CSK Exam Study Guide AY24-25 PDF

COMMUNICATING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE EXAM STUDY GUIDE, FALL SEMESTER AY24-25 Time and Place: This year’s CSK exam is scheduled to take place from 13:00 to 16:00 on Saturday 11 January in Auditorium QABD (VUB Main Campus). Exam Format: The exam is graded on 100 points and counts for 50% of your total...

COMMUNICATING SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE EXAM STUDY GUIDE, FALL SEMESTER AY24-25 Time and Place: This year’s CSK exam is scheduled to take place from 13:00 to 16:00 on Saturday 11 January in Auditorium QABD (VUB Main Campus). Exam Format: The exam is graded on 100 points and counts for 50% of your total grade for the course. It will consist of three sections—multiple choice (50/100 pts), exercises and argument evaluation (30/100 pts), and an open/essay question (20/100pts). Each section will test a mix of knowledge and basic skills. In other words, you will not only be evaluated on your ability to reproduce information, but also on your ability to recognize and apply the ideas, tools and skills we have covered this semester. Rather than showing that you can repeat rules, we want you to demonstrate critical and creative engagement with basic principles and skills of (social) scientific inquiry. The three sections of the exam will be as follows: PART ONE: Multiple Choice (50/100 points): The first exam section will consist of 50 multiple choice questions. Among other things, you will be asked to link terms to definitions or examples, to identify the mode of inference in a short argument, or to identify the pattern of development, literary device or rhetorical device in a short passage of text. Here is a list of kinds of questions/tasks you might encounter: A. Iden(fying key terms and concepts (see list below) For example: The term _________ refers to an argument where the audience supplies a key premise in support of the conclusion. Such arguments can be rhetorically powerful because they make the audience complicit in the arguer’s line of thought: a. Enthymeme b. Ad populum c. Generalization d. Common sense B. Recognizing pa>erns of development For example: IdenZfy the pa[ern of development or literary device in the following paragraph: “A woman holds a little dog in the crook of her arm. Her sleeveless open-necked top is richly patterned. She wears lipstick, earrings, a bangle. The dog, a puppy perhaps, is both alert and relaxed, looking directly at the camera, just as the woman does. The photograph has such an informal mood, such disarming warmth, that we might suppose it had been made recently, were it not in antique-looking black and white. It’s wonderful when an old picture lets us in like this, obliterating the distance between its then and our now” (Cole, Teju. “Getting Others Right” New York Times). a. Specific to general b. Concrete to abstract c. Problem-soluZon d. Parallelism C. Recognizing different kinds of statements: Ø Example: “How would one best characterize the following statement?” […] Ø Possible answers might include – definiZons; descripZons; unsupported claims; commands; quesZons; factual statements; examples; analyZcal; syntheZc; explanaZon; argument; etc Ø It could be that you are asked to disZnguish between analyZcal and syntheZc statements, or between explanaZons & arguments. Ø Make sure that you are also able to recognize and evaluate statements on the basis of “scope” and “convicZon.” D. Recognizing Arguments: mode of inference, argument type elements of arguments Ø Example: “What is the mode of inference/argument type in the following short argument?” Ø These quesZons will refer to specific short arguments Ø You might also get quesZons that test whether you can idenZfy the characterisZcs of the main modes of inference and argument types). Ø You might also get quesZons asking you to idenZfy whether a premise is best characterized as a fact, a reason, common knowledge, a subargument, etc). Ø You might also get a quesZon asking whether an underlined phrase is a premise, conclusion or extraneous material. E. Reading comprehension tasks: Ø You will be given a passage of text and asked to address a series of interpreZve/evaluaZve tasks. Ø For example: you might also be asked to underline or circle a specific term, phrase or sentence (e.g., topic sentence, controlling idea, terms that highlight tension, a sentence fragment, premise indicators, conclusion indicators, extraneous statements, etc). Ø In the case of a passage containing an argument, you might be asked to disZnguish between the premises and conclusion. F. You will presented with poorly-wri>en paragraphs and asked iden(fy the main problem with the wri(ng. Ø Example: “Which term best characterizes the problem with the following passage:” […] Ø Possible answers might include vagueness, lack of unity, inadequate development, clu[er, lack of coherence, problems with consistency or coherence, disagreement in terms or sentences, key terms not logically related, etc. G. Recognizing fallacies Ø See the detailed list below Ø You might also get a quesZon or two where you will have to classify a parZcular fallacy according to the schema that we used in class—i.e., you might need to idenZfy whether the parZcular fallacy is one of “support, sufficiency or saZsfactoriness” (see McLaughlin chapter 6) or whether it is a fallacy of “evasion or oversimplificaZon (see The LiDle Brown Handbook, chapter 8g). PART TWO. Applied Skills and Exercises (30/100 points): In the second section of the exam you will be presented with a series of evaluative exercises/tasks. At least five of the exercises will involve short arguments that you will be asked “standardize” (i.e., edit, break down into premises and conclusions, and reorder in such a way as to make clear the underlying logic of the argumen; for clarification, see McLaughlin, Chapter 3 and the chapters you were assigned to read from Lavery, Hughes and Doran) and evaluate (you will be asked two short questions about each of the arguments). For example: A. You might be asked to identify a hidden premise. B. You might be asked to determine whether the premises are dependent or independent. C. You could be asked to identify the mode of inference. D. You could be asked to apply the “S-test” and determine whether the argument is strong or weak. E. You could be asked whether a premise is positively or negatively relevant. F. For deductive arguments, you could be asked to identify the type of syllogism (e.g., categorical, hypothetical or disjunctive for a deductive argument); and, in the case of an inductive argument, you might be asked to specify the argument type (i.e., by generalization, by sign, by cause, by authority, by witness, etc). For this section I strongly recommend that you practice using the examples and self-tests provided in Chapter’s 3, 4 and 5 from How to Think Critically, and that you go back and read the relevant sections that were assigned from The Little, Brown Handbook. You might also want to look at the examples and self-test material in Chapter 5 of From Thought to Theme. The basic technique is also applied in by Lavery, Hughes & Doran in their textbook Critical Thinking. You can find all of these texts on Canvas. PART THREE: Short Essay (20/100 points): In the final section of the exam, you will be asked to write a short essay (ca. 300 words) that each address a specific topic (or set of questions) taken from the comprehensive list of questions provided below (see the final section of this study guide). Some Study Tips Everyone is different, but my assumption is that most of you should plan to spend around 25-30 hours preparing for this exam. I am of course assuming that you already read the material assigned before coming to class each week, and that you attended class regularly. If you haven’t been following along and keeping up with the reading, you might need to invest more time in the study period. Here are some tips: Evidence suggests that you remember more and retain information and ideas longer if you study in shorter sessions over several days rather than trying to cram everything into the last two or three days before the exam (you will definitely be in trouble if you wait until the day before the exam to get serious); Don’t simply memorize definitions from the book. Instead, try to reformulate meanings in your own words, and come up with examples (or situate terms in contexts) that are familiar to you. This will not only help you to remember a particular idea or meaning for the exam, but also make those ideas or meanings more readily available to you when working on other projects later on. Don’t try to write out and memorize full and complete answers to all the possible “short essay” questions (see section 5 below). Instead, focus on coming up with a good “lead/angle” for each question, and then plot an outline that elaborates from there. The same goes for the longer essay questions (where you have more room for personal reflection and developing your own arguments). If you do draft fuller answers to particular questions, focus on the ones that seem to pose the most difficulty for you. Ok…we hope that your exam preparation goes well, and that you stay focused and interested. We wish you the best for all your exams, and—in the meantime—Happy Holidays! Study Terms and Questions: 1. Terms Related to Literary Devices and Patterns of Development “HtTC” = How to Think Critically; “LBH” = The Little Brown Handbook; “FTtT” = From Thought to Theme. 1. Analogy (LBH, pp. 43, 96-97, 210; FTtT, pp. 77-78; HtTC 90, 99-100) 2. Analysis (LBH, p. 94; FTtT, pp. 80-84) 3. Spatial organization (LBH, pp. 79-80; FTtT, pp. 80-84) 4. Chronological organization (LBH, p. 80; FTtT, pp. 80-84) 5. Structural organization (FTtT, pp. 82-83) 6. Process analysis (LBH, p. 27) 7. Definition (LBH, p. 93; FTtT, pp. 85-90) 8. Comparison and Contrast (class notes; LBH, p. 26 & pp. 95-96; FTtT, 73-75) 9. Cause and Effect (LBH, p. 27 10. General to Specific (LBH, pp. 80-81, see also pp. 34-35) 11. Specific to General (LBH, pp. 80-81) 12. Abstract to Concrete (Class notes) 13. Concrete to Abstract (Class notes) 14. Problem-Solution (LBH, pp. 81-82) 15. Countering the opposition 16. Question-Answer 17. Classification (LBH, pp. 95-96) 18. Description (LBH, 91-92) 19. Narration (LBH, p. 91) 20. Illustration (FTtT, 60-65; LBH, pp. 92-93) 21. Parallelism (LBH, p. 83; FTtT, p. 120) 22. Repetition of key terms (LBH, pp. 82-83; FTtT, p. 119) 23. Shift in perspective, person or tone 24. Climactic organization 25. Anecdote 26. Irony 27. Aporia 28. Tonal Ambiguity 29. “On the one hand… ßà On the other…” 2. Terms related to Argument and Argument Evaluation 1. Argument 2. Premise (HtTC, Ch. 1) 3. Premise indicators 4. Conclusion (HtTC, Ch. 1) 5. Inference (LBH, 160-161) 6. Inference indicators 7. Inductive argument (class notes; LBH ch. 9 section d + FTtT, pp. 148-161; HtTC ch. 5) 8. Argument by authority 9. Argument by witness 10. Argument by generalization 11. Argument by cause 12. Argument by sign 13. Probability 14. Acceptability 15. Consistency 16. Repeatability (replicability) 17. Falsifiability 18. Corrigibility 19. Science as a “self-correcting” way of knowing 20. Sufficiency 21. Generalizability 22. Representativeness 23. Representative sample 24. Deductive argument (class notes; LBH ch. 9 section d + FTtT, 169-175; HtTC Chapter 5) 25. Syllogism (class notes; LBH ch. 9 section d + FTtT, pp. 169-174) 26. Categorical Syllogism (FTtT, Ch. 6) 27. Hypothetical Syllogism (FTtT, Ch. 6) 28. Disjunctive Syllogism (FTtT, Ch. 6) 29. Validity 30. Valid argument 31. Argument by analogy 32. Abduction 33. Intuition 34. Rational persuasion (HtTC, Ch. 1) 35. Statement (HtTC, Ch. 1) 36. Premise indicator (HtTC, Ch. 1) 37. Conclusion indicator (HtTC, Ch. 1) 38. Rhetorical question (HtTC, Ch. 1) 39. Rhetoric 40. Logos 41. Pathos 42. Ethos 43. Rhetorical situation 44. Evidence 45. Fact 46. Reason (in the sense of a premise) 47. S-Test (HtTC, ch. 3 & 4) 48. Satistfactory (acceptable) premise 49. Supportive (relevant) premise 50. Sufficient (adequate) premises 51. Enthymeme 52. Missing premise 53. Concealed (or “hidden”) premise (FTtT, Ch. 6) 54. Independent premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 55. Dependent premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 56. Satisfactory premise 57. Relevant premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 58. Positively relevant premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 59. Negatively relevant premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 60. Irrelevant premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 61. Missing conclusion (HtTC, Ch. 1)  62. Explanation (HtTC, Ch. 1) 63. Argument as artifact 64. Argument as process 65. Simple argument 66. Sub-argument 67. Illative core of an argument 68. Dialectical tier of an argument 69. Counter example (Lavery and Hughes, Ch. 14: “Arguing Back”) 70. Absurd example (Lavery and Hughes, Ch. 14: “Arguing Back”) 71. Counter example (Lavery and Hughes, Ch. 14: “Arguing Back”) 72. Random sample 73. Target population 74. Personal Testimony (HtTC, ch. 4) 75. Common Knowledge (HtTC, ch. 4) 76. Relevant expert (HtTC, ch. 4) 77. Unverifiable premise (HtTC, ch. 4) 78. Unsupported claims 79. “S-test” 80. “Principle of charity” (Chapter 17 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 81. “Dialectical obligation” 82. “Explaining the weakness” (Chapter 14 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 83. Counter-Examples (Chapter 14 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 84. “Method of Absurd Examples” (Chapter 14 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 85. Counter-Argument (Chapter 14 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 86. Assumptions (situate in relation to argument and scientific knowledge) 87. Advocate’s strategy (Chapter 18 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 88. Skeptic’s strategy (Chapter 18 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 89. Impartial adjudicator’s strategy (Chapter 18 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Basic Skills) 90. Affect (linked to “pathos”) 91. Eristic 3. Terms associated with logical fallacies 1. Fallacies of satisfactoriness 2. Fallacies of support 3. Fallacies of sufficiency 4. Fallacies of evasion 5. Fallacies of oversimplification 6. Non sequitur (LBH, ch. 8g) 7. Circumstantial ad hominem 8. Ad hominem tu quoque 9. Abusive ad hominem 10. Affirming the consequent (HtTC, p. 112) 11. Amphiboly (HtTC, p. 109-110) 12. Appeal to ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam) (HtTC, p. 115) 13. Appeal to popularity (argument ad populum) (HtTC, p. 113 & p. 117) 14. Appeal to force (HtTC, p. 113 & p. 117) 15. “Begging the question” (FTtT, p. 175; LBH, ch. 8g) 16. Composition fallacy (HtTC, p. 115) 17. Division fallacy (HtTC, p. 115) 18. Denying the antecedent (HtTC, p. 114)  19. Equivocation (HtTC, p. 110) 20. False Dilemma (HtTC, p. 110) 21. Two wrongs make a right (HtTC, p. 114) 22. “Whataboutism” 23. “Bothsidesism” 24. Guilt by association (HtTC, p. 114) 25. Improper appeal to authority (HtTC, p. 110-111) 26. Inconsistency (HtTC, p. 111) 27. “Loaded question” (FTtT ; LBH, ch. 8g) 28. “Hasty generalization” (FTtT, p. 158; LBH, ch. 8g) 29. “Sweeping generalization” (FTtT, p. 158; LBH, ch. 8g) 30. Slippery Slope (HtTC, p. 116) 31. Post hoc fallacy (FTtT, p. 159; LBH, ch. 8g) 32. Oversimplification (FTtT, p. 176) 33. Reductive fallacy (LBH, ch. 8g) 34. “Either/or fallacy;” aka “false dilemma” (LBH, ch. 8g) 35. False analogy (LBH, ch. 8g) 36. “Red herring” (LBH, ch. 8g) 37. Evading the issue (FTtT, p. 177) 38. “Straw person/Strawman” 39. Status quo fallacy 40. Etymological fallacy 41. Genetic fallacy 42. Ad feminam 43. Reification 44. Vagueness 45. “Common cause fallacy” (Correlation v. causality) 46. Cherry-picking / “Stacking the cards” (or “stacking the deck”) 47. Naturalistic fallacy 4. General Terms Related to Writing, Craft and Critical Thinking 1. Essay 2. Genre 3. Exposition 4. Argumentation 5. “The writing process” 6. Recursive/recursivity 7. Logic 8. Analysis 9. Dialectics 10. Genealogy 11. Critical Thinking 12. Ontology 13. Epistemology 14. Objectivity 15. “Mirror of nature” 16. Performativity 17. Denotation 18. Connotation 19. Euphamism 20. Multi-vocality 21. Verbal dispute 22. Warranted assertion 23. Non-statement 24. Brainstorming 25. “Angle” 26. “The lead” (Zinsser) 27. Audience 28. Entry point 29. Jargon 30. Problem statement 31. Thesis statement (LBH, ch 2b … among many other places) 32. Topic sentence (FTtT, pp. 22-24) 33. Sentence Fragment (FTtT ch. 1) 34. Methodology 35. Tone (FTtT, pp. 133-136) 36. Controlling idea (FTtT, pp. 24-26) 37. Unity (LBH pp. 73-77; FTtT, Chapter 2) 38. Development (FTtT, Chapter 3; LBH, pp. 90-99) 39. Coherence (as applied to paragraphs) 40. Drafting 41. Revising 42. Editing 43. Reverse outline 44. Hypothesis 45. Pronoun reference (i.e., link between pronoun and it’s antecedent noun) (FTtT, p. 122) 46. PLAGIARISM (see resources provided on Ufora) 47. Summary 48. Paraphrase 49. Synthesis/synthesizing (LBH, pp. 161-162) 50. Interpretation/interpreting (LBH, pp. 159-161) 51. Rhetoric 52. Common sense 53. Common knowledge 54. “Curse of Knowledge” 55. Logical Contingency 56. Point of view 57. Positionality 58. Prejudice 59. Bias 60. Verbal dispute (HtTC, Ch. 2) 61. Hermeneutics 62. Semiotics 63. Multi-vocal term (HtTC, Ch. 2) 64. Definiens (HtTC, Ch. 2) 65. Definiendum (HtTC, Ch. 2) 66. Reportive (a.k.a., lexical) definition (HtTC, Ch. 2) 67. Stipulative definition (HtTC, Ch. 2) 68. Definition by example (HtTC, Ch. 2) 69. Ostensive definition (HtTC, Ch. 2) 70. Essential definition (Class notes)  71. Circular definition (HtTC, Ch. 2) 72. Obscure definition (HtTC, Ch. 2) 73. Tautology 74. Explanation 75. Analytical statement 76. Contradictory statement 77. Synthetic statement 78. Contradictory statement 79. Conditional statement 80. Scope 81. Conviction 82. Trope 83. Paradigm 84. Idiom 85. Vagueness 86. Ambiguity (HtTC, Ch. 2) 87. Referential ambiguity 88. Grammatical ambiguity 89. Tonal Ambiguity (Class notes) 90. Euphemism (HtTC, Ch. 2) 91. Prejudicial language (HtTC, Ch. 2) 92. Qualified statement (HtTC, Ch. 2) 93. Unqualified statement (HtTC, Ch. 2) 94. Scope 95. Anecdote 96. Teleology 97. Deontology 98. “Thinking with and against” 99. Interdisciplinarity 100. Transdisciplinarity 101. Synonym 102. Antonym 5. Short Essay Topics/Questions: Note: Questions in red will not appear on the exam but might still be useful to reflect on as you study for the exam. 1. Writing well implies hard work, craft and—perhaps most crucially—lots of rewriting. Indeed, rewriting is the key to writing effectively. In class, we situated this hard work within the context of “the writing process.” Drawing on your class notes and the opening chapters of The Little Brown Handbook, outline the steps of the writing process and discuss how they relate to each other. What does it mean to say that the writing process is “recursive,” and what does recursivity imply in practice? Which part of the writing process did you find most difficult? Why do you think that was? 2. This course has not only been about “learning to write,” but also about “writing to learn.” How, exactly, might the activity of writing (and writing regularly and often) contribute to the process of learning? How is the writing process related to the process of inquiry? And what role might writing practices play in the production of scientific knowledge (as distinct from the challenge of effectively communicating that knowledge)? Indeed: What does it mean to  say that writing is not only a tool of communication, but also a tool that we use to support and deepen our thinking? 3. What, in a technical sense, is meant by the term “critical thinking?” And what, in a more general sense, might it mean to think critically? Is thinking different from knowing? Does doubt or skepticism play a role in critical thinking? How do you see the role of critical thinking in science and society? 4. In her Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, Hannah Arendt (p. 4) writes that: “In Kant judgement emerges as a particular talent which can be practiced only and not taught.” What does this mean and why might it be relevant to skills of critical thinking and effective writing? 5. What is the difference between “knowing that” and “knowing how,” and why does it matter? Make sure that you answer elaborates on concrete examples of each. 6. If someone characterizes your writing style as “academic,” they probably don’t mean it as a complement. In his essay on intellectual craftsmanship, C. Wright Mills writes that “To overcome the academic prose you have first to overcome the academic pose.” What does he mean? And how might we avoid the pitfalls of both? Draw on, inter alia, Zinsser and the passage on “style” in chapter 17 of Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the Basic Skills when formulating your answer. 7. What are the objectives of expository writing, and what role does exposition play in scientific inquiry? 8. In class, we discussed the importance of finding an “angle” early in the writing process. What does “angle” mean in this context, and why is it important? (Think about how it relates to other terms like “entry point,” “lead,” “problem statement” or “thesis statement.”) 9. In class, we spend a good bit of time discussing the characteristics of an effective problem statement. What are these characteristics, and how do they relate to goals of the problem statement in an (academic) essay? Make sure to elaborate on the distinction we made between “showing/presenting” on the one hand, and “telling/explaining” on the other. 10. What is the relation between the “problem statement” of an (argumentative) essay, and its “thesis statement?” In what sense might “thesis questions” (or simply “research questions”) provide the link between the two? And how should the thesis statement relate to the “topic sentences” that provide a scaffolding for the body of a well-structured essay?. 11. In his chapter on sources (“Chapter 13: Sources of Evidence”), Robert Mutti offers what he calls “a general theory of the legitimacy of sources.” Identify and elaborate on the elements of this theory. What is it that we derive from sources? And how should we go about evaluating sources and the ways in which they are used in production of scientific knowledge? (Feel free to bring in McLaughlin’s approach when developing your answer to this question.) 12. Distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate use of GenAI in university assignments and academic research/scholarship more generally. Is GenAI a trustworthy source? What are its strengths and weaknesses? And what are the things one should look out for when using GenAI in the process of researching and writing? What are the possible problems/traps associated  with the use of GenAI as an aid to learning, research and the communication of scientific knowledge? 13. What distinguishes “point of view” from terms like prejudice and bias? Is point of view (or “having a perspective”) a problem in academic or scientific research and writing? Explain. 14. Briefly define and explain the difference between reportive, stipulative and essential definitions. Make sure to note how each are arrived at and affirmed (or asserted). How might “verbal disputes” with regard to the meaning of terms best be settled? What criteria might we use to arbitrate between competing definitions? And what distinguishes definitions from other kinds of premises in arguments? In what sense might the act of definition introduce fallacies into arguments (specifically, by “begging the question” or introducing an element of circularity into the argument)? 15. What distinguishes opinion from fact? More specifically, what is the relation of fact to opinion? Why might it be important to distinguish between the two? And what kinds of things should we consider when evaluating the relevance and value of various/competing claims of fact and opinion. Make sure that your answer starts from a good definition of each term. 16. In class, we discussed the relationship between facts and opinions and between facts and knowledge. What is the difference between knowledge and fact? Does opinion run contrary to fact? What distinguishes knowledge from opinion? Would it be wrong to characterize scientific judgements as expressions of opinion? And if we assert that scientific judgements are a form of opinion, what distinguishes scientific opinion from other kinds of opinion? Why do scientific opinions have such a special significance/value in our culture and political life? 17. What is the difference between objectivity and neutrality? Can you identify a couple of distinct approaches to the problem of objectivity? Why is objectivity such a core value of (and problem within) scientific inquiry? 18. What is the difference between paraphrasing and summarizing? Is it necessary to cite when you paraphrase or summarize someone else’s idea or account in your own essay? Under what circumstances might a summary or paraphrase constitute plagiarism? Briefly explain what plagiarism is, why it’s considered such a serious offence, and how to avoid it. 19. Why is it rarely a good idea to “explain” things to readers (except, perhaps, when answering an exam question)? And how might awareness and application of “patterns of expository development” help to avoid the trap of explanation? 20. What is the difference between objectivity and neutrality? Can you identify a couple of distinct approaches to the problem of objectivity? Why is objectivity such a core value of (and problem within) scientific inquiry? 21. What is the difference between vagueness and ambiguity? Note and briefly sketch three linguistic contexts that can give rise to (unproductive) ambiguity. Might ambiguity be utilized productively in the context of academic communication? Explain. 22. What is an argument? When and how does argument play a role in the production of scientific knowledge? What kinds of dispute are amenable to argument, and what kinds not? Why might an ability to recognize, evaluate and advance arguments not only be a crucial skill  underpinning scientific practice, but also a crucial element of a critical democratic culture more generally? 23. What does it mean to say that scientific arguments are “evidential” and “logical?” 24. What is the “S-test?” Identify the three main “pillars” of the S-test and briefly sketch how one might go about evaluating the strength of each. Does the S-test apply to argument as artifact or argument as process? Explain. 25. What is meant by “argument-as-process?” What are its main characteristics and objectives? And in what sense might we say that the normative dimension of argument-as-process provides a constitutive element of scientific community? Make sure that your answer elaborates on the distinction between “argument-as-process” and “argument-as-artifact.” 26. What distinguishes the criteria of “validity” and “probability” from that of “truth?” In what sense might we speak of truth in the context of scientific argument? 27. Aristotle identified logos, pathos and ethos as the rhetorical foundations of argument, and the terms have been with us ever since. Briefly explain what each term means and discuss how they work together to build a convincing argument. 28. What is meant by “the problem of induction?” How might we determine the strength or weakness of an inductive argument? 29. What is method? And how do the skills of exposition and argument that we have been working on this semester relate to those skills that underpin methodological competence in the social sciences (and in scientific practice more generally)? Make sure that you clearly explain what is meant by exposition and argument and discuss how they correspond to specific moments in the activity of producing (and communicating) scientific knowledge. 30. Explain the difference between deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning, making sure to note the movement (direction of inference) implied by—and the distinguishing feature(s) of and characteristic strengths and weakness of—each. How might each contribute to building of a scientific argument? Which of these modes of reasoning is traditionally seen to provide the foundation of modern scientific method? 31. In class, we noted that an argument should ideally be evaluated in terms of both its “illative core” and its “dialectical tier.” To what do these terms refer? How do they relate to the task of evaluating an argument? Elaborate on some of the main, general criteria we should look to when evaluating the strength or weakness of an argument. Make sure that your answer distinguishes between “argument as artifact” and “argument as process.” 32. What is the difference between providing “counter-examples” and making a “counter argument?” In what sense does each represent a distinct approach to “arguing back?” And how does each work to challenge or undermine the inference of the original argument? (In other words, at what point does each strategy challenge the basis or logic of the original argument?) 33. Emotion is typically seen to introduce a subjective element into argument and is therefore often seen as a flaw, or as indicative of a fallacy, in argumentation. And yet it is difficult to imagine any meaningful argument completely free of emotion. Can emotion play a valid role  in scientific argument and debate? If so, what role might it play, and how? If not, why not? If your answer is somewhere in between, indicate and distinguish between circumstances where emotion might play a productive role in scientific argument, and those where its effects might be problematic/unproductive. Feel free to use examples. 34. What is a reason? What role might reasons play in arguments? And how do they relate to other elements of argument? Explain, providing an example to illustrate the point. 35. Should one try to enter into an argument without any preconceived assumptions? Is that even possible? Briefly explain the role of assumptions in argument. How should we deal with the existence of assumptions in the context of scientific argument? Why should we always try to make our assumptions specific in the context of scientific argument? In what sense can assumptions be problematic? Explain. 36. What is the difference between “common sense” and “common knowledge?” Might it be legitimate to let one or both inform scientific inquiry? If so, how and to what extent? If not, why not, and what do we need to watch out for? 37. Richard Feynman identifies and reflects upon three or four key senses in which science is of value to us. What are these values? And which of these values does Feynman ultimately identify as the most important? In what sense might we say that each of the values he mentions is of relevance not only to our understanding of what it means to think critically, but also to our thinking about politics more generally? 38. Wilfrid Sellars wrote that “Empirical knowledge, like its sophisticated extension—science—is rational not because it has a foundation, but because it is a self-correcting enterprise where any claim can be put into jeopardy, but not all claims at once.” Elaborate on this statement— what exactly does he mean? And why is the point significant? What does it tell us about the nature of scientific “truth?” 39. What is it, exactly, that distinguishes science from other ways of knowing and being in the world? In other words, what is it that makes certain kinds of knowledge scientific? Can (and should) scientific knowledge be seen as standing above opinion? Or are scientists themselves in the business of issuing opinions? If so, how is scientific opinion different from other kinds of opinion? And if not, then what is it about science that elevates it above the level of opinion? Formulate you answer in terms of the readings, lectures and classroom discussions that you have had over the past semester (you don’t need to limit yourself to readings for/discussions in CSK). 40. How might we characterize the (ideal) relation between scientific knowledge (or ways of knowing) and other forms of knowledge (and ways of knowing)? What distinguishes science from other kinds of knowledge? Should science seek autonomy from other ways of knowing? Do you think that such autonomy would be possible? Briefly explain. 41. Validity, soundness, sufficiency, probability, consistency, acceptability, repeatability, representativeness, generalizability and falsifiability are terms that refer to key criteria of scientific argument. Some of these terms refer to the evaluation of arguments as such; others refer to criteria that we might use to designate an argument as scientific (or not). Can you group them accordingly? What are the basic values that underpin each group, and how do these values relate to the production of truth claims within science? Explain how these values  come together to underpin what we might characterize as the ethos of scientific knowledge production. 42. What is objectivity? Why is it such a central value within the scientific enterprise? And why— more than 400 years into the project of modern science—does it continue to present itself as such a “wicked” problem? Are there limits to our capacity to situate knowledge on objective foundations? If so, what are they, and what possibilities and problems might these limits pose, both for science and for us as producers and users of scientific knowledge (not to mention problems that arise from the impact of science in and upon the world)? Can objectivity ever be separated from our human capacity for imagination and emotion? (Perhaps more crucially, should it be?) Finally, in what sense might the activity of critical thinking help us to engage constructively with this problem (short of actually being able to resolve it)? Write a short essay reflecting on the value and limits of objectivity. Try to engage with terms like “imagination,” “affect,” “doubt,” “value,” “epistemology,” “critical thinking” and “ontology” in formulating your response to the above questions (you don’t need to use them all, but it will be a plus if you can bring a few of together in your answer). (Is there some “objective” foundation upon which we might distinguish between knowledge and belief, between facts and values, or between theories and “mere opinion”?) 43. Statistics often play a key role in the building of scientific arguments. Indeed, for many people (including some scientists), statistics and other forms of quantitative data have a privileged place in the formation of scientific opinion. To translate a common Dutch saying, “to measure is to know” (“meten is weten”). Statistical facts no doubt gain prestige from their association with mathematical knowledge. Mathematics seems to offer a uniquely clear and indubitable form of knowledge. Scientists and philosophers have thus long sought to understand how mathematical knowledge might be applied to gain a deeper and more certain understanding of the world and its structure. But there is a danger: the indubitability of the math that underpins the production of a statistic can easily be conflated with the indubitability of the fact that a statistic claims to represent. Statistics do not free us from problems of interpretation. Examined carefully, the relationship between fact, statistical representation and world turns out to be exceedingly complex. Statistical fact turns out to suffer from many of the same issues and limitations as other kinds of fact. And statistics have additional issues and limitations of their own. Drawing on assigned readings, class discussion and your own reflection, identify some common problems/issues with the interpretation and use of statistical data, and with claims based on quantity or numerical proportion more generally. What are some of the most typical fallacies associated with statistics, and how do we typically encounter them in the course of social and political life? Give some examples and discuss.