History and Philosophy of Science
Writing a philosophy paper
Three parts:
1. Introduction and thesis: Context and what you plan to argue for
2. Body of the essay: develop your thesis logically and systematically, provide evidence/support
from scholarly sources, and cite sources properly
3. Conclusion: upshot of your argument
4. Bibliography/work cited page (on a separate page)
Develop a thesis and sustain your thesis argument throughout the paper.
Your essay should be organized in terms of a thesis that emphasizes an argument, rather than a mere summary of the texts or a general theme. Essays that are not built on a thesis tend to summarize the text and to wander aimlessly from point to point.
Your conclusion should accomplish three major goals:
Restate the main idea of your essay, or your thesis statement.
Summarize the three subpoints of your essay.
Leave the reader with an interesting final impression.
Sample introductory paragraphs
Values and Science: An Argument for Why They Cannot Be Separated
Josh Reeves
A distinction between facts and values is often assumed when people in the modern West talk about science. The biologist Stephen Gould, for example, famously argued that religion covers questions of meaning and moral value, but science deals with empirical facts. This paper challenges the traditional fact/value distinction by questioning the presuppositions about science upon which it depends. It begins by describing the origins of the fact/value distinction in the Scientific Revolution and then gives three reasons for the inseparability of facts and values in scientific inquiry, drawing upon themes from the “practice turn” in recent scholarship on the sciences.
Theology and Science, Volume 14, 2016 – Issue 2
Conclusion
My paper argues that the fact/value distinction is mistaken because it depends on faulty assumptions about science, specifically the intellectualist image of science that was presumed by its advocates…Belief in value-free science is not only mistaken, it can be dangerous because science in the last century has become too large and powerful to leave it alone…Understanding science as an activity refigures the debates on fact and values, and raises all sorts of value questions: who is making decisions about where a scientist should explore? What are their interests, and do they represent the larger society?...In the end, facts and values are inseparable in scientific inquiry because of the nature of those who undertake the research.
The Epistemic Status of Evolutionary Theory
Gijsbert van den Brink, Jeroen de Ridder & René van Woudenberg
The theory of evolution continues to be a bone of contention among certain groups of theistic believers. This paper aims to bring some light to the debate about it, by introducing a framework for epistemic appraisal which can provide a realistic and sober assessment of the epistemic credentials of the various parts of evolutionary theory. The upshot is a more nuanced epistemic appraisal of the theory of evolution, which shows that there are significant differences in epistemic standing between its various parts. Any serious conversation about the theory of evolution ought to reflect these facts.
Theology and Science , Volume 15, 2017 - Issue 4
Conclusion
Where does all this leave us? We hope to have shown that it makes little sense to speak in a general and unqualified manner about the merits or problems of “the theory of evolution.” The theory has at least three layers or parts, which ought to be distinguished, not only for analytical purposes, but also because there are very different strands of evidence bearing on them…While there can be little doubt that the mechanism of natural selection operating on random mutations is one of the forces that drive evolution, it is controversial in contemporary biology whether it is the only or most important one. Hence, the thesis of Natural Selection as we have formulated at best has some presumption in its favor, as it has long been the orthodox view.