Analysis of issues science has thrown to philosophy and its debates were well presented.

Could have been fun to learn with more visual aids like video or animations.

Sometimes the lecture material were vague, but I really liked this course

It gave me a new perspective on things, for which I am forever grateful.

Interesting introduction with a good list of further reading material.

It's a good foundation for further study in this area but just to

Good critical overview of science, philosophy and religion

Good course, but only covered a small subset of topics.

Interesting and varied, if slightly basic at times.

A thought-provoking and informative course.

Very enjoyable course! Highly recommended!

Very good. It was awesome, I learnt a lot.

It was an enlightening course, Thank you

Very interesting course

Really informative

Great eye opener

nice course

Beau cours

excellent.

Week 1 of the course seemed very interesting. A lot of interesting questions were raised - enough to lead me to view the course in a rather positive light. As I progressed through the course however, I noticed that some rather contentious claims were made to seem to have more credibility than they in fact do. Take for example something that was said in week 4, lesson 3. It was insinuated that Lamarckism plays a significant role in evolutionary biology, something that is widely questioned by eminent specialists in evolutionary biology (for ex. Jerry Coyne).

Furthermore, it sometimes seemed that rather than presenting the facts for the learners to judge, the lecturers were presenting their own views (this was especially the case in week 4).

This course is being funded by Templeton Foundation, an organization that promotes religious apologetics. It seems that rather than presenting facts as they are, the course is disseminating material deeply influenced by a religious agenda.

Interesting course in virtue of prompting new viewpoints. However, it kinda ends there. Thought much of the content was exaggerated to provoke discussion, losing it's value of giving an accurate evaluation of the topics involved.

For example, it is suggested in week 4 that, if humanity could evolve better through Adolf Hitler, and the ultra-darwinian is right, he would be morally right. Since Hitler cannot be morally right in any stretch of the moral imagination, ultra-darwinianism is wrong.

However, if Hitler wouldn't have initiated concentration camps and war, thus helping humanity prosper by creating room for more evolutionary diversity (which is key to progress), he wouldn't have been Adolf Hitler as we know him.

Nevertheless, thought-provoking as hell. Going to apply for Edinburgh this semester, hope I get in! :)

I'm thrilled that there is a course that surveys these topics and the content, for the most part, is good. The accompanying ebook is actually better than the course and is worth reading for anyone new to these disciplines. For future iterations, I would consider gathering feedback about the assessments. The questions are often confusing and a bit tedious. It's very possible to completely grasp the content but to struggle with the quizzes due to poor wording or the fact that often what's being assessed is not grasp of the subjects covered but instead whether or not the learner could recall the ways in which the instructor talked about the subjects, which is different.

I know it was a beginner level course but I feel the subjects were presented very, very superficially. The recommended readings do flesh out things a bit. The lessons of the last week, those about evolution and creationism, turned out to be simple explanations about what evolution is, and not very much about how it relates to creationism or the philosohy of science.

The structure of the lessons were also odd. There are several 3 to 5 minute lectures followed by a one-question quiz. This breaks concentration. I feel it would have been much more engaging if the subjects were presented in 20-30 minute lectures followed by 5-10 question quizzes.

This course has design problems. There is no clear thread that gives coherence to the different parts. It is interesting that it addresses different topics, and that there are several teachers who explain them. However, it is clear that there is no joint work between the exhibitors. Despite the quality of some (very remarkable Martin Kusch), the total sum does not manage to present a good quality proposal.

I was a little confused because for having a focus on "Science and Philosophy", it seemed to me to mostly talk about science and religion through a philosophical lens. The last module was very scattered and hard to follow. Other than that, very interesting, well-presented material.