Write in a clear, direct style. Give as much introduction as you think is needed and then get straight down to answering the question. Avoid discursive footnotes. It’s not necessary to do a lot of extra reading in order to do well, but you can contact your tutor for suggestions for things to read. (Don’t hope for guidance from wandering the internet. Most philosophical material on the internet is not good.) 1. Do you think the interpretation of evidence for or against scientific theories requires scientists to invoke values and principles derived from outside of science? If this is the case, is it a problem? 2. Would it make sense (and might it be a good idea) to be a scientific realist about some parts of science and a metaphysical constructivist about other parts? 3. In class I criticized many versions of “Occam’s razor,” the idea that simple theories should be preferred in science over complex ones. Think about how these issues might look from the point of view of a subjectivist Bayesian model of evidence in science. Does that view of evidence help us understand why a preference for simplicity might be justified, or might not be justified?