fun and easy

Дуже чудово

Excellent!

excellent

cool mman

thank you

I love it

excelente

muy bueno

Excellent

AMAZING!

to do...

ليس لدي

LOVE IT

SUPER

Great

Generally very good. The speakers were knowledgeable, insightful for the most part engaging and the content very interesting. I enjoyed it a great deal.

My main criticisms would be:

In Week 2 Prof Mele dived straight into a discussion of experiments about ‘free will’ without a bit of preamble to make it clear that the concept of ‘free will’ is a lot more complicated than the average person appreciates.

In Week 5 Dr de Pomerai’s presentation on Evolutionary Biology was a dry as dust recitation of facts. It felt a bit like being read tracts from the Bible and I think really failed in the objective of establishing why Evolutionary Biology is a science. To do this you need to do more than recite what is believed, but delve a bit more into the hypotheses, the predictions, and the subsequent supporting evidence

The majority of this course was great, though the lecturers could have been more engaging. However my biggest issue with this course was the 5th week, where the final lecturer sounded like he was reciting from a biology textbook about evolution rather than actually discussing anything or making any claims relevant to philosophy or drawing comparisons to religion. Additionally, all the questions in the final section had completely subjective answers, I answered all of them without watching any lectures (though I do have a background in science) these questions could have been answered by a child.

First I want to thank all of you for your hard work and expertise in preparing and presenting this class. All the lessons presented in weeks 1, 2, 3 and lesson 2 of week 4 were excellent both in content and presentation.

Unfortunately, week 4 lesson 1 with Professor Conor Cunningham was not so good. His presentation style was interesting and somewhat captivating, however, (there is that terrible word again) his content was garbled, his allegories were obtuse and the clarity of his important points was obscure.

Very interesting in terms of content but more attention could have been paid to presentation, using more graphics, tables, and some visual effects to illustrate points being made. The course is pitched at a higher level that I expected and I am happy about that but the evolutionary biology could have been more simply explained as it really assumes some prior knowledge of biology.

Fascinating, quick, inspirational. Every scholar should feel more grounded knowing that there are people around the world who understand the connection. 4/5 stars because the "discussion" prompts aren't very open-ended; they were comprehension checks (and optional). I skipped them because I presumed the answers wouldn't vary much, and that would've been boring to read.

The course was very detailed and informative. I learned some amazing philosophical and scientific facts and also learned about various philosophical and scientific studies in great depth. I got what I expected from this course. Thank You to the University of Edinburgh, to all the passionate professors and the makers of this course and to Coursera.

I thoroughly enjoyed the three part course on "Philosophy, Science and Religion" by the University of Edinburgh. A BIG THANK YOU to those who put these courses together. In this series, the designers wonderfully weaved the relationship between the three apparently diverse disciplines in a cohesive narrative, making ones understanding richer!

I think this is an excellent introductory course to the philosophy of science. Even so, I felt something was lacking, maybe a sense of closure or a definite end to the course and indication of a clear path forward for those wanting to learn more about this topic. I would recommend this course in any case, I really enjoyed it.

I liked the course but have some issues with it. Attacking a group that has so little influence and credibility does not seem becoming of a course like this one. But worse is the fact that the instructors ignore the leap of faith needed to support the supposedly 'scientific' position.