Now that all on-ground classes at MTSU have been moved to remote learning contexts, this page and its links will serve as our primary vehicle for conducting our scholarship in the weeks ahead. As you are doubtless aware, we are aiming at a moving target at the same time that the sands are shifting beneath our feet. Unlike the attention we are all able to give one another during a regular class period, our foci may be distracted occasionally by the exigencies of daily life in a time of pandemic plague. Even so, it is worth remembering that even in the best of times, the vast bulk of our learning happens outside the meagre fifty-five minutes we share on any given day. Class lectures are like bread recipes: they specify ingredients and provide some direction for mixing, kneeding, and baking; but you are, and have always been, your own bakers. The modules to which you will be directed as we proceed will simply approximate the lists of ingredients and specific instructions you would have otherwise encountered in class. Of course, this is less than ideal, but let us remember that every idea, every text, every insight we will be studying throughout the rest of this term was created, polished, and disseminated long before the advent of video conferencing and the instant karma we collect on cell phones; we'll be fine without the bells and whistles; after all, most learning since the dawn of the written word was remote.

The syllabus for this class, then, will remain essentially unaltered; only the methods of intellectual exchange will have changed. To consult the original main syllabus page and its links, direct your browser here: Original Course Syllabus

• Outline and illustrate the major thematic origins of modern scientific knowledge
• Distinguish among the historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives that characterize modern science
• Analyze the moral and social dimensions of scientific practice
• Discuss the functions of explanation and prediction in the advancement of modern science
• Assess the roles of quantitative and qualitative methods for understanding the nature of things
• Question the logical foundations of mathematical truths
• Provide classroom exhibits and experiments demonstrating the explanatory power of some modern scientific theories
• Design lesson plans for promoting scientific literacy among pre-college students

The following texts are required; a thorough familiarity with their contents is advised:

• Espinoza, Fernando.  The Nature of Science: Integrating Historical, Philosophical, and Sociological Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.
• Giere, Ronald N, et al.  Understanding Scientific Reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing; 5th edition, 2006.

• Atalay, Bulent.  Math and the Mona Lisa: The Art and Science of Leonardo da Vinci. Washington: Smithsonian Books, 2004.
• Crease, Robert P.  The Workshop and the World: What Ten Thinkers Can Teach Us about Science and Authority. New York: W. W. Norton, 2019.
• Deutsch, David.  The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations that Transform the World. New York: Viking Books, 2011.
• Sorensen, Roy.  A Brief History of the Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

(1) Spelling error here.

(2) Noncritical weakness in sentence structure.

(3) Critical weakness in sentence structure. (meaning lost).

(4) Punctuation not clear.

(5) Term or phrase unclear or unexplained.

(6) Term or phrase ambiguous.

(7) New paragraph warranted here.

(8) Circumlocution here; simpler expression available.

(9) General structure of this argument unclear.

(10) Conclusion does not follow without unstated assumptions.

(11) Relevance of this point to your argument is not clear.

(12) This assertion is questionable and requires further support.

(13) Further consequences of this claim are unmentioned but relevant.

(14) This inference is formally invalid.

Ø  Null credit: either question misunderstood or analysis irrelevant.

/    Response is deficient of the (expected) mean.

✓   Response is at the (expected) mean.

+   Response is well above the (expected) mean; well-argued analysis.

++  Response is superior, no deficiencies.