Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S424- (2001)
|Abstract||I argue that all current research programs in quantum gravity conform to the 17th century hypothetico-deductive model of scientific inquiry, perhaps of necessity given the current state of technology. In so far as they do not recognize and advertise the shortcomings of the research method they use, they do a disservice to the integrity of science, for the method admits of far less certainty accruing to its products than one would be led to believe by the pronouncements of researchers in the area|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeremy Butterfield & Chris Isham (2001). Spacetime and the Philosophical Challenge of Quantum Gravity. In Physics Meets Philosophy at the Panck Scale. Cambridge University Press.
Roger Penrose & C. J. Isham (eds.) (1986). Quantum Concepts in Space and Time. New York ;Oxford University Press.
Gordon Belot & John Earman (2001). Pre-Socratic Quantum Gravity. In Craig Callender & Nick Huggett (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale. Cambridge University Press.
James Mattingly (2009). Mongrel Gravity. Erkenntnis 70 (3):379 - 395.
Desmond Alan Ford, Quantum Gravity: Time is the Red Herring and Classical Mathematics is the Elephant in the Room.
Chuang Liu (1993). The Arrow of Time in Quantum Gravity. Philosophy of Science 60 (4):619-637.
Henrik Zinkernagel (2006). The Philosophy Behind Quantum Gravity. Theoria 21 (3):295-312.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads45 ( #28,909 of 722,783 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,783 )
How can I increase my downloads?