Myofibrils 发表于 2025-3-28 16:59:45
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3081/308045/308045_41.png圆木可阻碍 发表于 2025-3-28 20:17:49
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 FEndemic 发表于 2025-3-28 23:34:07
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 predictireject 发表于 2025-3-29 03:18:28
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3081/308045/308045_44.pngcolloquial 发表于 2025-3-29 09:28:36
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 oexceptional 发表于 2025-3-29 13:10:01
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社团 发表于 2025-3-29 19:08:47
http://reply.papertrans.cn/31/3081/308045/308045_47.png皱痕 发表于 2025-3-29 23:37:14
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87813-9Scientific Realism; The No-Miracles Argument; The Pessimistic Induction; Scientific Progress; Scientific