How many epistemologies should guide the production of scientific knowledge?: A response to Maffie, Mendieta, and Wylie
Hypatia 23 (4):pp. 212-219 (2008)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSandra Harding (1995). “Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese 104 (3):331 - 349.
Charles Camic (2011). Bourdieu's Cleft Sociology of Science. Minerva 49 (3):275-293.
Susan Lindee (2011). Experimental Wounds: Science and Violence in Mid-Century America. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (1):8-20.
Guy Axtell (2007). Two for the Show: Anti-Luck and Virtue Epistemologies in Consonance. Synthese 158 (3):363 - 383.
Mark S. Peacock (2009). Path Dependence in the Production of Scientific Knowledge. Social Epistemology 23 (2):105 – 124.
Morana Alač (2004). Negotiating Pictures of Numbers. Social Epistemology 18 (2-3):199-214.
Morana Ala (2004). Negotiating Pictures of Numbers. Social Epistemology 18 (2 & 3):199 – 214.
James Maffie (2000). Alternative Epistemologies and the Value of Truth. Social Epistemology 14 (4):247 – 257.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads13 ( #87,888 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
