ANSWER to ONE COMPREHENSION QUESTION and ONE REFLECTION QUESTION, also RESPOND substantively and thoughtfully to TWO PEERS

Description

Respond to one comprehension question and one reflection question of your choice from the list below. (So you’d be responding to a grand total of TWO questions.)  Please do not use outside sources Follow these guidelines: Each answer should be at least 7-8 sentences long.  For each comprehension question –  Take care of accuracy – do not misrepresent/ obscure the views in a reading; do not take quotes out of context  Reconstruct in your words – do not simply copy-paste or quote excessively. While a few quotes are okay, by and large, you should take the ideas from the reading and express them in your own language For the reflection question –  Show original thought – do not repeat the ideas already presented in the article, but go beyond them and provide your own insight through examples, experiences, hypothetical scenarios, questions (particularly, ‘what-if’ ones), speculations, and so on. Importantly, do not make claims without backing them up with reasoning.  Take care of relevance – your reflection should be related and relevant to the topic/ question and not go off on a tangent – Up to 0.5 points may be deducted for each question for lack of clarity, improper grammar, and spelling. Finally, respond substantively and thoughtfully to two peers, in at least 4 sentences for each of them, going beyond simply saying “interesting”, or “I agree”. Your response may include a question as well  Comprehension: 1. Briefly explain Kuhn’s cyclical picture of the history of science with all the major phases. 2. What is scientific realism? What is the most common argument given for it as discussed in the textbook and the lecture? What is one key drawback of this argument? Reflection: 1. Do you consider yourself a scientific realist or an antirealist/instrumentalist/pragmatist? Explain. 2. How did you respond to Kuhn’s ideas that it’s not the case that “rationality triumphs” in a scientific revolution and that theories don’t get epistemically better and better (approaching the truth) over time? Note: I will upload the peers as soon as they’re are available