Graduate studies at Western
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):149-156 (2002)
|Abstract||I will divide my discussion into two. In the first part I will discuss Godin and Gingras's delicious claim (this volume) that the experimenter's regress is anticipated by Sextus Empiricus's formulation of scepticism. In the second part, I will try to deal with Godin and Gingras's 'critical argument', that the experimenter's regress would be redundant if we were less concerned with 'frightening philosophers'.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
B. Godin & Y. Gingras (2002). The Experimenters' Regress: From Skepticism to Argumentation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):133-148.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Scientific Models, Simulation, and the Experimenter's Regress. In Paul Humphreys & Cyrille Imbert (eds.), Models, Simulations, and Representations. Routledge.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (1999). Where the Regress Argument Still Goes Wrong: Reply to Knowles. Analysis 59 (4):321-327.
Yuri Cath (2013). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3):358-388.
Julia Tanner (2007). Intrinsic Value and the Argument From Regress. Forum Philosophicum 12 (2):313-322..
Mark McCullagh (2002). Wittgenstein on Rules and Practices. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:83-100.
H. M. Collins (2002). The Experimenter's Regress as Philosophical Sociology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):149-156.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,359 of 722,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?