Midwife or toad? Philosophy and the social sciences
Philosophy of the Social Sciences 15 (1):53-63 (1985)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| 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: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesBrian Fay (2006). For Science in the Social Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36 (2):227-240.
Christopher Hookway & Philip Pettit (eds.) (1977). Action and Interpretation: Studies in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.
I. C. Jarvie (1972). Concepts and Society. London,Routledge and K. Paul.
James W. van Evra (1969). II. Understanding in the Social Sciences Revisited. Inquiry 12 (1-4):347-349.
Jeanette Kennett & Michael Smith (1996). Frog and Toad Lose Control. Analysis 56 (2):63–73.
Chrysostomos Mantzavinos (ed.) (2009). Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Zuyi Du (2000). The Scientific Merit of the Social Sciences: Implications for Research and Application. Trentham Books.
Aug Nishizaka (2007). Hand Touching Hand: Referential Practice at a Japanese Midwife House. Human Studies 30 (3):199 - 217.
Barbara L. Neuby (ed.) (1998). Relevancy of the Social Sciences in the Next Millennium. The State University of West Georgia.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #277,212 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,847 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
