Term Paper Information

*February 2014:Check out this document with reference to some possible term paper topics!*
 

You are to write a critical essay of about 2500-4000 words (~8-12 pages, but go by word count) on some aspect of the interpretation of scientific theories. The topic should reflect your interests and make use of your background. You should develop your topic into a coherent presentation of ideas for which you argue clearly and convincingly. We do not expect you to do groundbreaking work on the foundations of science, but you must not merely summarize or restate some other author's views. Graduate students in this course will be expected to choose a weightier topic and write a longer paper (5000-6000 words -- 15-18 pages).

WARNING

It is an unfortunate historical fact that people tend to put off their term paper work until too late in the term to do a good job. To encourage you to meet the deadlines, late outlines and drafts will be penalized 5% per day (each). The final paper will not be accepted after the due date (unless you have a written medical excuse).

STEP ZERO: Before doing anything else, make absolutely sure you understand the campus policies on citations and plagiarism. Every stage of the paper must be submitted via SafeAssign on Compass to facilitate routine plagiarism checks. All significant special information, wording, illustrative examples, etc. must have specific in-text references, not just general bibliographic notes. We are not picky about the exact format, but the style must allow a reader to find the source for any material easily and must specifically identify quotes and paraphrases.

It's extremely unpleasant to have to mention these things, but one semester, serious formal actions were taken on 6 cases (out of 37 papers), with an informal reduced grade in another case. One student's name was scratched from the December graduation roles, etc. Two of the cases were ones which came up completely clean in the turnitin.com software used at the time but were found by other means. So please do not make the mistake of thinking that this warning is a mere gesture.

Finding a topic that interests you, that is reasonably accessible, and is of an appropriate scope is the most important step in writing the term paper. See the Notes on Papers for suggestions. One good approach is to write an in-depth critical response to one or several recent works on the interpretation of physics. It's a good idea to make a trip to the library or a bookstore soon to find some work you're interested in. You can then read it and plan out your paper in parallel with the rest of the course. It's not very practical to wait until the course has dealt with some topic to find out whether you want to write about it, especially since some of the most fascinating material is reached only in the last month. Of course, we hope that what's said in the course will be of use to you in deciding what to write after you've decided on your topic.

The term paper project has four milestones. Meeting each of these milestones is necessary if you are to receive a good grade.

  1. You must choose a topic by March 18 -- preferably sooner. You will turn in a tentative topic paragraph and a list of the main references. Unlike other assignments, this one must be revised until it is acceptable. It's better to spend an extra round of work finding a good topic and approach at this early stage than to waste time writing a dead-end paper. At least one in-person consultation with an instructor must be held while the paper is being written. Electronic consultations are also encouraged.
  2. An outline with topic paragraphs is due April 3 -- preferably sooner. I need to see that you know what the structure of your paper will be. You should write an introductory paragraph for each of the two or three major sections of the paper. You should list the working bibliography (the books you're actually using). My initial comments will be returned at least within a week.
  3. A complete paper (perhaps not well-polished) is due April 22. My comments will be returned first come, first served.
     
  4. The final revised paper is due May 8.

The grade will be based roughly 10% on the topic, 15% on the outline, 25% on the first draft, and 50% on the final paper.

Paper Guidelines

This guideline started out as a reprint of a paper by G. T. Hole [APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy, 4, 4 (1984)] available as a handout from the Philosophy Dept. However, I have changed the emphasis, since papers for this course involve much more specific reliance on an external body of knowledge than do the more introspective papers described by Hole. Ultimately this evolved into something changed too much to blame on the original author. (Obviously, this process is a terrible model for how your papers should be written, since they must be explicit about what contributions were made by the sources.)

I cannot emphasize too strongly that these papers should not be mere "reports", in which you put together information or views from some sources and transmit them to the reader. Likewise the papers should not be mere opinion and speculation. The papers for this course should involve some independent critical thinking.

The topics, therefore, should be picked so as to be not too far over your head. Although a paper which uncritically but carefully explains the standard view of some difficult issue would be acceptable (but not optimal), a paper which simply collates phrases on some such issue would not.

Some of the most attractive topics would involve applying what you have learned in this course to current questions from the general culture. For example, you could try applying the procedures by which we have evaluated hypotheses to questions about cold fusion, paranormal effects, or creationism. To what extent does the history of physics support or refute ideas about the cultural relativity of hypotheses? etc.

In most papers the sections presenting the physics per se should be brief. Usually there is not much new to say on that. Aspects of the interpretation, history, and metaphorical uses of the physics are more likely to raise problems worth discussing in these papers.

Your paper should begin by identifying the issue which you will address. The reader does not always need to know immediately what you will conclude, but he does need to know the topic. The topic cannot be simply some noun (e.g. "spacetime") but must be some question or assertion (e.g. "Is spacetime geometry purely a matter of convention?")

Most topics will require a section explaining the meaning of the question. Perhaps, if you are writing a critical essay on someone else's work, this section would provide a simple description of that work. If you are writing about some problem in interpretation of an unfamiliar phenomenon, this section would simply describe the phenomenon.

You then may need to explain why the topic is interesting- e.g. why the views described are controversial, or why the phenomenon seems paradoxical. A set of possible alternate views might be presented, relying somewhat on published literature.

At this point, you will be prepared to start actually reasoning about your topic. Are there obvious logical contradictions in any of the views you have introduced? Are the differences between the views real or merely semantic? Are there empirical data that rule out some of the views? Are there other considerations (historical analogies, partially relevant data, Occam's razor.....) that can be found to strengthen or weaken the cases for these views?

Finally, you can wrap up the paper with some conclusions. What ideas are definitely wrong? Are any definitely right? What sorts of developments can resolve the remaining questions? Are further experiments or calculations called for?

Most important: After the paper is written and typed, go over it with a hostile attitude, as if someone else had written it. Would you believe any of it if someone else had written it? Would you bother to finish reading it? What parts are impossible to follow? What parts don't make sense? Which of the words on page 9 contradict words on page 3? Do the conclusions have any connection whatever with the pages of detailed physical description at the start of the paper? If not, why are those pages there? What obvious gaps loom? How would the conclusions cease to make sense if applied to slightly different situations?

If possible, it then helps to trade papers with someone else, so you can each find flaws which you overlooked in your own. Then go through the revision process again.You may then add connecting material, auxiliary arguments, clarifications of terms, concessions of limitations, etc. You may take out digressions and falsehoods.

Do not rely excessively on revising your paper after comments from the instructors. Our comments often are too abbreviated to fully guide your response without some further communication. By that point in the semester, you are likely to have other urgent tasks.