找回密码
 To register

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

Titlebook: Embracing Scientific Realism; Seungbae Park Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer

[复制链接]
楼主: 评估
发表于 2025-3-23 13:37:09 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-23 13:52:36 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-23 20:40:26 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-23 22:46:30 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-24 04:40:31 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-24 09:19:53 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-24 12:03:13 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-24 14:52:04 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-24 19:32:37 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-25 02:43:27 | 显示全部楼层
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.
 关于派博传思  派博传思旗下网站  友情链接
派博传思介绍 公司地理位置 论文服务流程 影响因子官网 SITEMAP 大讲堂 北京大学 Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
发展历史沿革 期刊点评 投稿经验总结 SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系数 清华大学 Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋| 派博传思国际 ( 京公网安备110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-6-12 17:57
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博传思   京公网安备110108008328 版权所有 All rights reserved
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表