Daidzein
发表于 2025-3-21 19:52:10
书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie影响因子(影响力)<br> http://impactfactor.cn/if/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie影响因子(影响力)学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/ifr/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie网络公开度<br> http://impactfactor.cn/at/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie网络公开度学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/atr/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie被引频次<br> http://impactfactor.cn/tc/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie被引频次学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/tcr/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie年度引用<br> http://impactfactor.cn/ii/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie年度引用学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/iir/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie读者反馈<br> http://impactfactor.cn/5y/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>书目名称Logic and Philosophy / Logique et Philosophie读者反馈学科排名<br> http://impactfactor.cn/5yr/?ISSN=BK0587978<br><br> <br><br>
frenzy
发表于 2025-3-21 21:59:07
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5880/587978/587978_2.png
允许
发表于 2025-3-22 03:20:46
Intuitionistic Logic: A Philosophical Challenge, In our deductive practice, we take, in fact, a stand on this conflict; even if we try to reconcile the two logics, our actual reasoning will usually show a clear preference for one of them. In philosophy, furthermore, we should reflect on our deductive practice and should be able to formulate explicitly what kind of reasoning is correct.
hysterectomy
发表于 2025-3-22 07:23:10
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5880/587978/587978_4.png
myriad
发表于 2025-3-22 10:10:39
On Certainty, Evidence and Probability,hisholm which are referred to in his present one, so that I cannot exclude that answers to some of my questions might be found there. It seems useful, however, to raise these questions at least in order to make his present paper more self-contained.
Generalize
发表于 2025-3-22 15:09:12
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5880/587978/587978_6.png
Trochlea
发表于 2025-3-22 18:12:03
Two Successor Concepts to the Notion of Statistical Explanation,f philosophers of science who believe that we should try to explicate all important metascientific notions, like “theory,” “disposition,” “law,” “confirmation” or “corroboration” and, of course, “explanation,” on the abstract level of general philosophy of science. This attitude mirrors the conviction that such explications are possible.
Leaven
发表于 2025-3-23 01:02:42
,Comment on “Some Remarks on Statistical Explanations” by Professor Suppes,under discussion. If I am right it is not so much a contrast of views on particular items, nontechnical or technical ones, as a difference in philosophical attitude to questions in the philosophy of science. I therefore hope that some additional remarks will help to clarify the issue.
Abutment
发表于 2025-3-23 02:44:10
http://reply.papertrans.cn/59/5880/587978/587978_9.png
NIP
发表于 2025-3-23 05:41:08
Epistemic Reasoning and the Logic of Epistemic Concepts,ity. The other is to view it as a branch of the logic of preferability. In the present paper, I will take the second approach, making use of the following concepts: (a) .; (b) . necessity; (c) ., or .; and (d) ., or belief