Synthese 128 (3):319 - 342 (2001)
|Abstract||Are philosophers of science limited to conducting autopsies on dead scientific theories, or might they also help resolve contemporary methodological disputes in science? This essay (1) gives an overview of thought experiments, especially in mathematics; (2) outlines three major positions on the current dose-response controversy for ionizing radiation; and (3) sketches an original mathematical thought experiment that might help resolve the low-dose radiation conflict. This thought experiment relies on the assumptions that radiation "hits'' are Poisson distributed and that background conditions cause many more radiation-induced cancers than human activities. The essay closes by responding to several key objections to the position defended here.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Elke Brendel (2004). Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica 58 (1):89–108.
Michael A. Bishop (1999). Why Thought Experiments Are Not Arguments. Philosophy of Science 66 (4):534-541.
Kristin Shrader-Frechette (2001). Radiobiological Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
W. J. (1996). The Evidential Significance of Thought Experiment in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (2):233-250.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (2000). Radiobiogical Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience. Perspectives on Science 8 (4):367-379.
Soraya De Chadarevian (2006). Mice and the Reactor: The "Genetics Experiment" in 1950s Britain. Journal of the History of Biology 39 (4):707 - 735.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #160,518 of 549,754 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )
How can I increase my downloads?