HPSC1001 What is This Thing Called Science?

How HPSC1001 is assessed

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.

The 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.

Worked example · free

Choose an evidential threshold under unequal error costs

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

Questions students ask in each HPSC1001 chapter

When reconstructing the argument, why does the order from Argument to Soundness matter?

The order prevents the test from floating free of the claim it is meant to examine. Remove one premise from a demarcation argument and test whether the conclusion still follows. Establish Argument, trace the move through Validity, and only then use Soundness to retain, narrow or reject the result. Chapter 01 · Arguments about Science

When reconstructing the argument, what evidence distinguishes Demarcation from Falsifiability?

Begin with the chapter definition of Demarcation, then identify the observation that activates Falsifiability. Compare an adaptable research programme with a claim that immunises itself from every counterexample. The answer should explain why that observation changes the inference and should retain this limit: Failure of one universal criterion does not imply that no comparative judgment about scientific quality is possible. Chapter 02 · Demarcation and Pseudoscience

When reconstructing the argument, why can Induction not carry the whole argument?

Induction identifies an important part of the chapter, but the reasoning remains incomplete until Uniformity of Nature connects evidence to consequence and Circularity tests the boundary. Change a long stable sequence into a short biased sample and compare the inferential risk. This sequence prevents definition from being mistaken for analysis. Chapter 03 · Induction and the Problem of Justification

When reconstructing the argument, which error most often weakens work on Recalcitrant Evidence?

The common error is naming Recalcitrant Evidence without allowing it to affect the conclusion. Give two trained observers the same image but different background models and compare both overlap and disagreement. A defensible response states what finding would narrow the claim built from Theory-Ladenness and what evidence would instead support it. Chapter 04 · Observation and Theory-Ladenness

When reconstructing the argument, how can Non-Epistemic Value be retrieved under time pressure?

Reconstruct a compact chain containing the starting fact, the change expressed by Non-Epistemic Value, and the result tested by Value Judgment. Change a value from topic selection to acceptance of a specific empirical claim and compare the required justification. Then check the source for the first omitted condition and repair only that link. Chapter 05 · Epistemic and Non-Epistemic Values

When reconstructing the argument, when do Value-Free Ideal and Internal Stage support different answers?

They diverge when the case fits the category named by Value-Free Ideal but the relationship proposed through Internal Stage lacks evidence or faces a stronger alternative. Move a public-health priority from research selection into the evidential threshold and explain what changes. Resolve the tension with External Stage, not with assertion. Chapter 06 · The Value-Free Ideal

When reconstructing the argument, why does the order from Underdetermination to Theory Choice matter?

The order prevents the test from floating free of the claim it is meant to examine. Change an instrument calibration assumption while keeping the central theory and result fixed. Establish Underdetermination, trace the move through Auxiliary Assumption, and only then use Theory Choice to retain, narrow or reject the result. Chapter 07 · Underdetermination and Theory Choice

When reconstructing the argument, what evidence distinguishes Inductive Risk from False Positive?

Begin with the chapter definition of Inductive Risk, then identify the observation that activates False Positive. Reverse which error carries the greater social cost and explain how a responsible threshold may shift. The answer should explain why that observation changes the inference and should retain this limit: Values influence the threshold but do not determine empirical probabilities or make contrary evidence irrelevant. Chapter 08 · Inductive Risk and Standards of Evidence

When reconstructing the argument, why can Feminist Critique not carry the whole argument?

Feminist Critique identifies an important part of the chapter, but the reasoning remains incomplete until Androcentrism connects evidence to consequence and Reflexivity tests the boundary. Change the participant pool while retaining an androcentric outcome measure and test whether the research problem is repaired. This sequence prevents definition from being mistaken for analysis. Chapter 09 · Feminist Criticism of Science

When reconstructing the argument, which error most often weakens work on Social Objectivity?

The common error is naming Social Objectivity without allowing it to affect the conclusion. Add a differently situated critic to a team but deny access to agenda-setting, then assess the likely epistemic benefit. A defensible response states what finding would narrow the claim built from Standpoint and what evidence would instead support it. Chapter 10 · Standpoint, Diversity and Objectivity

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.