[ad_1]
One (1) “Original Post” addressing one of the three question choices. Minimum of 250 words. Your Original Post must answer the question fully in all its parts and address possible objections to your reasoning. You must also connect your Original Post to the course by having at least one full sentence quote and citation from one of the Required Readings of the week. The quote should be word for word and contained inside quotation marks and then followed by an inline citation. Once you quote something or even reword something you did not originally write then you need to have it in a reference section at the end of the post (again in MLA format). Please refer to the following resources for help on MLA citation.
MLA Citation: http://sites.umgc.edu/library/libhow/mla_tutorial.cfm
MLA Citation Examples: http://sites.umgc.edu/library/libhow/mla_examples.cfm
DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #1: Value of Philosophy? Explore the question “What is the value of analytical philosophy in the 21st century?” using examples from what you have learned in the course, and what you have learned from the readings this week on Social Constructivism and “Laboratories”. Consider counterarguments.
DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #2: Social Constructivism. Explore the implications of social constructivism in science. What does it mean to disagree with or question science because of social constructivism? Is this kind of dissent the role of analytical philosophy? Use what you have learned in the course, and what you have learned from the readings this week to argue your position. Consider counterarguments.
DISCUSSION QUESTION CHOICE #3: Scientific Dissent? Explore the implications of Bruno Latour’s scientific dissenter in “Laboratories.” What does it mean to disagree with or question science because of epistemological obstacles like those presented in Latour’s essay? Is this kind of dissent the role of analytical philosophy? Use what you have learned in the course, and what you have learned from the readings this week to argue your position. Consider counterarguments.
Supplemental Online Readings
(1) Mallon, Ron, “Naturalistic Approaches to Social Construction.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu (2019).
Essay analyses the role of naturalism and social constructivism in philosophy.
(2) Longino, Helen, “The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu (2019)
A very useful article that outlines the issues of social constructivism in the philosophy of science.
Supplemental Online Audio/Video
(1) “Social constructionism | Society and Culture | MCAT | Khan Academy.” YouTube, uploaded by khanacademymedicine, Sep. 17, 2013. [2:45] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U2XAJNazik&ab_channel=khanacademymedicine
A short but informative video on the metaphysical implications of social constructivism
(2) “Bruno Latour: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge – by Prof. Bruce Paternoster.” YouTube, uploaded by RowanCHSS, Oct. 11, 2016. [1:11:58] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Ds9gN5wBU&ab_channel=RowanCHSS
An hour-long+ lecture on Bruno Latour and Social Constructivism by Dr. Bruce Paternoster of Rowan University.
[ad_2]
Testimonials
