Compare and contrast the views of science and progress in science presented in the course texts with your own.
What are the differences between Kuhn's and Mayr's view, and can these differences be explained by the different sciences the two authors work in?Is a universal scientific method necessary for either of these views of science, or do you agree with Chalmers that a universal method is not possible?Do you think that the knowledge science synthesizes is unique and valuable, or is it equal to other forms of knowledge? How do these books compare to how you view science and progress in science? How have your views changed since the beginning of this semester? Use the historical examples from previous papers to support your view. Are the biological and physical sciences philosophically different, or does a universal method and/or concept of progress unite them?