|Abstract||A discussion and qualified defense of Philip Kitcher on scientific significance and ‘well-ordered science.’ (Qualified because I argue that Kitcher’s position is made unstable by his reliance on the largely unanalyzed notion of natural curiosity.).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Peter Kosso (1988). Dimensions of Observability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (4):449-467.
M. Solomon (1995). Legend Naturalism and Scientific Progress: An Essay on Philip Kitcher's the Advancement of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 26 (2):205-218.
Guichun Guo (2007). The Methodological Significance of Scientific Metaphor. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 2 (3):437-453.
Zeno G. Swijtink (1998). A Plea for Popperian Significance Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):220-221.
T. Shanahan (1997). Kitcher's Compromise: A Critical Examination of the Compromise Model of Scientific Closure, and its Implications for the Relationship Between History and Philosophy of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 28 (2):319-338.
John F. Kihlstrom (1998). If You've Got an Effect, Test its Significance; If You've Got a Weak Effect, Do a Meta-Analysis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):205-206.
Philip Kitcher (2003). In Mendel's Mirror: Philosophical Reflections on Biology. Oxford University Press.
Helen E. Longino (2002). Science and the Common Good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher's Science, Truth, and Democracy. Philosophy of Science 69 (4):560-568.
Matthew J. Brown (2010). Genuine Problems and the Significance of Science. Contemporary Pragmatism 7 (2):131-153.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #161,910 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?