|Abstract||The intensity of debate between the realists and antirealists shows no sign of abating. Here a new hypothesis is proposed to resolve the issue. The requirement of consistency and continuity are built-in in the methodology of this hypothesis. This new hypothesis supports realism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Robert Lane (2004). On Peirce’s Early Realism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 40 (4):575 - 605.
Terence Horgan & John Tienson (1998). Resisting the Tyranny of Terminology: The General Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):643-643.
Stephanie Ruphy (2010). Are Stellar Kinds Natural Kinds? A Challenging Newcomer in the Monism/Pluralism and Realism/Antirealism Debates. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):1109-1120.
David Leech Anderson (2007). Consciousness and Realism. Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (1):1-17.
Nick Braisby, Richard Cooper & Bradley Franks (1998). Why the Dynamical Hypothesis Cannot Qualify as a Law of Qualitative Structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):630-631.
Theo A. F. Kuipers (2012). A Realist Partner for Linda: Confirming a Theoretical Hypothesis More Than its Observational Sub-Hypothesis. Synthese 184 (1):63-71.
John Perry (1996). Rip Van Winkle and Other Characters. European Review of Philosophy 2:13-39.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #291,771 of 722,862 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,862 )
How can I increase my downloads?