Directions: Answer either Prompt 1 or Prompt 2; do not answer bothLength: 5 pages. Do not exceed 6 pages. Use a 12 pt font such as Times New Roman and double-space your work.
Prompt 1: Paul Feyerabend thinks that science is an ideology. He writes that [o]ne must read [ideologies] like fairytales which have lots of interesting things to say but which also contain wicked lies, or like ethical prescriptions which may be useful rules of thumb but which are deadly when followed to the letter (p. 3). He continues, [a]ny ideology that breaks the hold a comprehensive system of thought has on the minds of [humans] contributes to the liberation of [humans]. Any ideology that makes [humans] question inherited beliefs is an aid to enlightenment (p. 4).
Feyerabend argues that modern science does not contribute to the liberation of humans; that is, he thinks that science inhibits freedom of thought and does not lead humans to question inherited beliefs.
In this paper, I want you to argue the opposite point; that is, I want you to make an argument showing how modern science does contribute to the liberation of humans and does act as an aid to enlightenment. Give scientific examples to support your argument. Also, when making your argument, ask yourself, how would Feyerabend respond to your views? How and in what way might he object? Then, address those potential objections.
Prompt 2: Lee Smolin believes that theoretical physics faces five great problems. However, not all of them are necessarily problems, depending on how we look at them. I want you to argue against Smolin; that is, I want you to analyze and critique two or more of the five problems and make the case that what seems to be a problem really isn’t. To do this, you need to (a) clearly explain what Smolin thinks is problematic, and (b) discuss what seem to be some of the unstated assumptions that Smolin is making. You don’t need to provide a conclusive argument against Smolin. It is enough if you are able to provide an analysis that shows that Smolin has not provided a sufficiently strong argument to establish his own view. If you want (this is optional), you can consider how Smolin might respond to your critique.
The individual sentences of your paper must be grammatical.
Your train of thought should be clear; that is, the reader should be able to follow the flow of your ideas.
You should support your ideas with reasons.
What to avoid:
No fluff, filler, or wasted words, e.g., dont start the paper with: From the dawn of humanity philosophers have debated the nature of science Make your words count.
Dont make unsupported assertions, e.g., Physics is the best science.
Watch our for repetitive writing as it is often a sign of disorganized thinking.
Writing advice: Do more than one draft of the paper. Revise your work to improve clarity.