This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
27 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Scott F. Aikin, Michael Harbour & Robert B. Talisse (2010). Nagel on Public Education and Intelligent Design. Journal of Philosophical Research 35:209-219.
    In a recent article, Thomas Nagel argues against the court’s decision to strike down the Dover school district’s requirement that biology teachers in Dover public schools inform their students about Intelligent Design. Nagel contends that this ruling relies on questionable demarcation between science and nonscience and consequently misapplies the Establishment Clause of the constitution. Instead, he argues in favor of making room for an open discussion of these issues rather than an outright prohibition against Intelligent Design. We contend that Nagel’s (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Daniel Andler (2006). Federalism in Science — Complementarity Vs Perspectivism: Reply to Harré. Synthese 151 (3):519 - 522.
  3. Lisa Bortolotti (2011). The Concept of Scientific Research. In Carlos Maria Romeo Casabona (ed.), Los Nuevos Horizontes de la Investigacion Genetica. Comares.
  4. Maarten Boudry (2011). Exploring the Hinterland of Science. Metascience 20 (1):173-176.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman (2010). How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 15 (3):227-244.
    In recent controversies about Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC), the principle of methodological naturalism (MN) has played an important role. In this paper, an often neglected distinction is made between two different conceptions of MN, each with its respective rationale and with a different view on the proper role of MN in science. According to one popular conception, MN is a self-imposed or intrinsic limitation of science, which means that science is simply not equipped to deal with claims of the supernatural (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Philip Kitcher (2003). 17 Giving Darwin His Due. In J. Hodges & Gregory Radick (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Cambridge University Press. 399.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Noretta Koertge (1990). The Function of Credit in Hull's Evolutionary Model of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:237 - 244.
    This paper first argues that evolutionary models of conceptual development which are patterned on Darwinian selection are unlikely to solve the demarcation problem. The persistence of myths shows that in most social environments unfalsifiable ideas are more likely to survive than ones which can be subjected to empirical scrutiny. I then analyze Hull's claims about how the credit system operates in science and conclude with him that it can perform a surprising variety of functions. However I argue that the credit (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Hugh Lacey & Pablo R. Mariconda (2012). The Eagle and the Starlings: Galileo's Argument for the Autonomy of Science—How Pertinent is It Today? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):122-131.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Larry Laudan (1983). More on Creationism. Science, Technology, and Human Values 8 (1):36-38.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Larry Laudan (1983). The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In Robert S. Cohen & Larry Laudan (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum. D. Reidel. 111--127.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Larry Laudan (1982). Commentary: Science at the Bar-Causes for Concern. Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (41):16-19.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Sebastian Lutz (2011). On an Allegedly Essential Feature of Criteria for the Demarcation of Science. The Reasoner 5 (8):125-126.
    Laudan’s argument against the possibility of a demarcation criterion for scientific theories rests on establishing that any criterion must be a necessary and sufficient condition. But Laudan’s argument at most establishes that any criterion must provide a necessary condition and a possibly different sufficient condition. His own claims suggest that such a criterion is possible.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. María Laura Martínez (2009). Ian Hacking's Proposal for the Distinction Between Natural and Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (2):212-234.
    This article explores the proposal offered by Ian Hacking for the distinction between natural and social sciences—a proposal that he has defined from the outset as complex and different from the traditional ones. Our objective is not only to present the path followed by Hacking's distinction, but also to determine if it constitutes a novelty or not. For this purpose, we deemed it necessary to briefly introduce the core notions Hacking uses to establish his strategic approach to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Deborah G. Mayo (1996). Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn's-Eye View of Popper's Demarcation of Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (2):271-290.
    Kuhn maintains that what marks the transition to a science is the ability to carry out ‘normal’ science—a practice he characterizes as abandoning the kind of testing that Popper lauds as the hallmark of science. Examining Kuhn's own contrast with Popper, I propose to recast Kuhnian normal science. Thus recast, it is seen to consist of severe and reliable tests of low-level experimental hypotheses (normal tests) and is, indeed, the place to look to demarcate science. While thereby vindicating Kuhn on (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Lorenzo Peña, Sofia.
    The main claim of this paper is that the boundary between scientific and non scientific knowledge does exist -- which means several things. First, it's not the case that anything goes: some irrationalists have been mistaken into acceptance of that wrong conclusion because they have remarked that, however the boundary might be drawn, some important scientific developments would fall afoul of the standards entitling a research practice to count as scientific. Second, the boundary is not an imaginary one, that is (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Robert T. Pennock (2011). Can't Philosophers Tell the Difference Between Science and Religion? Demarcation Revisited. Synthese 178 (2):177-206.
    In the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board case, a federal district court ruled that Intelligent Design creationism was not science, but a disguised religious view and that teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional. But creationists contend that it is illegitimate to distinguish science and religion, citing philosophers Quinn and especially Laudan, who had criticized a similar ruling in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas creation-science case on the grounds that no necessary and sufficient demarcation criterion was possible and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk. University of Chicago Press.
    Introduction : science versus pseudoscience and the "demarcation problem" -- Hard science, soft science -- Almost science -- Pseudoscience -- Blame the media? -- Debates on science : the rise of think tanks and the decline of public intellectuals -- Science and politics : the case of global warming -- Science in the courtroom : the case against intelligent design -- From superstition to natural philosophy -- From natural philosophy to modern science -- The science wars I : do we (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.) (forthcoming). The Philosophy of Pseudoscience. University of Chicago Press.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Karl R. Popper (1959/1992). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
    Described by the philosopher A.J. Ayer as a work of 'great originality and power', this book revolutionized contemporary thinking on science and knowledge. Ideas such as the now legendary doctrine of 'falsificationism' electrified the scientific community, influencing even working scientists, as well as post-war philosophy. This astonishing work ranks alongside The Open Society and Its Enemies as one of Popper's most enduring books and contains insights and arguments that demand to be read to this day.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Philip L. Quinn (1984). The Philosopher of Science as Expert Witness. In James T. Cushing, C. F. Delany & Gary M. Gutting (eds.), Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science. University of Notre Dame Press.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Peter W. Ross & Dale Turner (2013). Existence Problems in Philosophy and Science. Synthese 190 (18):4239-4259.
    We initially characterize what we’ll call existence problems as problems where there is evidence that a putative entity exists and this evidence is not easily dismissed; however, the evidence is not adequate to justify the claim that the entity exists, and in particular the entity hasn’t been detected. The putative entity is elusive. We then offer a strategy for determining whether an existence problem is philosophical or scientific. According to this strategy (1) existence problems are characterized in terms of causal (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Michael Ruse (1982). Creation Science Is Not Science. Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (40):72-8.
  23. Michael Ruse (1982). Response to the Commentary: Pro Judice. Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (41):19-23.
  24. Roger Smith (2005). Does Reflexivity Separate the Human Sciences From the Natural Sciences? History of the Human Sciences 18 (4):1-25.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Terrance Tomkow, Blackburn, Truth and Other Hot Topics.
    Quine taught us that the collapse of positivism entails that empirical theories are, in principle, undetermined-- not just by the available evidence-- but by all possible evidence. Without disputing that conclusion, contemporary philosophers-- exampled here by Simon Blackburn and Jerry Fodor-- have wanted to treat this as a merely abstract possibility that need not undermine our confidence in actual scientific theory and practice. I argue that there is no basis for this complacency.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Karen Wendling (1996). Is Science Unique? Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):421-438.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Andrew S. Yang (2008). Matters of Demarcation: Philosophy, Biology, and the Evolving Fraternity Between Disciplines. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (2):211 – 225.
    The influence that philosophy of science has had on scientific practice is as controversial as it is undeniable, especially in the case of biology. The dynamic between philosophy and biology as disciplines has developed along two different lines that can be characterized as 'paternal', on the one hand, and more 'fraternal', on the other. The role Popperian principles of demarcation and falsifiability have played in both the systematics community as well as the ongoing evolution-creation debates illustrate these contrasting forms of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation