Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1038-1047 (2004)
|Abstract||Philosophers frequently cite Dalton's chemical atomism, and its nineteenth century developments, as a prime example of inference to the best explanation. This was a controversial issue in its time. But the critics are dismissed as positivist‐inspired antirealists with no interest in explanation. Is this a reasonable assessment?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Klaus Ruthenberg (2009). Paneth, Kant, and the Philosophy of Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 11 (2).
Rom Harré (2011). Do Explanation Formats in Elementary Chemistry Depend on Agent Causality? Foundations of Chemistry 13 (3):187-200.
A. T. Balaban (2005). Reflections About Mathematical Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 7 (3).
W. M. Goodwin (2008). Structural Formulas and Explanation in Organic Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2).
Paul Needham (2008). Resisting Chemical Atomism: Duhem's Argument. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):921-931.
Paul Needham (2004). When Did Atoms Begin to Do Any Explanatory Work in Chemistry? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2 & 3):199 – 219.
Paul Needham (2004). Has Daltonian Atomism Provided Chemistry with Any Explanations? Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1038-1047.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #178,675 of 549,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?