Titlebook: Revisiting Discovery and Justification; Historical and philo JUTTA SCHICKORE,FRIEDRICH STEINLE Book 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 12:23:45

HOW CAN WE USE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN DISCOVERY AND JUSTIFICATION? ON THE WEAKNESSES OF THE STRONG as generation, invention, prior assessment, evaluation, test, proof, and so on, is needed, depending on the different kinds of questions we can raise concerning scientific research and its results (e.g., Nickels 1980b, pp. 18–22; Hoyningen-Huene 1987, pp. 507–509).

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 15:26:46

CONCEPT FORMATION AND THE LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION: “DISCOVERING” THE TWO ELECTRICITIESs out to be more genuinely bound to history than is usually assumed. To illustrate and flesh out my general claims, I shall first provide an analysis of a specific historical episode: the purported “discovery” of the two electricities in the 1730s.

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-23 18:52:21

ON THE INEXTRICABILITY OF THE CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY AND THE CONTEXT OF JUSTIFICATION. On the other hand, the context of justification was an area which could be rigorously explored and formalized and thus fell within the province of logic and philosophy.2 Popper introduced a very similar distinction in . (Popper 1968, p. 31). His notion of discovery, however, was different from Reichenbach’s (see note 12).

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-24 00:59:53

LOST WANDERERS IN THE FOREST OF KNOWLEDGE: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE DISCOVERY-JUSTIFICATION DISTINCTIONnglophone form, during the fifty or so years following the end of the Second World War. While its critics were many,. its death was slow, and some think still to find a pulse.. But die it did in the cul-de-sac into which it was led by its own faulty compass.

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-24 02:30:09

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-24 07:25:28

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-24 11:35:59

INTRODUCTION: REVISITING THE CONTEXT DISTINCTION,llmark of philosophical approaches to science, at times condemned as ambiguous, distorting, and misleading, the distinction dominated philosophical debates from the early decades of the twentieth century to the 1980s. In recent years, the distinction has vanished from philosophers’ official agenda.

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-24 15:31:10

A FORERUNNER?—PERHAPS, BUT NOT TO THE CONTEXT DISTINCTION. WILLIAM WHEWELL’S GERMANO-CANTABRIGIAN HIf justification, and sometimes Whewell is presented as an “early advocate” of that distinction (Losee 1979; Laudan 1980; Hoyningen-Huene 1987; Schaffer 1994; Yeo 1993). In contrast to other nineteenth-century “forerunners”, notably Duhem and the anti-psychologists (see Sch?fer and Peckhaus, this vol

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-24 20:43:05

AUTONOMY VERSUS DEVELOPMENT: DUHEM ON PROGRESS IN SCIENCEudies in philosophy and history of science.. The integration of these diverse studies was intended to yield a better understanding of science, which, in turn, should orient the research activity of the scientist toward progress more effectively. and provide a better method of introducing students to

只看該作者 · 發(fā)表于 2025-3-25 00:59:48

		自動登錄	找回密碼
密碼			To register

關于派博傳思			派博傳思旗下網(wǎng)站			友情鏈接
派博傳思介紹	公司地理位置	論文服務流程	影響因子官網(wǎng)	吾愛論文網(wǎng)	大講堂	北京大學	Oxford Uni.	Harvard Uni.
發(fā)展歷史沿革	期刊點評	投稿經(jīng)驗總結(jié)	SCIENCEGARD	IMPACTFACTOR	派博系數(shù)	清華大學	Yale Uni.	Stanford Uni.
\|Archiver\|手機版\|小黑屋\| 派博傳思國際 ( 京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-10-10 03:35
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博傳思京公網(wǎng)安備110108008328 版權所有 All rights reserved