This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
236 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 236
Material to categorize
  1. Oseni Taiwo Afisi, The Problem of Induction and Karl Popper's Hypothetico-Deductive Methodology: A Critical Evaluation.
    The focus of this paper is to examine the problem of induction as a methodology for science. It also evaluates Karl Popper’s deductive approach as the suitable methodology for scientific research. Popper calls his theory ‘hypothetico-deductive methodology’. However, this paper argues the thesis that Popper’s theory of hypothetico-deductive methodology, which he claims is the only appropriate methodology of science is fraught with some theoretical difficulties, which makes it unacceptable. Popper’s logical asymmetry between verification and falsification, we argue, is philosophically untenable. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Emrah Aktunc (2009). Scientific Pluralism.Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. XIX. Annals of Science 66 (2):299-302.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Wolfgang Balzer (2002). Methodological Patterns in a Structuralist Setting. Synthese 130 (1):49 - 68.
    A new approach to analyze scientific methods as patternsof state transitions is proposed and exemplified by the two mostimportant, general methods: induction and deduction. Though only`local' states of science are considered in this paper, includinghypotheses, data, approximation and degree of fit, the approach caneasily be extended to more comprehensive kinds of states. Two `pure'forms of induction are distinguished, enumerative and hypothesisconstruction induction. A combination of these two forms is proposedto yield a more adequate picture of induction. While the pure forms (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Michael Bassey (1968). Science and Society: The Meaning and Importance of Scientific Method. London, University of London P..
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Vadim Batitsky & Zoltan Domotor (2007). When Good Theories Make Bad Predictions. Synthese 157 (1):79 - 103.
    Chaos-related obstructions to predictability have been used to challenge accounts of theory validation based on the agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental data . These challenges are incomplete in two respects: they do not show that chaotic regimes are unpredictable in principle and, as a result, that there is something conceptually wrong with idealized expectations of correct predictions from acceptable theories, and they do not explore whether chaos-induced predictive failures of deterministic models can be remedied by stochastic modeling. In this (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Thomas Brückner (2008). Ulrich Kühne: Die Methode des Gedankenexperiments / Daniel Cohnitz: Gedankenexperimente in der Philosophie. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (1):161-165.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Carol Cleland, Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method.
    Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the prac- tice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical ex- perimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled labo- ratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  8. Morris Raphael Cohen (1953). Reason and Nature: An Essay on the Meaning of Scientific Method. Dover Publications.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9. John James Davies (1968). On the Scientific Method: How Scientists Work. Harlow, Longmans.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10. E. L. Dellow (1970). Methods of Science. New York,Universe Books.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem (1954). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
    This classic work in the philosophy of physical science is an incisive and readable account of the scientific method. Pierre Duhem was one of the great figures in French science, a devoted teacher, and a distinguished scholar of the history and philosophy of science. This book represents his most mature thought on a wide range of topics.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   236 citations  
  12. John Earman (1992). Bayes or Bust? Bradford.
    There is currently no viable alternative to the Bayesian analysis of scientific inference, yet the available versions of Bayesianism fail to do justice to several aspects of the testing and confirmation of scientific hypotheses. Bayes or Bust? provides the first balanced treatment of the complex set of issues involved in this nagging conundrum in the philosophy of science. Both Bayesians and anti-Bayesians will find a wealth of new insights on topics ranging from Bayes's original paper to contemporary formal learning theory. (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   79 citations  
  13. James Kern Feibleman (1972). Scientific Method. The Hague,Nijhoff.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. James H. Fetzer (ed.) (1993). Foundations of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments. Paragon House.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Paul Feyerabend (2011). Tyranny of Science. Polity Press.
    Conflict and harmony -- The disunity of science -- The abundance of nature -- Dehumanizing humans.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Jonathan Fuller, Alex Broadbent & Luis J. Flores (2015). Prediction in Epidemiology and Medicine. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 54:45-48.
  17. Ronald N. Giere & Richard S. Westfall (eds.) (1973). Foundations of Scientific Method: The Nineteenth Century. Bloomington,Indiana University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Barry Gower (1996). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge.
    The results, conclusions and claims of science are often taken to be reliable because they arise from the use of a distinctive method. Yet today, there is widespread skepticism as to whether we can validly talk of method in modern science. This outstanding survey explains how this controversy has developed since the 17th century, and explores its philosophical basis.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  19. Rom Harré (1983). An Introduction to the Logic of the Sciences. St. Martin's Press.
  20. Rom Harré (1970). The Principles of Scientific Thinking. London,Macmillan.
  21. Errol E. Harris (1970). Hypothesis and Perception: The Roots of Scientific Method. Humanities Press.
    Reissue from the classic Muirhead Library of Philosophy series (originally published between 1890s - 1970s).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  22. László Hársing (1982). Scientific Reasoning and Epistemic Attitudes. Akadémiai Kiadó.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Matthew Kotzen (2013). Multiple Studies and Evidential Defeat. Noûs 47 (1):154-180.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Domenic Marbaniang (2009). Philosophy of Science: An Introduction. Google Books.
    INTRODUCTION Philosophy of science is a study of the general nature of scientific practice, explanations, theories, and the relation of scientific knowledge ...
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. P. B. Medawar (1984). Pluto's Republic. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   33 citations  
  26. Alex C. Michalos (1971). The Popper-Carnap Controversy. The Hague,Nijhoff.
  27. David Miller (2007). The Objectives of Science. Philosophia Scientiæ 11 (1):21-43.
    Contestant l’opinion commune selon laquelle le problème de la démarcation, contrairement au problème de l’induction, est relativement anecdotique, l’article soutient que le critère poppérien de falsifiabilité donne une réponse irrésistible à la question de savoir ce qui peut être appris d’une investigation empirique. Tout découle du rejet de la logique inductive, joint à la reconnaissance du fait que, avant d’être investiguée, une hypothèse doit être formulée et acceptée. Les hypothèses scientifiques n’émergent ni a posteriori comme les inductivistes le soutiennent, ni (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28. Robert Nola (2007). Theories of Scientific Method: An Introduction. Acumen.
    What is it to be scientific? Is there such a thing as scientific method? And if so, how might such methods be justified? -/- Robert Nola and Howard Sankey seek to provide answers to these fundamental questions in their exploration of the major recent theories of scientific method. Although for many scientists their understanding of method is something they just “pick up” in the course of being trained, Nola and Sankey argue that it is possible to be explicit about what (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  29. Robert Nola & Howard Sankey (eds.) (2000). After Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Some think that issues to do with scientific method are last century's stale debate; Popper was an advocate of methodology, but Kuhn, Feyerabend, and others are alleged to have brought the debate about its status to an end. The papers in this volume show that issues in methodology are still very much alive. Some of the papers reinvestigate issues in the debate over methodology, while others set out new ways in which the debate has developed in the last decade. The (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  30. Henri Poincaré (1914). Science and Method. Dover Publications.
    " Vivid . . . immense clarity . . . the product of a brilliant and extremely forceful intellect." — Journal of the Royal Naval Scientific Service "Still a sheer joy to read." — Mathematical Gazette "Should be read by any student, teacher or researcher in mathematics." — Mathematics Teacher The originator of algebraic topology and of the theory of analytic functions of several complex variables, Henri Poincare (1854–1912) excelled at explaining the complexities of scientific and mathematical ideas to lay (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  31. Azari͡a Prizenti Polikarov (1983). Methodological Problems of Science: The Iteration Cycle: Science--Methodology of Science. Pub. House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Karl R. Popper (1994). The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. Routledge.
    In a career spanning sixty years, Sir Karl Popper has made some of the most important contributions to the twentieth century discussion of science and rationality. The Myth of the Framework is a new collection of some of Popper's most important material on this subject. Sir Karl discusses such issues as the aims of science, the role that it plays in our civilization, the moral responsibility of the scientist, the structure of history, and the perennial choice between reason and revolution. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  33. Karl R. Popper (1959). 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 (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1079 citations  
  34. Dominique Raynaud (2011). Chronique et motifs de la controverse entre les écoles médicales de Paris et de Montpellier. In Pascal Nouvel (ed.), Repenser le Vitalisme: Histoire Et Philosophie du Vitalisme. Presses Universitaires de France 33--55.
    The controversy between the medical schools of Paris and Montpellier extends roughly from the death of Barthez (1806) to the publication of the Introduction to the study of experimental medicine of Claude Bernard (1865), with a peak during which the controversy merges with the polemic between Louis Peisse and Jacques Lordat (1840-1843). This study aims to document as accurately as possible the arguments that were exchanged during this controversy, by seeking their reasons and explaining how the experimental medicine in Paris (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. De Langhe Rogier & Greiff Matthias, Standards and the Distribution of Cognitive Labour.
    We present a model of the distribution of labour in science. Such models tend to rely on the mechanism of the invisible hand. Our analysis starts from the necessity of standards in distributed processes and the possibility of multiple standards in science. Invisible hand models turn out to have only limited scope because they are restricted to describing the atypical single-standard case. Our model is a generalisation of these models to J standards; single-standard models such as Kitcher are a limiting (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Muhammad Saud (1990). The Scientific Method of Ibn Al-Haytham. Islamic Research Institute, International Islamic University.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
Hypothetico-Deductive Method
  1. Peter Achinstein (1987). Scientific Discovery and Maxwell's Kinetic Theory. Philosophy of Science 54 (3):409-434.
    By reference to Maxwell's kinetic theory, one feature of hypothetico-deductivism is defended. A scientist need make no inference to a hypothesis when he first proposes it. He may have no reason at all for thinking it is true. Yet it may be worth considering. In developing his kinetic theory there were central assumptions Maxwell made (for example, that molecules are spherical, that they exert contact forces, and that their motion is linear) that he had no reason to believe true. In (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  2. Robert Ackermann (1965). Deductive Scientific Explanation. Philosophy of Science 32 (2):155-167.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3. Greg Bamford (2002). From Analysis/Synthesis to Conjecture/Analysis: A Review of Karl Popper’s Influence on Design Methodology in Architecture. [REVIEW] Design Studies 23 (3):245-61.
    The two principal models of design in methodological circles in architecture—analysis/synthesis and conjecture/analysis—have their roots in philosophy of science, in different conceptions of scientific method. This paper explores the philosophical origins of these models and the reasons for rejecting analysis/synthesis in favour of conjecture/analysis, the latter being derived from Karl Popper’s view of scientific method. I discuss a fundamental problem with Popper’s view, however, and indicate a framework for conjecture/analysis to avoid this problem.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Greg Bamford (1996). Popper and His Commentators on the Discovery of Neptune: A Close Shave for the Law of Gravitation? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (2):207-232.
    Knowledge of residual perturbations in Uranus's orbit led to Neptune's discovery in 1846 rather than the refutation of Newton's law of gravitation. Karl Popper asserts that this case is untypical of science and that the law was at least prima facie falsified. I argue that these assertions are the product of a false, a priori methodological position, 'Weak Popperian Falsificationism' (WPF), and that on the evidence the law was not, and was not considered, prima facie false. Many of Popper's commentators (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5. Pierre Duhem (1994). German Science. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):313.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6. Danny Frederick, Haack's Defective Discussion of Popper and the Courts.
    Susan Haack criticises the US courts' use of Karl Popper's epistemology in discriminating acceptable scientific testimony. She claims that acceptable testimony should be reliable and that Popper's epistemology is useless in discriminating reliability. She says that Popper's views have been found acceptable only because they have been misunderstood and she indicates an alternative epistemology which she says can discriminate reliable theories. However, her account of Popper's views is a gross and gratuitous misrepresentation. Her alternative epistemology cannot do what she claims (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Gary Hatfield (1988). Science, Certainty, and Descartes. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:249 - 262.
    During the 1630s Descartes recognized that he could not expect all legitimate claims in natural science to meet the standard of absolute certainty. The realization resulted from a change in his physics, which itself arose not through methodological reflections, but through developments in his substantive metaphysical doctrines. Descartes discovered the metaphysical foundations of his physics in 1629-30; as a consequence, the style of explanation employed in his physical writings changed. His early methodological conceptions, as preserved in the Rules and sketched (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  8. Urs Hofmann & Michael Baumgartner (2011). Determinism and the Method of Difference. Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 26 (2):155-176.
    The first part of this paper reveals a conflict between the core principles of deterministic causation and the standard method of difference, which is widely seen (and used) as a correct method of causally analyzing deterministic structures. We show that applying the method of difference to deterministic structures can giverise to causal inferences that contradict the principles of deterministic causation. The second part then locates the source of this conflict in an inference rule implemented in the method of difference according (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9. Wayne C. Myrvold & Joy Christian (eds.) (2009). Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle. Springer.
    Part I Introduction -/- Passion at a Distance (Don Howard) -/- Part II Philosophy, Methodology and History -/- Balancing Necessity and Fallibilism: Charles Sanders Peirce on the Status of Mathematics and its Intersection with the Inquiry into Nature (Ronald Anderson) -/- Newton’s Methodology (William Harper) -/- Whitehead’s Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics (QM): A Tribute to Abner Shimony (Shimon Malin) -/- Bohr and the Photon (John Stachel) -/- Part III Bell’s Theorem and Nonlocality A. Theory -/- Extending the Concept of an (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. José Ortega Y. Gasset (1971). The Idea of Principle in Leibnitz and the Evolution of Deductive Theory. W. W. Norton.
    This book, an exploration of the work of Leibnitz, is Ortega’s most systematic contribution to philosophy. Ortega begins with a detailed definition of a principle and with an examination of the specific principles formulated by Leibnitz. He goes on to examine Leibnitz. He goes on to examine Leibnitz’s complex and mercurial attitudes towards principles and discusses the effects of these attitudes on his philosophy and on contributions to mathematics and logic.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Ray Scott Percival (2015). Confirmation Versus Falsificationism. In Robin L. Cautin & Scott O. Lilienfeld (eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology.
    Confirmation and falsification are different strategies for testing theories and characterizing the outcomes of those tests. Roughly speaking, confirmation is the act of using evidence or reason to verify or certify that a statement is true, definite, or approximately true, whereas falsification is the act of classifying a statement as false in the light of observation reports. After expounding the intellectual history behind confirmation and falsificationism, reaching back to Plato and Aristotle, I survey some of the main controversial issues and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Darrell P. Rowbottom & R. McNeill Alexander (2012). The Role of Hypotheses in Biomechanical Research. Science in Context 25 (2):247-262.
    This paper investigates whether there is a discrepancy between the stated and actual aims in biomechanical research, particularly with respect to hypothesis testing. We present an analysis of one hundred papers recently published in The Journal of Experimental Biology and Journal of Biomechanics, and examine the prevalence of papers which (a) have hypothesis testing as a stated aim, (b) contain hypothesis testing claims that appear to be purely presentational (i.e. which seem not to have influenced the actual study), and (c) (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  13. Luigi Scorzato, A Simple Model of Scientific Progress - with Examples.
    One of the main goals of scientific research is to provide a description of the empirical data which is as accurate and comprehensive as possible, while relying on as few and simple assumptions as possible. In this paper, I propose a definition of the notion of few and simple assumptions that is not affected by known problems. This leads to the introduction of a simple model of scientific progress that is based only on empirical accuracy and conciseness. An essential point (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
Scientific Metamethodology
  1. Günter Abel (ed.) (2005). Kreativität. Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
1 — 50 / 236