1. It’s fairly common for scientists to identify a complicated question, such as what causes climate change, and then come to widespread agreement about the answer in a short period of time, in this case, just a few decades. Philosophers bring up complicated questions of their own, such as which moral rules we should all abide by, yet after thousands of years, they still haven’t come to a consensus. Why do you think this is the case? Is this a problem for philosophy?

2. Science deals with what is, while moral reasoning deals with what ought to be. What does this mean? Give examples to illustrate your point.

3. What are the main features of the scientific method?

4. What is falsifiability? Give your own example of fallacious unfalsibility.