David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 44 (3):368-386 (1977)
William K. Goosens claims to show that my account of epistemic utility runs into serious difficulties when confronted with certain attractive conditions of adequacy for the evaluation of experiments. I show that those conditions of adequacy which are, indeed, acceptable to both of us are satisfied by the procedures for evaluating experiments mandated by combining my theory of epistemic utilities with the approach to evaluating experiments on which Goosens' argument is based. In particular, I demonstrate that my theory does not violate the requirement that an "ideal experiment" be no worse than any alternative experiment
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Elke Brendel (2004). Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica 58 (1):89–108.
Tomoji Shogenji (2012). Internalism and Externalism in Meliorative Epistemology. Erkenntnis 76 (1):59-72.
A. Moon (2010). Gibbons on Epistemic Internalism. Mind 119 (473):143-151.
Ivan Moscati & Paola Tubaro, Random Behavior and the as-If Defense of Rational Choice Theory in Demand Experiments.
Boris Grozdanoff (2007). Reconstruction, Justification and Incompatibility in Norton's Account of Thought Experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):69-79.
Marek Picha (2011). How to Reconstruct a Thought Experiment. Organon F 18 (2):154-188.
James Maffie (1997). “Just-so” Stories About “Inner Cognitive Africa”: Some Doubts About Sorensen's Evolutionary Epistemology of Thought Experiments. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (2):207-224.
John D. Norton (2004). Why Thought Experiments Do Not Transcend Empiricism. In Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Blackwell. 44-66.
Don Fallis (2007). Attitudes Toward Epistemic Risk and the Value of Experiments. Studia Logica 86 (2):215 - 246.
Michael R. Dietrich (1996). Monte Carlo Experiments and the Defense of Diffusion Models in Molecular Population Genetics. Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):339-356.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #218,223 of 1,147,244 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #140,193 of 1,147,244 )
How can I increase my downloads?