Titlebook: Is Water H2O?; Evidence, Realism an Hasok Chang Book 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 (scientific) practice.evidence.pluralis

microbe

書目名稱Is Water H2O?影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Is Water H2O?影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Is Water H2O?網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Is Water H2O?網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Is Water H2O?被引頻次




書目名稱Is Water H2O?被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Is Water H2O?年度引用




書目名稱Is Water H2O?年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Is Water H2O?讀者反饋




書目名稱Is Water H2O?讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

不足的東西

Electrolysis: Piles of Confusion and Poles of Attraction,st performed in 1800) must have produced decisive evidence that it was a compound substance. But electrolysis came with a serious puzzle: if the action of electricity was breaking up each particle of water into a particle of oxygen and a particle of hydrogen, how did the oxygen and hydrogen gases em

眼界

HO or H2O? How Chemists Learned to Count Atoms,s a highly disputed hypothesis for the first half-century of atomic chemistry. In Dalton’s original formulation of the atomic theory published in 1808 water was presented as HO, and consensus on the H.O formula (first proposed by Avogadro) was not reached until after the mid-century establishment of

博愛家

中和

Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action,ition as “active normative epistemic pluralism”. Based on the recognition of the benefits of having multiple systems of practice in each field of study, pluralism as I intend it is an active stance committed to the cultivation of plurality. There are two types of benefits of plurality. Benefits of t

allude

EPT

愛得痛了

HO or H2O? How Chemists Learned to Count Atoms,t of aims and methods and in productive mutual interaction. At the heart of the distinctive systems of atomic chemistry were different ways of operationalizing the concept of the atom (weighing, counting, and sorting atoms). It was operationalization that enabled atomic theories to become more than

制定

Active Realism and the Reality of H2O,ve allows an optimistic rendition of the pessimistic induction, which celebrates the fact that we can be successful in science without even knowing the truth. The standard realist argument from success to truth is shown to be ill-defined and flawed. I also reconsider what it means for science to be

原始

Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action,an abdication of judgment: each pluralist has the freedom and responsibility to evaluate the quality and value of scientific work. Pluralism can deliver its benefits without a paralyzing relativism or an uncontrolled dissipation of resources. In practice, the kind of pluralism I advocate comes down