Philosophy of Natural Sciences (PHIL 225) Syllabus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This course explores the philosophy of science via a consideration of Indigenous ways of knowing. We begin by covering some major topics in philosophy of science—e.g., how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, whether social and ethical values play a role in science, and others—and then we turn to the rich, place-based epistemologies of various Indigenous communities, examining how their worldviews, practices, and values offer unique perspectives on environmental stewardship, sustainability, and resilience. By the end of this course, you will be able to: Synthesize information offered in a philosophical text, determine the author’s perspective & conclusion(s), and evaluate the support offered for the conclusion Explain the concepts of scientific pluralism, incommensurability, objectivity, the demarcation problem, and standpoint epistemology Describe some indigenous ways of knowing—e.g., from Inuit and Māori traditions—and be able characterize the differences between local-knowledge and Western scientific knowledge Entertain positions you do not hold and treat them seriously and charitably
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".