Length: about 2400 words
The papers should be typed, double-spaced with margins of reasonable size (1â€). 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.
You must submit an electronic version of your paper through Blackboard. The electronic copy will be checked for plagiarism and will also be the paper we grade. Papers are due by midnight on the due date.
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 Popperâ€™s reasoning but to evaluate it.
One criticism of Popperâ€™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.