2
?
2dt2/
4tstZ.,
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM ?
SIP
7?(
To ........ ....
........................................
.
From .....
N ...
Reilly, .
?
irma.
Senate Committee on
?
..................................
?
.sti
Subject ....
Chge..i..Uppex..QiV.i,i..Q ..........j
?
Date...... ?
Requirements for a Major in Communicatic Studies
Action taken by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies at its meeting on December 5 gives rise to the follow-
ing motion:
MOTION
That Senate approve and recommend approval to the Board
of Governors thatie cnent of the i-ipper
division
requirements for/a
mar
or honours in Communications
which states that students must normally receive credit
in the following courses:
d) at least one of: S.A. 358 or
PHIL.
341
be replaced by the requirement:
d) at least one of: S.A. 358,
PHIL.
243, or
PHIL.
341.
is
?
?
PHIL.
243, Studies in the Philosophy of Science, was?
previously offered as G.S. 201. The change in designation was
approved by Senate at its meeting on December 4. The Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies considered that it was quite
appropriate to allow
PHIL.
245, Studies in the Philosophy of
Science as an alternative to
PHIL.
341, Philosophy of Science
and S.A. 358, The Philosophy of the Social Sciences. In addition,
the Committee acknowledged the points put forwarded by the
Department regarding the recent changes in the prerequisites
for
PHIL.
341.
N.R. Reilly
/kb
0
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
fcx7-7y
MEMORANDUM
?
A2ZJJ,4
•To ........
....Harry Evans, Secretary, S C U S
Subject
?
.. ........
?
e4,
From
William D. Richards, Chairman,
Undergraduate Cu.rriàuIum
....
Comm
. ittee
Department of Communication
Date. . December 5 1978
The Communication Department lists the following as one of its requirements
for a major in Communication:
"at least one of: S.A. 358 or PHIL 341."
Both of these are courses in the philosophy of science or the philosophy
of social science. Some changes in the prerequisites for PHIL 341 and
some difficulties with the course in S.A. have necessitated a change in
our requirement. The problems and the proposed change are described
below.
1.
The Philosophy Department has added a
prerequisite
to
PHIL 341. This means that our students must now take
at least two courses to fill the requirement instead
of one. This is unsatisfactory.
2.
There have been complaints from the
S. A.
department that
.
?
too many of our students are asking to take their 358
course without the prerequisites. This is causing problems
for the professor offering that course.
3.
We are proposing the following change as a way of
reducing the impact of these problems:
Add to the alternatives a third course, PHIL 243. This
will make the calendar read as follows:
"at least one of: S.A. 358, PHIL 243, or PHIL 341."
PHIL
.
243, Studies in the Philosophy of Science, was previously offered as
G.S. 201. The move to the Philosophy Department changes only the number of
the course, since the same instructor, Hanna Gay, is teaching the material.
A copy of the course
description
and outline is attached. We feel that
this course will provide a suitable third option for our students, thus
reducing the problems that the other two departments have been experiencing
due to our (relatively unprepared) students attempting to take their more
advanced courses.
•
Additional course in the philosophy of science, transferred from General Studies
Present Calendar Description:
GS 201-3 Historical Studies in the Philosophy of Science
This course will present some of the views held by important figures in the
philosophy of science
including
Aristotle, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes, Newton,
Kant, Poincare, etc. The format will be primarily chronological and will culmin-
ate with a study of views held by leading figures in the late 19th and 20th
centuries.
Prerequisite: Any
100 level course in science, mathematics, or philosophy.
Students who have taken this course under its former number CS 201 may not take
PHIL 243 for further credit.
This course would be transferred to the Philosophy department on the condition
that funds for mounting it come from some other source other than our budget.
The number of the course would be PHIL 243-3.
After an interchange of memos between the Philosophy department and the Faculty
of Interdisciplinary Studies extending over several years, the Department has
finally decided that the course described above is acceptable into its program.
This corse, under the number CS 201, has been approved by Senate and has been
offered several times. I attach the original course proposal form prepared by
Dr. Hannah Gay who designed the course and has taught it
since
its approval.
I also attach a memo from Dr. Calvert, Dean of the Faculty
of Interdisciplinary
Studies giving his approval of the transfer. The budget implications, as far
as the Philosophy department is concerned, simply involve the need to seek fund-
ing for the course through Continuing Studies. The Department would select the
instructor for the course. It should be noted in passing that in transferring
CS 201 to the Philosophy department, Dr. Gay is not being added to our depart-
ment. We may very well continue to select her as the course's instructor
because of her (very high) qualifications, but that would be on a semester to
semester basis as a Sessional Instructor. This proposal concerns only the
course.
AcademiaJ.ly, the reasons for transferring CS 201 are these: First, it is
clearly a course which falls within the field of the philosophy of science.
Within this field the history of science is a matter of philosophic (as well as
historical) concern because the evolution of key scientific terms (Law, Theory,
Mass, Energy, Matter, etc.) is intimately related to major historical philoso-
phical debates. Not only are science and philosophy connected at the conceptual
level, but the very nature of the
history of science is philosophically debatable:
does
it change by slow evolutionary processes so there is just one view of the
universe being gradually developed since the Sixteenth Century, or does science
change by radical 'paradigm shifts' each comprising a different view of the
university? Second, as Dean Calvert suggests in his memo, this course may be
more accessible to students in the arts and sciences faculties if they can
receive Group A credit for it.
SINATI: C041T1TLIi ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
calerinformation ?
14/k
Abbreviation Code: GS
?
Course Number: 201
?
Credit Hours:
?
3 ?
'ecor: .-l-('
Title of Course: Historical Studies in the Philosoph y of Science
Calendar Description of Course: This course will present some of the vis held
by important figures in the philosophy of science including Aristotle,
?
11 leo
Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Kant, Poincare, etc. The format will be prm.irilv
chronological and will culminate with a study of views held by leading figures
in the late 19th and 20th centuries.
Nature of Course
?
Lecture/Tutorial
Prerequisites (or special ins
t
ructions): Any 100 level course in science, :ith-
ematics,
or
philosophy
What course (courses), if any, is being dropped from the calendar if thi
S : ?
tr'-t
is approved: None.
2.
Scheduling ?
-
How frequently will the course be offered? Yearly
Semester in which the course will first he offered?
.
Which of your present faculty would he available to make the proposed ottcrin!
possible?
3.
Objectives of the Course
See attached
4.
budgetary and Space Requirements (for information only)
What additional resourses will be
required in the following areas:
Faculty ?
1/4 sessional lectureship, on an annual basis
Staff
Library ?
See attached resource list
Audio Visual
Space
Equipment
4.,
Approval
Date:
?
9/74.
•
?
/jk ?
_____-
-._
Department
Chairman
?
Acting Dean
?
Chairman, SCUS
SCUS 3-34b:- (When completing this form, for instructions see Memorandum SCft 3- i.
Attach course outline).
L.
.
S.
•
ç:t
i V(S
of the
a) The object f this course is to acquaint the student
?
th important
historical views in the philosophy of science. The format will be
will
primarily
be made
chronologj(al
throughout.
though
Readings
reference
will be
to
selected
related contemporary
primaril
y
from
ideas
original
philosophical writings though in some cases, Newton for example, scientific
texts will be studied so that comparisons between actual practice and
methodological accounts can he made. The following nine sections
hill
be
assigned approximately equal times (weighted in favour of the late lt)i and
early 20th centuries) from which it can be seen that the course will give
particular
an overall
philosophy.introductory
picture rather than a detailed anal
y
sis
of
any
Outline
Oft
Introduction to classical vjewc
a) Aristotle - the inductive-deductive method; non-logical Iequiremcnt
for scientific explanation.
h) The Pythagorean view of nature.
c) The classical origins of the tradition of 'saving the appear.inc..'
J) Euclid: deductive systems the model for empirical systems?
2) 16th and 17th century Phi1osojy of science
a) Anti-Aristotelian philosophies: the Hermetic, neo-platonjst and
magical world views.
hI GaLi!eo's version of Aristotelian methodology: his Platonic ideas
of abstraction and idealisation in Science.
c)
Francis Bacon; methods of induction and exclusion; crucial experiments.
The rejection of teleological explanation.
d)
R. Descartes; the rationaljs viewpoint: mechanical world views.
3) Newton
h)
a)
Newton's
Newton's
rules
account
of
of
reasoning.
his methods and of the structure
of
Sc LCflt
ific theory.
cj Interretations of 'Hypotheses non-fingo'.
d) Critic;ms of Newton's account of science.
4) 18th century philosophy of science
.'i) D. flume; the principle of empiricism.
h) I. Kant; the Kantian view of mathematics and of Newtonian mechanic.,-..
5) Early 19th century philosophy of science; theories of scientific
?
,
a)
.J. Herschel; the continuation of the empirical tradition; the distinction
between the discovery and justification of scientific theories.
b)
W. Whewell; the Kantian tradition; the philosophy of science bastd on
historical studies.
c)
Naturphilo;ophie - the Divine plan of Nature: anti-materialism.
()
?
tyism;Jr2.
and _con
a) J.S. Mill; Inductivism.
b) S. Jevons; the hypothetico deductive model for
?
tentific
explanation.
c) C. Ilempel; continuation of the
deductive scheme.
7)
Mid-Late
19th century philosojthy of science
a)
Darwinism; its effect on the rlatonic ijoctriTics of ideal form
and on Aristotelian final causes.
b)
Hdnhu[tz; 19th century nco-Kantiani srn; the psychological school.
c)
E.
Mach; sensationalism, conventionalism, the critique of
Newtorii an
philosophy.
d)
K. Pearson; radical empiricism.
e)
P.
l)uhem;
axiomatics; historical approaches to positivism;
the conventionalist view.
f)
H. Poincare; the Kantian philosophy
of arithmetic; the
convent ionat I t
philosophy of science and
geometry.
g)
C.Pierce; indeterminism in physical theory; anti-inductiontsm.
8) Eariy 20th century views
a) N.R. Campbell; analysis of science without reference to
traditional philosophies; the roles
of analogy and measurement
in
science.
h) P.W. Bridgman; the influence
of
Duhem and Einstein; operationalism.
cl Einstein's later neo-Kantian account of methodology in science.
d) Planck's realism and Bohr's instrumentalism.
c) .1. Watson; hehaviourisni.
f) Organismic arguments in Biology, Woodger and Haldane.
8) 11. Bergson's "creative evolution".
9) Mid 20th century views; a brief summary
a) Moderil
empiricism; Kuhnian 'irrationality'; neo-Kantian philos,'rhv.
b)
Problems
of
reduction in the physical and biological sciences: s
uantun mechanics
an
anti - reduction ist theory?
c)
Teleolory and goal directed organization in biological systei;i.
7
