Scientific realism and historical evidence: Shortcomings of the current state of debate
In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer (2012)
| Abstract | This paper discusses three shortcomings of the current state of the debate regarding historical evidence against scientific realism. Attending to these issues will direct the debate away from over-generalising wholesale arguments. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDerek D. Turner (2007). Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. Cambridge University Press.
Igor Douven (2005). Evidence, Explanation, and the Empirical Status of Scientific Realism. Erkenntnis 63 (2):253 - 291.
Peter J. Lewis (2001). Why the Pessimistic Induction is a Fallacy. Synthese 129 (3):371--380.
Holger Lyre (2010). Humean Perspectives on Structural Realism. In F. Stadler (ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science. Springer.
Ben Jeffares (2010). Guessing the Future of the Past. Biology and Philosophy 25 (1):125-142.
Juha Saatsi (2009). Whence Ontological Structural Realism? In M. Suarez (ed.), EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science. Springer.
Stathos Psillos (2000). The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 (4):705-728.
Stathis Psillos (2001). Studies in Scientific Realism. Foundations of Chemistry 3 (1):79-86.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-03-31Total downloads48 ( #22,420 of 549,113 )Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #12,390 of 549,113 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
