Søknadsfrist: 15. juni 2010
Kursdato: Uke 33 og 34 2010
Faglig ansvarlig:
Antall studiepoeng: 10
Learning outcome/General purpose of the course
The course is intended to provide a broad orientation on central issues in the philosophy and ethics of science. Through this, the candidates will develop a broader perspective on their own scientific work than what is usually given through their disciplinary training. The candidates will also be given conceptual and theoretical tools to facili¬tate reflection upon presuppositions that may easily be taken for granted in their own research tradition, or in science as a whole. Finally, in order to increase reflection on values in research, research ethics and ethical problems in connection with technology and science will be part of the course.
Level and extent
The course (DSP100) covers the requirements for training in philosophy of science and ethics for PhD-candidates and gives 10 ECTS credits.
3. Target groups and admission
PhD-candidates at the University of Stavanger and at cooperating research institutions may participate in the course. University of Stavanger employees may also participate, if they are in the process of planning a PhD-degree. Due to a limited number of places, all candidates must apply to participate.
Content of the course
There will be arranged two parallel series of seminars: one in the philosophy of natural science and another in the philosophy of social science/humanities. Each candidate participates either in the seminars in the philosophy of natural science or the seminars in the philosophy of social science/humanities. In addition, there are seminar series in general philosophy of science and ethics. These seminars (in general philosophy of science and ethics) are relevant for all candidates. The candidates will be informed about the curriculum related to the seminars in advance of the seminars.
Work methods
The course will be held as seminars with discussions. The seminars will be concentrated at the beginning of the semester.
Each candidate is required to write an individual paper, discussing a topic of particular interest. The paper must be presented in a lecture by the end of the course semester.
Content and extent of the paper
The topic(s) discussed in the paper may be linked to the candidate's own project. The candidates will decide which topic(s) to discuss in collaboration with his or her supervisor connected with the course. The extent of the paper should be between 4000 and 6000 words. The paper shall be written in English or in one of the Scandinavian languages, and it will be assessed by the candidate's supervisor connected to the course, who will provide feedback to the candidate. The candidate will then be given some time to finish the paper.
In the paper the candidate should demonstrate awareness of counter-arguments against his or her own positions and conclusions. Analytical discussion and academic argumentation will be required. A loose combination of arguments will not be accepted.
Papers addressing discipline-specific topics relating to the foundational debate within specific disciplines must, to some degree, also relate to general reflections and concepts of philosophy of science or ethics.
Evaluation
The paper will be evaluated and if it is approved, the candidate is required to present its principal points in a 20-minute lecture. The subsequent discussion will last approximately 10 minutes. A group of candidates will present papers in succession the same day, and it is required that the candidates take part in the subsequent discussions. The presentation is a coursework requirement. The result of the evaluation is “passed” or “failed”.
In exceptional cases, approval of a paper may be made dependent on a revision of the final manuscript. In such cases, the candidate will be given a deadline for handing in a revised manuscript, which will be given a new evaluation.
Delayed presentation
Candidates who are not able to hand in and present their paper during the course semester must ask for a delayed presentation. The application should be sent to the Faculty of Arts and Education, and must state legitimate reasons for the delay. This delay cannot be more than three (3) months. Only one delay will be allowed.
Course evaluation
The course participants are encouraged to contribute to the course evaluation. The first evaluation form will be sent to the candidates on e-mail soon after the seminars are finished, and the second evaluation form will be sent when all papers are handed in.
Literature
Number of pages: 600-700
Exact information about the curriculum will be sent to the PhD-candidates approximately one month in advance of the seminars.
Literature - Pensum i DSP100
1. Ethics
1. Ethics and Ethical Theories
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 1: ´Moral Norms´ [Ethics and Morality] and [Moral Dilemmas], in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-8 and pp. 9-11.
2. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 8: ´Moral Theories´ [Utilitarianism: Consequence-Based Theory], in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 340-348.
3. Deontological Ethics
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 8: ´Moral Theories´ [Kantianism: Obligation-Based Theory], in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 348-355.
4. The Status of Moral Norms and Rights
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 1: ´Moral Norms´ & Ch. 8: ´Moral Theories´, in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 12-23 and pp. 357-358.
5. Virtue Ethics
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 2: ´Moral Character´, in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 26-56.
6. Ethical Argumentation
* Kymlicka, Will (1990). ´Liberal Equality´, in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An
Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 50-66 and 90-92.
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 9: ´Method and Moral Justification´, in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 384-397.
6. Ethical Argumentation (continues)
* Kymlicka, Will (1990). ´Liberal Equality´, in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An
Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 50-66 and 90-92.
* Beauchamp, Tom L. & James F. Childress (2001). Ch. 9: ´Method and Moral Justification´, in Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 384-397.
7. Research Ethics
* National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) (2008), ´Guidelines for Research ethics in science and technology´. This article must be downloaded at: http://www.etikkom.no/English/Publications/NENTguidelines (29 pages).
* The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH) (2006), ´Guidelines for Research ethics in the social sciences, law and the humanities´. This article must be downloaded at: http://www.etikkom.no/English/NESH/guidelines/ (44 pages).
8. Risk, Decision Theory and the Precautionary Principle
* Ekeli, Kristian Skagen (2004). ´Environmental Risks, Uncertainty and Intergenerational
Ethics´, Environmental Values, 13(4): 421-448.
*Gardiner, Stephen (2006). ´A Core Precautionary Principle´, Journal of Political Philosophy,
14(1): 33-60.
9. Tolerance and the Right to Free Speech
* Horton, John (1998). ´Toleration´, in E. Craig (red.), Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. London: Routledge. Downloaded 9th of August from
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/S061.
* Jones, Peter (1998). ´Freedom of Speech´, in E. Craig (red.), Routledge Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. London: Routledge. Downloaded 9th of August from http://www.rep.routledge. com/article/S008.
* Dworkin, Ronald (2006). ´The Right to Ridicule´, The New York Review of Books, vol. 53,
Nr. 5.
2. General philosophy of science
John Roscoe (2008): The Philosophical Theory of Science.
3. Philosophy of Natural Science
Textbook
S. Okasha (2002) Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Articles and excerpts from books
P. Feyerabend (1981) “How to Defend Society Against Science”, in I. Hacking (ed.) Scientific Revolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kroes, P. (1998) “Philosophy of Technology”, in E. Craig (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://www.rep.rotledge.com/article/Q103
T. Kuhn (2000) “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, in T. Schick, Jr. (ed.) Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism. California: Mayfield publishing Company.
Lloyd, E. (1998) “Models”, in E. Craig (ed.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://www.rep.rotledge.com/article/Q072
K. Popper (2002) “Science: Conjectures and Refutations”, in Y. Balashov & A. Rosenberg (eds.) Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge.
Price, D.J. de S. (1984) “Notes Towards a Philosophy of the Science/Technology Interaction”, in R. Laudan (ed.) The Nature of Technological Knowledge. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ziman, J. (1996) “Is science losing its objectivity?” Nature 382: 751-754.
4. Philosophy of Social Science/Humanities Readings
Textbook
Little, Daniel (1991) Varieties of Social Explanation - An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science, Colorado: Westview Press.
Articles and excerpts from books
Geertz, C. (1983) “’From the Native’s Point of View’: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding”, in Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, p.73-93
Klemke, E.D. (1998) ”What is Philosophy of Science”, in Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Ed. Klemke, Hollinger & Rudge, New York: Prometheus Books, p. 19-35
Kuhn, T. S. (1998) “The Natural and the Human Sciences” in Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Ed. Klemke, Hollinger & Rudge, New York: Prometheus Books p. 128-134
Okasha, S. (2002) “Scientific Change and Scientific Revolutions”, in Philosophy of Science – A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 77-94
Popper, K. (2002) “Science: Conjectures and Refutations”, in Y. Balashov & A. Rosenberg (eds.) Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge, p. 294-301.
Taylor, C. (1985) “Interpretation and the Science of Man”, in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.15-57
Warnke, G. (1987) “Hermeneutics and the Problem of Subjectivism”, in Gadamer – Hermeneutics, Tradition and reason, Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 73-106
