Philosophy of Science

PHIL 3140 - Philosophy of Science - I got in way over my head in this course. This was my first philosophy course and I evaded the prerequisites somehow, which was at least one other philosophy course, preferably two. Was I the only English Major in the seats? No, but I was the only English Major that finished the course that semester. The other guy dropped it after a couple of weeks. I would have done the same if I wouldn't have dropped under 12 credits for the semester.

The first in-class exam was one of the ugliest in my college career. I had no clue what was going on. I think I left a third of the paper blank, and on the other two thirds I wrote some high class bullshit. I mean, this stuff could have won me the gold medal in the bullshit olympics. No problem. Piece of cake.

Problem: I couldn't get a D or an F in this class if I wanted to travel with the swim team, and also if I wanted to compete in the Spring, not to mention, I would have to live with getting an F in a class. Faced with this problem, I went in to talk to the professor. He was really understanding of my dilemma. He gave me some tips on how to complete the next take-home exam and how to study for the next test.

I put in the extra time and almost got a 90 on the next take-home. I don't know what I got on the final, but I was the first one done. I remember studying my arse off for this one exam. Once the test was handed to me I gripped my pencil as tight as ever and rapidly wrote down everything I knew about the philosophy of science. I was petrified of forgetting even the smallest amount of information before the time had arrived to write it down on the paper. I turned the test in with the greatest sense of pride, knowing that whatever I was going to get on that test it was more than enough to bring me from the depths of the grading scale. The great unknown, Philosophy of Science, had loomed over me all semester and I pointed a flashlight in its direction and it cowered before my intelligence. Laugh. Okay, so it didn't happen exactly like that, but my brain successfully rose to the occasion.

Included below is a segment of that second take-home exam. I just read it for the first time in a couple of years and it sounds like complete bs, but it isn't. This was a right answer. Believe it.

3. Why did John lose the tennis match?

“John” – why did John lose the tennis match, rather than Jill, lets say? If you believe Jill was a better tennis player than John, than this could work as being an explanatory term in favor of John losing the match. If it is believed John could have committed more errors than Jill, this is also an explanatory term in favor of John losing the match.

“lose” – why did John lose instead of win? The contrast classes above could also be used as answers to why John lost instead of won. Perhaps, if the game were longer, John would have won, but the length of the game was not long enough for John to prevail.

“tennis” – why did John play tennis, rather than basketball, or football? John could be said to be a better tennis player, so that could explain why tennis was chosen. Someone John could have been playing with, like Jill, could have been a much better tennis player than any other sport. Jill also could have chosen the sport they played, instead of John. This would explain why they might have played tennis.