A great introduction to philosophy of science. One may wish to have some knowledge of physics to cope with the explanation of dark energy/matter in week 2, but other than that, everyone can take it.

Pretty good, but some of the positions were a little poor. Judging religion with scientific parameters is simply wrong, as wrong as judging science with religious parameters; the debate between creationism and evolutionary biology is outdated at least in the creationist position; better effort to try to rescue evolutionism, and not the same on creationism. Lastly, reducing religion to "religious experience" or "tradition" or "book" or "culture" is as very poor understanding of religion.

I am a fervent and sufficiently knowledgeable catholic, but as an engineer with studies in astrophysics, I'm really open to good arguments. I would recommend one reading and one source, as a way to update some of the arguments: the reading is Fides et ratio, from John Paul II, and the source is disf.org (italian) or inters.org (english), which is a set of articles made by proffesional scholars, on interdisciplinary matters of science and faith.

Thanks a lot for an otherwise very enjoyable class!

While I like how the instructors tried to explain different views of the "origin" of the universe, they seemed rather to explain 'how things work or evolve in the universe' as it was existing. There were some philosophical mistakes such as " because we're not in the center of the universe (or solar system), we're not special or privileged", to give one example. Our location in the universe or how small our planet is has nothing to do with "our privilege". One could argue that our sense of "privilege" is a metaphysical subject to begin with and therefor science has nothing to do with it. What makes us, as human beings, privileged is the part in us that is transcendent to the physical world - it is that what allows us to study the physical world. If we were to be completely bound by the physical laws, we would not be able to study it.

Furthermore, the scientific method unfortunately is bound by certain preferences such as matter, energy, constants and laws - the same things by which the universe is also bound (what makes our universe a universe). Any mathematical calculations require those constants and laws as they exist. Therefore, science cannot exactly explain the origin of such preferences (where they came from) because science requires the existence of these preferences. In addition, multiverse theory does not answer the main questions "why is there existence instead of nothing?", "where did all this come from?", "what gave the constants and laws what they are and how they work among all other possibilities?". One also should ask 'where did all the multiverse come from?' since they'd of a physical matter. In other words, multiverse theory creates more questions that gives answers. In addition, one of the fundamental principles in science is that if there are two explanations for a certain phenomena where one is simpler than the other, the simpler solution is selected. Choosing the multiverse theory (composed of almost infinite defect universes) over a single intelligent Creator is a bizarre move. I believe that this subject is a metaphysical one, unscientific one. I frankly see that many philosophical mistakes were taken from the western world, but no philosophical concepts from the Muslim world, for example, were presented.In addition, theistic western philosophy was not presented well.

In the end, I thank every instructor for presenting their ideas and findings.

Many of the mathematical elements were beyond me, but the instructors presented the material in such a way that it really demonstrated the art of philosophical thinking about the field of science.

it was an amazing experience working through this course, Material and lectures were very interesting and made me want to pursue further in the world of philosophy

Great fun! Yes, challenging but also thought-provoking. Very responsible coverage of the science, and useful (not merely clever) philosophical discussions of key related concerns.

1- not really welcoming

2- i don't see a reason behind using a difficult language, it's like they are reading

3- the videos are really summarized, not enough for a beginner to understand. i know they didn't say it's for beginners (big mistake) but it's called an introduction!

i don't want to say that i regret all the time spent on this, but maybe i do... however, the information was nice and it was somehow useful.

I did not enjoy this course for the following reasons:

1.In the course presentation it is not specified which are the prerequisites for the learners. In this case it seems to me that the potential learner or student has got to have a good knowledge of modern astrophysics, if he or she wants to fully understand the matter as it is presented.

2. The videoclips by dr. J. Peacock are certainly clever, but are generally rather obscure and uncomprehensible by those who do not have a good knowledge of modern astrophysics. I must confess that I have understood almost nothing from those lectures, and I would not be able to repeat the arguments, even not in detail, to somebody else who does not know the subject.

3. The course slides are oftenj obscure, particularly those of weeks 3 and 4. Week 3 slides from page 13 to 42 inclusive are almost incomprehensible (even when supported by the video lecture), those of week 4 are about 50% unclear. Week 1 and 2 slides are better understandable.

4. In the philosophical part, the stress is on Duhem's, Popper's and Kuhn's theories, but for example, the Hume's critic of the cause concept is not even mentioned.

5. In the videos it is not possible to see what dr. J. Peacock writes on the whiteboard (problem of illumination during making of the videos?)

6. There is no real forum. The majority of threads are either instructor created, and contain reference for additional readings, or are rather old, dating eight monts or one year ago. So, there is no real feedback and discussions with other peers in the course.

7. I found the article, suggested as additional reading, by O. Lahav and M. Massimi, Dark Energy, Paradigm Shift, and the Role of Evidence, as well done and instructive.

Question Your Assumptions

Science is a process, conducted by human beings over many years, decades and centuries. Scientists are influenced by who they are, where they were educated, who influenced them, what they believe, and the assumptions they hold. Yesterdays “science” can sometimes be tomorrows “garbage”. There is a long list of these, dead and abandoned ideas in all scientific professions and fields. This course has demonstrated that scientists are often wrong and for many reasons. This is a good thing because science is self-correcting, and therefore we do not worship science or scientists as it is not a religion, with “gods”. Our concept of the universe, and the “creation” of the universe has changed over many millennia. This is all to the good. It is important to be skeptical, and use critical thinking and logic. Some of the most brilliant scientists, i.e., Einstein, can be wrong or partially wrong. We live in an exciting time, when everything is being questioned (although creating some stress and anxiety): the “big bang”, the cosmological constant, the multiverse, string theory, and many other concepts. This course has made this very clear. It even has implications for religious belief, i.e., concepts as: the “beginning”, “creation”, the concept of “nothing”, quantum mechanics, the concept of cause and effect and others. The presenters did an excellent job in presenting these many controversies, without bias. The presenters also presented good example between theory and experimental evidence. There is bow a controversy that much of astronomy and cosmology is being unduly influenced by mathematics rather than experimental evidence. However, string theory for example is difficult to demonstrate experimentally. Finally, one must always question one’s beliefs and assumption, even thought that can be emotionally and psychologically difficult (i.e., Einstein and Bohr), but that is science, a process not a religion. Therefore, I am also taking the other course, on the philosophy of science: cognition. William B. Secor

Excellent course! The subject matter is fascinating and so well taught! The lectures are very interesting and the transcripts and PDF files provided, make the understanding of basic cosmological concepts more manageable especially for people like me with no previous knowledge on the subject matter and English not being my native tongue. I really appreciate all the extra links with information for each week topics. I certainly will take time now (that I’ve finished answering all the quizzes), to read the articles and watch the clips from the resources link ! I am definitely taking Part II of this course. C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S!!! Awesome faculty team & content!

This was my FIRST EVER experience studying philosophy of science. I had never studied this field before. The course was extraordinary and provided me with a lot of knowledge. However, some of the information presented was at an advanced level, and it took me some time to understand those concepts. I had to consult other sources outside of the course to fully grasp what our professors and lecturers were presenting, as I am a complete layman in philosophy of science. Thank you so much for providing such an informative course. I am looking forward to continuing my learning in similar courses.

A very enjoyable tour across the history of philosophy and the science, with some very exciting talks on the current state of knowledge. Whets the student's appetite to delve more in depth into the issues postulated throughout the course. Prof. Michela Massimi has mastered the topics so well that she can deliver the lectures effortlessly. This course is a must for the beginner, and highly recommended for those who know the subject but want a fresher perspective.

This course will interest physics and cosmology buffs as well as philosophy enthusiasts. It discusses deep philosophy-of-science topics, like "how do we know that we know" and "how can cosmology be a science if you can't really create experiments"; it does this through an interesting and accessible explanation of the latest in cosmology.

The course is challenging but accessible and provides a good glimpse into both cosmology and philosophy.

This course is suitable for anyone who is passionate about learning Cosmology in detail because to learn Cosmology, you need to know how it came to being how it is today. History is important, and we should know the history of the things we are passionate about. Thank you for the wonderful experience I had while taking this course's lectures. Good Work by the whole team.

Sometimes difficult to follow due to the amount of math, this course is eye-opening and inspiring. It's nice to know that those of us who spend more time questioning and hypothesizing than actually "proving" theories are inspiring more scientifically-minded people; and, it's exciting to know that those people have made such strides in these fields.

This course challenged the idea of Cosmology as Physical Science and argued whether it should be regarded as physical science or not. This course used Scientific Theory and problem of underdetermination of evidence for modern cosmology to test theories or hypothesis to understand the inflation of universe or existence of dark matter or energy etc.

New terms and definitions are always a challenge, but I really enjoyed this course and I found the course stuck with the important information; I also liked that this course was geared for those interested in Cosmology, as I am. The videos are well done and engaging.

Extremely interesting with lots of additional readings for further study. For someone whose knowledge of physics is rather limited (and long forgotten from school) it was still accessible, which shows great teaching skills. Highly recommended!

High quality presentation and materials for these topics. Haven't had this much fun in a while with philosophy and science. Dark Energy and Dark Matter will continue to be topics I am interested in. Congratulations University of Edinburgh.

I have always felt kind of "Dumb" when it came to physical sciences, but this course gave me a different perspective to understanding the physical science concepts that I was unaware of previously. Very engaging and well put together.