derive from him in one way or another. (L354)
• Russell, 'On the Notion of Cause'. A claim that 'cause' is not a useful concept. (In Mysticism and Logic, M25)
• Lewis, 'Causation'. One of the most influential contemporary papers on the subject. It is in the Sosa and Tooley collection, and also in volume II of Lewis's Philosophical Papers. The version in the Philosophical Papers has a substantial postscript which is well worth reading. (In a folder kept by the librarians. His Philosophical Papers are M762, and the Sosa and Tooley collection is M984)
• Mackie, 'Causes and Conditions' Another influential contemporary paper, taking a different approach from Lewis. (In Sosa and Tooley)
• Tooley, 'Causation: Reductionism versus Realism' A paper arguing that the heart of Hume's approach is misconceived, and that an entirely different approach is needed. (In Sosa and Tooley)

Laws of Nature

Possible topics include:

1. Universal regularity theories
2. Mill-Ramsey-Lewis theories
3. Subjective theories
4. Realist theories
5. Compare and contrast

Or (related to 2, 3 and 4):

Could our best possible scientific theories be wrong about the laws of nature?

Recommended reading:

• Hempel, 'Aspects of Scientific Explanation' pp 264-70. In his normal dull style, but quite important. Concerned with universal regularity theories. (G 70)
• Goodman, Fact, Fiction and Forecast chs I.3, III. More interesting than Hempel, and concerned with subjective theories. (I 18)
• Lewis, Counterfactuals pp72-77. On Mill-Ramsey-Lewis theories, oddly enough. (I 167)
• Armstrong, What is a Law of Nature? A whole book, so probably too much to read. Worth looking at for a realist theory. (G 464)
• Cartwright, 'Fundamentalism vs the Patchwork of Laws' in The Philosophy of Science, ed. Papineau.

Explanation

Unless you have a better idea:

1. Deductive and syntactic accounts of explanation (e.g. Deductive-Nomological)
2. Causal Explanation
3. Subjective accounts
4. Compare and contrast two

Or (related to 2):

There is a difference between knowing that something happened, and knowing why something happened, but is there a difference between knowing why and knowing how?

Once again, the reading list below is only my recommendation: feel free to deviate from it.

• Hempel, 'Aspects of Scientific Explanation', section 2. Very clear, very important, and very dull. You should slog through it, however, because Hempel occupies much the same place in the philosophy of explanation as Hume does in the philosophy of causation. (G70)
• Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation, Chs. 2 & 3. Very clear, very important, and not dull at all. (G649)
• Lewis, 'Causal Explanation'. Another very influential contemporary paper. Lipton builds on this to a grat extent. This is in the Ruben collection and volume II of Lewis's papers, but there is no postscript this time. (G707 for the Ruben collection)
• Van Fraassen, The Scientific Image, Ch. 5. A completely different take on the idea of explanation. (G405)
• Kitcher, 'Explanatory Unification' in the Pitt collection. The final major type of theory of explanation. (G566)

Jennings -- Recent History of the Philosophy of Science

Popper

Either answer one of the questions below, or follow up some other aspect of Popper.

Does Popper give us an applicable method of distinguishing between science and non-science?

Is the problem of establishing 'basic statements' fatal to Popper's attempt to evade the problem of induction?

Reading:

• Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Ch, 1, pp 33-59
• Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, Chs 3-5. Read both the Popper things, in this order, to get an introduction and enough information to write sensibly.
• Oldroyd, The Arch of Knowledge. Ch 8
• Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science. Ch 3

Logical Positivism

Can the verifiability principle do any useful work?

Are scientific laws verifiable in any sense? What are the consequences of your answer for the logical positivist project?

Reading:

• Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic Chs 1-3 and the introduction to the second edition.
• Carnap, 'The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language' in Ayer (ed.) Logical Positivism
• Schlick, 'Meaning and Verification' in Hanfling(ed.) Essential Readings in Logical Positivism
• Oldroyd, The Arch of Knowledge, Ch 6 pp230-48
• Hanfling, Logical Positivism, use the index and contents to find the relevant material. N.B. not the same book as Essential ReadingsÉ

Duhem

Are theories underdetermined by data in any significant way?

Can empirically equivalent theories be genuine rivals?

• Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theories, Chs I & II, IV 1-7, VI 2-3.
• Oldroyd, The Arch of Knowledge, pp 194-203

Lipton -- Problems of Induction

Justification of Induction

Possible Topics:

1. Reliabilist justifications
2. Pragmatic justifications
3. The tenability of scepticism

Should we rely on induction?

• Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding The indicated parts only. Not quite the starting point of the whole debate, because Hume wrote the Treatise first, but close enough. Vital.
• Lipton 'The Humean Predicament' An excellent introduction to the debate on this issue, and a good presentation of the reliabilist solution. Not essential, but it will save you a lot of effort.
• Popper Objective Knowledge ch. 1 If you've done a supervision on Popper, don't bother, since you will know what he says already. If you haven't, you must read this.

Description of Induction

Possible Topics:

1. The Raven Paradox
2. The New Riddle of Induction
3. Inference to the Best Explanation

How can a description of induction ensure that there are such things as irrelevant observations?

• Mill A System of Logic It starts here, folks. This book is an attempt to define an inductive logic, and is very long, so only read the indicated selection. Chapter IX can be left out, as it consists entirely of examples, but VII, VIII, and X would be useful.
• Hempel 'Studies in the Logic of Confirmation' A very important paper, so you really should read it.
• Goodman Fact, Fiction and Forecast ch III. The New Riddle of Induction. Another very influential chapter.
• P.Lipton Inference to the Best Explanation, chs 4-6. And 7, if you like.

Scientific Realism and its Opponents

Possible Topics:

1. Instrumentalism
2. The Pessimistic Induction
3. Moderate Realisms

Do you believe in electrons? If so, why?

• Lipton Inference to the Best Explanation ch 9. The 'miracle argument' for scientific realism.
• Hacking 'Experimentation and Scientific Realism' If this paper is the one that I'm thinking of, he deals specifically with why he believes in electrons.
• van Fraassen The Scientific Image ch. 2 One of the most influential non-realist positions around.

Communitarian Epistemology

You should write about testimony for this course.

What is going on when you learn your supervision times from your partner? What is different when you learn them from your supervisor?

You should read at least the texts listed in bold from sections 5 and 6 in Dr Kusch's handout. The texts in bold from section 7 may be useful. You must also read part 1 of Dr Kusch's Communitarian Epistemology.