British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (1):61-99 (2005)
|Abstract||We propose a rigourous criterion for observability and claim it solves three problems that extant accounts of observability, including Van Fraassen's one, do not solve. We also give a rigourous verions of Van Fraassen's own sketchy account of modality without relying on `inflationary metaphycis'.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gabriele Contessa (2006). Constructive Empiricism, Observability, and Three Kinds of Ontological Commitment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37 (4):454–468.
Paul Dicken & Peter Lipton (2006). What Can Bas Believe? Musgrave and Van Fraassen on Observability. Analysis 66 (291):226–233.
Hasok Chang (2005). A Case for Old-Fashioned Observability, and a Reconstructed Constructive Empiricism. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):876-887.
Charles Taliaferro (1991). The Argument From Transposed Modalities. Metaphilosophy 93 (January-April):93-100.
Peter Lipton (2006). What Can Bas Believe? Musgrave and van Fraassen on Observability. Analysis 66 (3):226-233.
Paul Dicken (2009). On the Syntax and Semantics of Observability: A Reply to Muller and Van Fraassen. Analysis 69 (1):38-42.
Peter Kosso (1988). Dimensions of Observability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (4):449-467.
Jeff Foss (1984). On Accepting Van Fraassen's Image of Science. Philosophy of Science 51 (1):79-92.
Richard Creath (1988). The Pragmatics of Observation. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:149 - 153.
F. A. Muller (2005). The Deep Black Sea: Observability and Modality Afloat. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (1):61-99.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?