Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy of Science 71 (5):1139-1151 (2004)
|Abstract||Thought experiments in science are merely picturesque argumentation. I support this view in various ways, including the claim that it follows from the fact that thought experiments can err but can still be used reliably. The view is defended against alternatives proposed by my cosymposiasts.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Edouard Machery (2011). Thought Experiments and Philosophical Knowledge. Metaphilosophy 42 (3):191-214.
Roy A. Sorensen (1992). Thought Experiments. Oxford University Press.
Elke Brendel (2004). Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica 58 (1):89–108.
Alisa Bokulich (2001). Rethinking Thought Experiments. Perspectives on Science 9 (3):285-307.
John Zeimbekis (2011). Thought Experiments and Mental Simulations. In Katerina Ierodiakonou & Sophie Roux (eds.), Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts. Brill.
Martin Bunzl (1996). The Logic of Thought Experiments. Synthese 106 (2):227 - 240.
Darrell P. Rowbottom (forthcoming). Intuitions in Science: Thought Experiments as Argument Pumps. In Anthony R. Booth & Darrell P. Rowbottom (eds.), Intuitions.
John D. Norton (2004). Why Thought Experiments Do Not Transcend Empiricism. In Christopher Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Blackwell.
Ksenija Puškarić (2007). Brown and Berkeley. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):177-180.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #23,240 of 740,542 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,739 of 740,542 )
How can I increase my downloads?