標題: Titlebook: Embracing Scientific Realism; Seungbae Park Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer [打印本頁] 作者: 評估 時間: 2025-3-21 16:30
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism影響因子(影響力)
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism影響因子(影響力)學科排名
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism網(wǎng)絡公開度
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism網(wǎng)絡公開度學科排名
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism被引頻次
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism被引頻次學科排名
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism年度引用
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism年度引用學科排名
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism讀者反饋
書目名稱Embracing Scientific Realism讀者反饋學科排名
作者: Minatory 時間: 2025-3-21 23:53 作者: muffler 時間: 2025-3-22 04:14
Nayab Batool Rizvi,Saeed Ahmad Nagrash argument for realism holds that under the English notion of rationality, it is rational to believe T, although it is also rational not to believe T. These five new arguments for realism entitle us to construct a second-order argument for scientific realism that I call “the grand optimistic induct作者: 心神不寧 時間: 2025-3-22 06:09 作者: 吹牛需要藝術 時間: 2025-3-22 10:10 作者: CURL 時間: 2025-3-22 16:07
Scientific Realism and Scientific Progress,ur beliefs about the world increases. I argue that the historical episode of Semmelweis accords well with the epistemic and evidential accounts, but not with the problem-solving, semantic, or noetic accounts of scientific progress. I also explore how each of the five rival accounts of scientific progress relates to realism and empiricism.作者: CURL 時間: 2025-3-22 18:57 作者: 外貌 時間: 2025-3-22 23:23 作者: 開始沒有 時間: 2025-3-23 01:38 作者: 彩色 時間: 2025-3-23 07:38
Minerals of the mercury ore deposit Idriaebate on the geological debate between catastrophists and uniformitarians. I object that it is self-refuting for a pessimist to appeal to a scientific debate. Finally, I introduce several new topics for future debates between realists and antirealists, extracting most of them from previous chapters.作者: Perceive 時間: 2025-3-23 13:37 作者: 瑣事 時間: 2025-3-23 13:52
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5848-1ic practice, but that they have intrinsic value. I also argue that realism would promote and antirealism would forestall scientific progress if scientists adopted them as their philosophical frameworks.作者: laparoscopy 時間: 2025-3-23 20:40
Scientific Realism and Scientific Practice,ic practice, but that they have intrinsic value. I also argue that realism would promote and antirealism would forestall scientific progress if scientists adopted them as their philosophical frameworks.作者: Middle-Ear 時間: 2025-3-23 22:46
0166-6991 ow to provide influential formulations of scientific realism.This book provides philosophers of science with new theoretical resources for making their own contributions to the scientific realism debate. Readers will encounter old and new arguments for and against scientific realism. They will also 作者: strain 時間: 2025-3-24 04:40
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13793-0s’ beliefs in their own positive theories are unjustifiable. Moreover, epistemic reciprocalists would not believe antirealists’ theories. Antirealists might reply that they believe that T is empirically adequate or that there is a gap between what they say and what they believe. These replies are all problematic.作者: 終止 時間: 2025-3-24 09:19
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65706-2ur beliefs about the world increases. I argue that the historical episode of Semmelweis accords well with the epistemic and evidential accounts, but not with the problem-solving, semantic, or noetic accounts of scientific progress. I also explore how each of the five rival accounts of scientific progress relates to realism and empiricism.作者: cuticle 時間: 2025-3-24 12:03 作者: Atmosphere 時間: 2025-3-24 14:52 作者: 束縛 時間: 2025-3-24 19:32 作者: deciduous 時間: 2025-3-25 02:43
New Topics for Future Debates,ebate on the geological debate between catastrophists and uniformitarians. I object that it is self-refuting for a pessimist to appeal to a scientific debate. Finally, I introduce several new topics for future debates between realists and antirealists, extracting most of them from previous chapters.作者: Parallel 時間: 2025-3-25 06:58 作者: 同來核對 時間: 2025-3-25 07:56 作者: 占線 時間: 2025-3-25 13:10 作者: condemn 時間: 2025-3-25 16:34
In Defense of the No-Miracles Argument,o explain success in terms of empirical adequacy. Surrealism inadequately attributes the success of a scientific theory to the behavior of observables. Predictive similarity is an unsatisfactory explanans for explaining success.作者: Offbeat 時間: 2025-3-25 23:31 作者: 是貪求 時間: 2025-3-26 01:26
In Defense of the No-Miracles Argument,tic and epistemic realism. To reject the NMA for the reason that the success of science does not cry out for explanation is to violate the basic rule for evaluating an argument. Some antirealists reject inference to the best explanation, but they use it themselves to establish their own philosophica作者: Retrieval 時間: 2025-3-26 05:11
Critiques of the Pessimistic Induction,an argument that earlier theories were false, so current theories are unwarranted. It is arbitrary for antirealists to accept the PI but to reject inference to the best explanation. It is incoherent for antirealists to use evolutionary theory to bolster the PI. The PI has four intrinsic problems, on作者: FACT 時間: 2025-3-26 09:52
Critiques of Scientific Antirealism,problem of disconcerting questions, and the problem of deceptive speech acts. Antirealists will not and cannot predict theoretical events. Antirealists’ beliefs in their own positive theories are unjustifiable. Moreover, epistemic reciprocalists would not believe antirealists’ theories. Antirealists作者: 剛毅 時間: 2025-3-26 14:59
Six New Arguments for Scientific Realism,alists holds that since the realists of the early twentieth century were right to believe the theories of their time, their present and future philosophical offspring are also right to believe the theories of their times. The argument from undiscovered evidence holds that because T has been supporte作者: irritation 時間: 2025-3-26 17:56
Critiques of Five Variants of Putative Realism, of realism, as their names suggest. On close examination, however, they are not variants of realism but rather variants of putative realism. In addition, they are so close to antirealism that they are vulnerable to the objections that I raised against antirealism in Chap. ., and as such their adher作者: Reverie 時間: 2025-3-27 00:58
Formulating Scientific Realism and Antirealism,n trigger formulational debates, but not epistemological ones. Realism is significantly different from antirealism under Putnam’s formulation, while realism does not considerably differ from empiricism under van Fraassen’s. Hence, there can be more debates under Putnam’s formulation than under van F作者: 窗簾等 時間: 2025-3-27 03:20 作者: inconceivable 時間: 2025-3-27 08:44 作者: 最高峰 時間: 2025-3-27 10:45
Scientific Realism and Mathematical Realism,hematical objects exist in the abstract world. The abstract world is queer, allowing for contradictory states of affairs. The notion of a tricle undermines mathematical realists’ idea that the abstract world renders mathematical statements true. Some mathematical realists contend that mathematical o作者: Autobiography 時間: 2025-3-27 17:42 作者: upstart 時間: 2025-3-27 18:07
New Topics for Future Debates,proximately true. I object that this proposal overlooks the fact that there are realists in the literature in addition to pessimists and selective realists. The second proposal is that rival disputants start debating whether current theories will be superseded by alternatives, modeling the realism d作者: 違法事實 時間: 2025-3-27 23:25 作者: GOAT 時間: 2025-3-28 02:08
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-13431-1an argument that earlier theories were false, so current theories are unwarranted. It is arbitrary for antirealists to accept the PI but to reject inference to the best explanation. It is incoherent for antirealists to use evolutionary theory to bolster the PI. The PI has four intrinsic problems, on作者: Congeal 時間: 2025-3-28 06:41 作者: 鼓掌 時間: 2025-3-28 12:48
Nayab Batool Rizvi,Saeed Ahmad Nagraalists holds that since the realists of the early twentieth century were right to believe the theories of their time, their present and future philosophical offspring are also right to believe the theories of their times. The argument from undiscovered evidence holds that because T has been supporte作者: Myofibrils 時間: 2025-3-28 16:59 作者: 圓木可阻礙 時間: 2025-3-28 20:17
Minerals as Advanced Materials In trigger formulational debates, but not epistemological ones. Realism is significantly different from antirealism under Putnam’s formulation, while realism does not considerably differ from empiricism under van Fraassen’s. Hence, there can be more debates under Putnam’s formulation than under van F作者: Endemic 時間: 2025-3-28 23:34
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20018-2 On this account, scientific understanding requires the three ingredients of knowledge: belief, justification, and truth. Therefore, scientific understanding is attainable for realists, but not for antirealists. According to anti-epistemism, scientific understanding requires explanation and predicti作者: reject 時間: 2025-3-29 03:18 作者: colloquial 時間: 2025-3-29 09:28
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6638-6hematical objects exist in the abstract world. The abstract world is queer, allowing for contradictory states of affairs. The notion of a tricle undermines mathematical realists’ idea that the abstract world renders mathematical statements true. Some mathematical realists contend that mathematical o作者: exceptional 時間: 2025-3-29 13:10
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5848-1in which scientists run meta-inductions and historical inductions. I point out that the meta-inductions and historical inductions are different from the pessimistic induction (PI) and the selective induction (SI), the two prominent meta-inductions and historical inductions in the realism debate. I a作者: 社團 時間: 2025-3-29 19:08 作者: 皺痕 時間: 2025-3-29 23:37
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87813-9Scientific Realism; The No-Miracles Argument; The Pessimistic Induction; Scientific Progress; Scientific
