|Abstract||On a purely epistemic understanding of experimental realism, manipulation affords a particularly robust kind of causal warrant, which is – like any other warrant – defeasible. I defend a version of Nancy Cartwright’s inference to the most likely cause, and I conclude that this minimally epistemic version of experimental realism is a coherent, adequate and plausible epistemology for science.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Mohamed Elsamahi (1994). Could Theoretical Entities Save Realism? In David & Richard Hull & Burian (ed.), PSA 1994.
Richard Scheines (2005). The Similarity of Causal Inference in Experimental and Non-Experimental Studies. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):927-940.
Michelle Sandell (2010). Astronomy and Experimentation. Techné 14 (3):252-269.
Yemima Ben-Menahem (1990). The Inference to the Best Explanation. Erkenntnis 33 (3):319-44.
David Papineau (1994). The Virtues of Randomization. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):437-450.
Robert Pierson & Richard Reiner (2008). Explanatory Warrant for Scientific Realism. Synthese 161 (2):271 - 282.
Richard Reiner & Robert Pierson (1995). Hacking's Experimental Realism: An Untenable Middle Ground. Philosophy of Science 62 (1):60-69.
Mark Day & George S. Botterill (2008). Contrast, Inference and Scientific Realism. Synthese 160 (2):249 - 267.
Michela Massimi (2004). Non‐Defensible Middle Ground for Experimental Realism: Why We Are Justified to Believe in Colored Quarks. Philosophy of Science 71 (1):36-60.
Added to index2010-07-25
Total downloads8 ( #123,037 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?