PHILOS 8
Introduction to Philosophy of Science
Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour. Study of selected problems concerning the character and reliability of scientific understanding, such as nature of scientific theory and explanation, reality of theoretical entities, inductive confirmation of hypotheses, and occurrence of scientific revolutions. Discussion at nontechnical level of episodes from history of science. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 5.0
Units: 5.0
2 of 3
Most Helpful Review
Spring 2024 - Only attended a single day of class. The grade in this class is made up of weekly quizzes, which are a bit difficult but if you do the readings or search it up on Google you can ultimately guess your way to the answers? Didn't spend much time on this class beyond time on the weekends when the quizzes were due, so if you want a class that will take up less of your time but still fulfill GE / major requirements, go for it. The one day I attended lecture, Prof Khalifa was going through the content EXTREMELY fast to the point where I knew that it would be difficult for me to learn; but he also cracked jokes here and there and tried to keep the class engaging. Good effort but wish he taught slower, I would've been much more likely to attend class.
Spring 2024 - Only attended a single day of class. The grade in this class is made up of weekly quizzes, which are a bit difficult but if you do the readings or search it up on Google you can ultimately guess your way to the answers? Didn't spend much time on this class beyond time on the weekends when the quizzes were due, so if you want a class that will take up less of your time but still fulfill GE / major requirements, go for it. The one day I attended lecture, Prof Khalifa was going through the content EXTREMELY fast to the point where I knew that it would be difficult for me to learn; but he also cracked jokes here and there and tried to keep the class engaging. Good effort but wish he taught slower, I would've been much more likely to attend class.
AD
Most Helpful Review
Winter 2021 - Bill (he goes by this) is a pretty good lecturer. He is extremely eloquent but not verbose. The way he explained the content was always clear. However, the class was just not very interesting IMO, which I don't think is Bill's fault. I think it's just the nature of the class. There were only three assignments–midterm, essay, final–that were all equal in weight. The exams were composed of 10 MC, 5 short answer, and 3 long answer questions. These were fairly easy considering they were open-note and very straightforward (i.e. What is the grue problem?). The essay was a bit tough for me. We had to respond to 1 of 4 prompts in a 4-6 page essay. Most of the prompts required you to argue for/against the case of a certain theory or propose a revision that would make the theory better, while one basically asked you to define a specific philosophical puzzle and explain its significance. I chose the latter because 1) I found the puzzle (grue problem) interesting and 2) part of the puzzle's significance was explicitly stated in lecture. The toughest part was trying the reach 4 pages since the puzzle description and the puzzle's significance were fairly straightforward. I felt like I was just repeating myself over and over (and other students seemed to share this sentiment). Overall, I don't think you have to put in a lot of effort for an A. However, if you don't do too well on the midterm or you're just generally concerned about your grade, Bill will probably consider adding an extra credit assignment for the entire class if you bring it up. For my class, I believe it was a 2-page essay that applied the course content to contemporary issues. This essay could add (at most) 10 points to your lowest assignment grade. Good luck!
Winter 2021 - Bill (he goes by this) is a pretty good lecturer. He is extremely eloquent but not verbose. The way he explained the content was always clear. However, the class was just not very interesting IMO, which I don't think is Bill's fault. I think it's just the nature of the class. There were only three assignments–midterm, essay, final–that were all equal in weight. The exams were composed of 10 MC, 5 short answer, and 3 long answer questions. These were fairly easy considering they were open-note and very straightforward (i.e. What is the grue problem?). The essay was a bit tough for me. We had to respond to 1 of 4 prompts in a 4-6 page essay. Most of the prompts required you to argue for/against the case of a certain theory or propose a revision that would make the theory better, while one basically asked you to define a specific philosophical puzzle and explain its significance. I chose the latter because 1) I found the puzzle (grue problem) interesting and 2) part of the puzzle's significance was explicitly stated in lecture. The toughest part was trying the reach 4 pages since the puzzle description and the puzzle's significance were fairly straightforward. I felt like I was just repeating myself over and over (and other students seemed to share this sentiment). Overall, I don't think you have to put in a lot of effort for an A. However, if you don't do too well on the midterm or you're just generally concerned about your grade, Bill will probably consider adding an extra credit assignment for the entire class if you bring it up. For my class, I believe it was a 2-page essay that applied the course content to contemporary issues. This essay could add (at most) 10 points to your lowest assignment grade. Good luck!
AD
Most Helpful Review
I took Smeenk for Philosophy of Science and came away very impressed. His lectures were a bit boring in the beginning of the course, but once he stopped using Powerpoint presentations they were great. He presents every topic, both simple and difficult, clearly and completely, and it is always evident that he wants the students to understand the material. The material itself was excellent for the most part, which is good... because there was a lot of it. expect to read 3 standard sized books, as well as another 2 or 3 books worth of material from the course reader. All of the articles and excerps from the course reader were great, and all of the books, except the one by Hempel (which I though was very dry in style) were excellent. For the exams,he does expect you to know the material well, but he is very fair. He makes sure to not test on any topics that he feels might not have been completely clear to the students (such as some of the details of quantum mechanics), and the exams are designed to see if the students know what is important. He doesn't put obscure, unimportant or trivial questions on the exams. If you have paid attention during lecture and done some of the reading, you should do fine, and if you did all of the reading, you should do very well. Just know the important components of each philosophers arguments, and which philosopher was a proponent of which argument. There was also one medium- sized paper, and to do well on it one just needs to make sure that they make a clear philosophical argument and support. No fluffy language or fuzzy logic. If the paper makes a clear argument and supports it, you'll do fine. Overall, I loved the course. I enjoyed the material, did the reading, went to lecture and ended up with an A+ without ever having to kill myself with work. Smeenk is a very kind man with a bit of a boyish, country charm (he grew up on a farm), and for his first quarter, he did an outstanding job. He was more organized and a better lecturer than most of the other professors I have had here. Highly reccommended if you're even remotely interested in the subject. Not to mention, that a course in philosophy of science is invaluable, and after taking it, it will penetrate and enhance your understanding of almost every other course you take, especially other science courses. You won't ever think about science in the same way... and that's a good thing.
I took Smeenk for Philosophy of Science and came away very impressed. His lectures were a bit boring in the beginning of the course, but once he stopped using Powerpoint presentations they were great. He presents every topic, both simple and difficult, clearly and completely, and it is always evident that he wants the students to understand the material. The material itself was excellent for the most part, which is good... because there was a lot of it. expect to read 3 standard sized books, as well as another 2 or 3 books worth of material from the course reader. All of the articles and excerps from the course reader were great, and all of the books, except the one by Hempel (which I though was very dry in style) were excellent. For the exams,he does expect you to know the material well, but he is very fair. He makes sure to not test on any topics that he feels might not have been completely clear to the students (such as some of the details of quantum mechanics), and the exams are designed to see if the students know what is important. He doesn't put obscure, unimportant or trivial questions on the exams. If you have paid attention during lecture and done some of the reading, you should do fine, and if you did all of the reading, you should do very well. Just know the important components of each philosophers arguments, and which philosopher was a proponent of which argument. There was also one medium- sized paper, and to do well on it one just needs to make sure that they make a clear philosophical argument and support. No fluffy language or fuzzy logic. If the paper makes a clear argument and supports it, you'll do fine. Overall, I loved the course. I enjoyed the material, did the reading, went to lecture and ended up with an A+ without ever having to kill myself with work. Smeenk is a very kind man with a bit of a boyish, country charm (he grew up on a farm), and for his first quarter, he did an outstanding job. He was more organized and a better lecturer than most of the other professors I have had here. Highly reccommended if you're even remotely interested in the subject. Not to mention, that a course in philosophy of science is invaluable, and after taking it, it will penetrate and enhance your understanding of almost every other course you take, especially other science courses. You won't ever think about science in the same way... and that's a good thing.
Most Helpful Review
Spring 2020 - I took this Spring of 2020 during the coronavirus quarantines/protests. This quarter was a bit different in design from the usual in-person class, so the grading may be different in future classes. Overall, I'd say it was really easy: there were originally supposed to be 5 quizzes (about 1 every 2 weeks) worth 50% and 2 papers worth the other 50%, but Smith was very accommodating and dropped the lowest quiz and paper, so only 4 quizzes and the highest scoring paper counted for your grade. Since I got 100s on the first 4 quizzes and did well on the first paper, I was basically exempt from the last ones. All of the lectures were pre recorded and uploaded so we could watch them at our leisure. They were also shorter than in a normal 1.25 hr timeslot so you can watch on 2x speed. The quizzes were 10 questions with a generous 20 min time limit that covered only material from the last lecture of the previous quiz to the most recent material, so it was mostly 2-3 lectures worth of material and was also open notes and book. The papers were also manageable, though it does depend on who you get as a TA and what they are looking for in your papers! There is one book that you are required to get, but it can be found online free in PDF form. You'll likely need it for the papers, but the quizzes themselves were based mainly on handouts from Smith that accompanied lectures. There are also two outside source readings you have to do, but it isn't hard and as long as you take notes in lecture or discussion on them, you don't really need to read them either unless it is what you choose as a paper topic. Overall, this class was an excellent and easy choice for a philos GE/pre-req compared to some other philosophy classes. The content is not difficult to understand at all either. I recommend taking it!
Spring 2020 - I took this Spring of 2020 during the coronavirus quarantines/protests. This quarter was a bit different in design from the usual in-person class, so the grading may be different in future classes. Overall, I'd say it was really easy: there were originally supposed to be 5 quizzes (about 1 every 2 weeks) worth 50% and 2 papers worth the other 50%, but Smith was very accommodating and dropped the lowest quiz and paper, so only 4 quizzes and the highest scoring paper counted for your grade. Since I got 100s on the first 4 quizzes and did well on the first paper, I was basically exempt from the last ones. All of the lectures were pre recorded and uploaded so we could watch them at our leisure. They were also shorter than in a normal 1.25 hr timeslot so you can watch on 2x speed. The quizzes were 10 questions with a generous 20 min time limit that covered only material from the last lecture of the previous quiz to the most recent material, so it was mostly 2-3 lectures worth of material and was also open notes and book. The papers were also manageable, though it does depend on who you get as a TA and what they are looking for in your papers! There is one book that you are required to get, but it can be found online free in PDF form. You'll likely need it for the papers, but the quizzes themselves were based mainly on handouts from Smith that accompanied lectures. There are also two outside source readings you have to do, but it isn't hard and as long as you take notes in lecture or discussion on them, you don't really need to read them either unless it is what you choose as a paper topic. Overall, this class was an excellent and easy choice for a philos GE/pre-req compared to some other philosophy classes. The content is not difficult to understand at all either. I recommend taking it!
AD
2 of 3
