Write a paper of about 4-5pp. (or 1200-1500 words) in which you compare and contrast two responses to the scientific revolution.

You might think of these "responses" as two views of science (in the sense of "view of science" I used in the last paper assignment) or as two ways of doing science. You should attach these views or forms of practice to particular people, but be careful to avoid attempting to compare the full range of thought or activity of these people. That is, you should compare two people in one respect, and that respect should be something that might be described as their views of science or their ways of doing science.

Although there are a number of ways you might organize this discussion, I'd suggest that, in addition to introductory or concluding discussions, you think of your paper as having three parts: two separate discussions of the relevant aspects of the thought or work of the two scientists and a comparison of them in the respect you've chosen. In particular, don't limit your comparison to a few concluding remarks, whether or not it is a separate part of the paper, the comparison should be as substantial a component of the paper as are the discussions of the scientists you are comparing.

Here are a few suggestions of possible comparisons. I suggest these mainly to indicate the sort of comparison I have in mind. While it would be fine to write on one of these, you shouldn't assume that these would make for better comparisons than others I don't mention.

• Copernicus (or Kepler) and Tycho Brahe concerning the movement of the Earth
• Copernicus and Kepler concerning the shape of planetary orbits
• Galileo's thought experiments and Bacon's (or Hooke's) observations
• Galileo's use of the telescope and Hooke's use of the microscope
• Bacon's institutionalized research and the individualized research of, for example, Hooke
• Kepler (or Galileo) and Bacon on the place of mathematics in the natural sciences

There are a couple of ways in which these suggestions could be misleading. First, although many of these examples suggest contrasts and you should look for differences when you compare, your comparison need not be a comparison of opposites. Second, although aspects of thought and activity are indicated above by reference to particular scientific issues, your aim should not be to compare positions on these issues but instead compare the views of science that lead to these positions. So, for example, although you'd probably need to describe the planetary systems of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe to write on the first topic above, your comparison should not be of these systems as such but of the views of what would make an account of planetary motion a good one that seem to have led Copernicus and Tycho Brahe to propose these two different systems.

If there is another topic you would prefer to write on, check with me. I want you to discuss a couple of things you've read in the most recent part of the course and also formulate your own views, but the sort of topic I've described above is not the only way of doing that.

As in the case of the weekly assignments, I will be happy to accept these on paper but I encourage you to submit them electronically. You can send them as attachments to e-mail messages (my address is helmang@wabash.edu) or use the Blackboard drop box for the course.