HPSC1001 What is This Thing Called Science?
The Complete Exam Bible · S2 2026HPSC1001 Overview
- ['Offering', 'Semester 2, 2026']
- ['Credit points', '6']
- ['Final exam', '30% and compulsory to complete']
- ['Assessment total', '100%']
HPSC1001 is a University of Sydney unit of study worth 6 credit points that asks what distinguishes science, how scientific inference works and where observation and values enter inquiry.
- Compulsory final The 30% final exam must be completed according to the official outline.
- Best ten results The 20% online component uses the ten highest question results.
- Argument curriculum Course materials connect demarcation, induction, observation and theory choice.
- Values curriculum The values sequence reaches inductive risk, feminist criticism and standpoint.
How HPSC1001 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Final exam · hurdle | 30% | Compulsory; must be completed |
| Online questions (best 10 submissions) | 20% | Short online questions on lecture and reading content |
| Participation during tutorials | 20% | Active engagement during in-person tutorials |
| Online task (EFT) | 2% | Online quiz and early feedback task |
| Critical Analysis Task 1 | 4% | 250-300 words |
| In- semester test | 20% | 50 minutes |
| Critical Analysis Task 2 | 4% | 250-300 words |
Weights and compulsory-completion language come from the exact official 2026 Semester 2 outline; only the best ten online-question results count toward their 20% component.
What HPSC1001 covers
Ten arguments connecting demarcation, induction, observation, values and standpoint.
Arguments about Science
Reconstruct claims before assessing their force02Demarcation and Pseudoscience
Test criteria for distinguishing scientific inquiry03Induction and the Problem of Justification
Explain ampliative inference without circular reassurance04Observation and Theory-Ladenness
Analyse how concepts shape what counts as seen05Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values
Differentiate truth-directed standards from wider priorities06The Value-Free Ideal
Test proposals to insulate scientific judgment07Underdetermination and Theory Choice
Compare rivals that fit the available evidence08Inductive Risk and Standards of Evidence
Connect error consequences to acceptance thresholds09Feminist Criticism of Science
Identify patterned exclusions in concepts and institutions10Standpoint, Diversity and Objectivity
Use situated difference as a resource for criticismThe available weeks and required readings support an argument-centred course architecture rather than a list of philosophers.
The curriculum moves from Argument through Internal Stage to Social Objectivity.
In What is This Thing Called Science?, that sequence matters because early definitions are repeatedly tested against later cases, assessment modes and competing explanations.
The official outline lists Final exam at 30%, Online questions (best 10 submissions) at 20%, Participation during tutorials at 20%, Online task (EFT) at 2%, Critical Analysis Task 1 at 4%, In- semester test at 20%, and Critical Analysis Task 2 at 4%.
The official outline states that the final exam is compulsory and must be completed.
The captured source does not state a separate minimum exam mark, so this guide does not invent one.
The central reasoning challenge is distinguishing a philosopher's premises, inferential move and conclusion from the historical or scientific examples used to motivate them. Work in What is This Thing Called Science?
must distinguish a source-supported fact from an inference, show how the selected concept changes the reading, and preserve uncertainty where the evidence does not decide the issue.
A productive route through What is This Thing Called Science? starts by retrieving the chapter's key concepts, then applies them to a changed case before returning to the source.
For HPSC1001, this order exposes missing links more reliably than rereading the same page until it feels familiar.
For each What is This Thing Called Science? chapter, keep an evidence ledger with the claim, the supporting observation, the explanatory move and the stated boundary.
In philosophical-argument work, the ledger prevents a fluent description from being presented as a completed argument.
The HPSC1001 worked practices are original learning exercises.
They do not reproduce institutional questions; their role is to rehearse the reasoning needed for critical-analysis tasks, in-semester argument testing and a compulsory final exam while keeping official administration under the live university system.
The assessment map below should be read with the current source note: Weights and compulsory-completion language come from the exact official 2026 Semester 2 outline; only the best ten online-question results count toward their 20% component.
Any later change in the The University of Sydney live system controls over this study resource.
Study across the What is This Thing Called Science? topic map rather than treating chapters as isolated summaries. Connections between Argument, Internal Stage and Social Objectivity are where comparison, synthesis and transfer become visible.
Choose an evidential threshold under unequal error costs
- 3Fix the relevant meaning of Inductive Risk for the supplied material.
- 3Connect the evidence to the claim through False Positive.
- 3Test the preferred interpretation against False Negative.
- 3State a bounded conclusion in the required philosophical-argument form.
Key terms
- Argument
- A set of premises offered as reasons for a conclusion.
- Demarcation
- The attempt to distinguish science from non-science or pseudoscience by defensible criteria.
- Induction
- Inference from observed cases to unobserved cases or broader regularities.
- Theory-Ladenness
- The dependence of observation or description on background concepts, expectations or theories.
- Epistemic Value
- A value connected to cognitive aims such as accuracy, consistency or explanatory power.
- Value-Free Ideal
- The ideal that non-epistemic values should not determine acceptance of scientific claims.
- Underdetermination
- A situation in which available evidence does not uniquely determine one theoretical conclusion.
- Inductive Risk
- The possibility of error when accepting or rejecting a claim on incomplete evidence.
- Feminist Critique
- Analysis of how gendered power and exclusions shape scientific questions, methods or institutions.
- Standpoint
- An epistemically relevant perspective developed through social position and critical reflection.
HPSC1001 FAQ
When reconstructing the argument, is there a separate minimum mark for the final exam?
The captured 2026 outline says the final exam is compulsory and must be completed, but it does not state a separate minimum exam mark. Do not convert compulsory completion into an unstated numerical hurdle.
When reconstructing the argument, how should a philosophical argument be reconstructed?
State the conclusion, list the premises needed to reach it and identify the inferential bridge. Then separate objections to a premise from objections to validity or explanatory reach so the evaluation targets the right component.
When reconstructing the argument, why is induction a problem?
Inductive reasoning moves beyond observed cases, yet attempts to justify it by past success risk relying on induction again. The problem concerns justification, not a claim that prediction or science never works.
When reconstructing the argument, does theory-laden observation make evidence arbitrary?
No. Background concepts and expectations can shape what is noticed and described, but observations remain constrained by instruments, shared procedures, recalcitrant results and comparison across differently situated investigators.
When reconstructing the argument, where do values enter science?
Locate a decision point—problem selection, classification, evidential threshold or communication—and explain the role played by a value. Avoid claiming that every value influence makes a result merely subjective.
When reconstructing the argument, how should the compulsory exam be prepared for?
Practise reconstructing one argument, applying it to a changed case and answering the strongest objection under time. Also verify the live timetable, format and permitted materials because those controls are operational facts.
When reconstructing the argument, what does a counterexample do to a demarcation rule?
A counterexample identifies a case the proposed rule classifies implausibly. The response should decide whether the case defeats the criterion, exposes a missing qualification or shows that several criteria must work together.
When reconstructing the argument, how can an objection avoid talking past an argument?
Target one stated premise, the inference from premises to conclusion or the claimed scope. Reconstruct the charitable version first, then explain exactly which change would make the conclusion narrower or unsupported.
How to study for the exam
Maintain argument cards with conclusion, premises, example, objection and reply. Interleave demarcation, induction and values so similar objections must be distinguished, and rehearse timed completion for the compulsory final exam.
Your AI Arts tutor for HPSC1001
Stuck on a hard HPSC1001 question? Sia is AskSia’s AI Arts and Humanities tutor — ask any HPSC1001 What is This Thing Called Science? question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how the course is actually taught and assessed. Read this whole study guide free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
