Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Use-novel predictions and Mendeleev’s periodic table: response to Scerri and Worrall.Samuel Schindler - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 39 (2):265-269.
    In this paper I comment on a recent paper by [Scerri, E., & Worrall, J. . Prediction and the periodic table. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32, 407–452.] about the role temporally novel and use-novel predictions played in the acceptance of Mendeleev’s periodic table after the proposal of the latter in 1869. Scerri and Worrall allege that whereas temporally novel predictions—despite Brush’s earlier claim to the contrary—did not carry any special epistemic weight, use-novel predictions did indeed contribute to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The assessment of auxiliary hypotheses.Jarrett Leplin - 1982 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33 (3):235-249.
  • Using Scott domains to explicate the notions of approximate and idealized data.Ronald Laymon - 1987 - Philosophy of Science 54 (2):194-221.
    This paper utilizes Scott domains (continuous lattices) to provide a mathematical model for the use of idealized and approximately true data in the testing of scientific theories. Key episodes from the history of science can be understood in terms of this model as attempts to demonstrate that theories are monotonic, that is, yield better predictions when fed better or more realistic data. However, as we show, monotonicity and truth of theories are independent notions. A formal description is given of the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Independent testability and experimental type: Response to Erlichson.Ronald Laymon - 1982 - Philosophy of Science 49 (2):274-281.
    One of the things I attempted to do in my paper on independent testability was to illustrate convincingly the very real difficulties of distinguishing between the accidental and essential features of a scientific experiment. The importance of this distinction is that independent testability presumably requires differences that are essential and telling and not merely accidental reflections of existing experimental technique or of the procedural preferences of the experimenter. In the case of the Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments, I showed, following a (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Michelson-Morley and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments.Herman Erlichson - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (4):620-622.
  • The radical reinterpretation of Michelson-Morley’s experiment by special relativity.Alejandro Cassini & Leonardo Levinas - 2005 - Scientiae Studia 3 (4):583-596.