Purpose: These questions are mostly about normativity (and what it might involve

Purpose: These questions are mostly about normativity (and what it might involve in scientific contexts). For instance, how do views about what race is (or isn’t), affect its use in normative contexts? We read papers that make two highly controversial normative claims that crucially depend on (likely equally) controversial ontological claims.
<
<
INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE RESPOND WITH 5-6 SENTENCES FOR EACH QUESTION. MAKE SURE TO NUMBER EACH QUESTION AS WELL!!!
<
<
<
1. Toward the end of “In Defense of Transracialism Download In Defense of Transracialism,” Tuvel writes, “In the same way that Haslanger’s account accommodates transgender individuals […] it could similarly accommodate transracial individuals” (2017: 274). Why does Tuvel think that Haslanger’s social constructionist account can accommodate transracial individuals, and what does “accommodate” mean in this context?
<
2. Why do Larsen et al. think that Cofnas’s scientific claims generate moral controversy? Additionally, why do they think that this moral controversy falls outside of scientific inquiry? [Although I briefly talk about this in the lecture video, I would like you to do your best to explain more in your own words here. For instance, maybe your own example of when moral issues problematically enter science might be useful in your explanation.]
<
3. Please raise one detailed question about the science unit of the course. [“Detailed” as in, explain why the question is significant, either to you personally, or within the context of the course.] Alternatively, please describe one aspect from the science section of the course that was particularly interesting to you, and explain how it may have practical significance (e.g. in changing people’s minds to think differently about something, or how it has made you see things differently.