25 found
Sort by:
  1. Stephen G. Brush (2007). Predictivism and the Periodic Table. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):256-259.
    This is a comment on the paper by Barnes and the responses from Scerri and Worrall , debating the thesis that a fact successfully predicted by a theory is stronger evidence than a similar fact known before the prediction was made. Since Barnes and Scerri both use evidence presented in my paper on Mendeleev’s periodic law to support their views, I reiterate my own position on predictivism. I do not argue for or against predictivism in the normative sense that philosophers (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jonathan Bain, Timothy Bays, Katherine A. Brading, Stephen G. Brush, Murray Clarke, Sharyn Clough, Jonathan Cohen, Giancarlo Ghirardi, Brendan S. Gillon & Robert G. Hudson (2004). First Page Preview. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2-3).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Stephen G. Brush (2004). Comments on the Epistemological Shoehorn Debate. Science and Education 13 (3):197-200.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Stephen G. Brush & Sílvia Calado (2004). The History of Science in Non-Western Traditions. Vanda Alves Teaches Science at the Secondary School Level in Portugal. She has a Licence in Biology and Geology Education (University of Lisbon). Her Interests Include the Construction and Testing of Materials for Classrooms Within a Vygotskian and Bernsteinian Approaches, Where the Multiple Aspects of the Nature. [REVIEW] Science and Education 13:257-259.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Stephen G. Brush (2002). How Theories Became Knowledge: Morgan's Chromosome Theory of Heredity in America and Britain. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 35 (3):471 - 535.
    T. H. Morgan, A. H. Sturtevant, H. J. Muller and C. B. Bridges published their comprehensive treatise "The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity" in 1915. By 1920 Morgan's "Chromosome Theory of Heredity" was generally accepted by geneticists in the United States, and by British geneticists by 1925. By 1930 it had been incorporated into most general biology, botany, and zoology textbooks as established knowledge. In this paper, I examine the reasons why it was accepted as part of a series (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Nikolina Sretenova & Stephen G. Brush (2002). Struggling for Existing. Metascience 11 (3):310-316.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen G. Brush (2000). Thomas Kuhn as a Historian of Science. Science and Education 9 (1-2):39-58.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Stephen G. Brush (1999). Dynamics of Theory Change in Chemistry: Part 2. Benzene and Molecular Orbitals, 1945–1980. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30 (2):263-302.
  9. Stephen G. Brush (1999). Dynamics of Theory Change in Chemistry: Part 1. The Benzene Problem 1865–1945. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30 (1):21-79.
    A selective history of the benzene problem is presented, starting with August Kekulé's proposal of a hexagonal structure in 1865 and his hypothesis of 1872 that the carbon–carbon bonds oscillate between single and double. Only those theories are included that were accepted or at least discussed by a significant number of chemists. Special attention is given to predictions, their empirical tests, and the effect of the outcomes of those tests on the reception of the theories. At the end of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Stephen G. Brush (1999). Gadflies and Geniuses in the History of Gas Theory. Synthese 119 (1-2):11-43.
    The history of science has often been presented as a story of the achievements of geniuses: Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, Einstein. Recently it has become popular to enrich this story by discussing the social contexts and motivations that may have influenced the work of the genius and its acceptance; or to replace it by accounts of the doings of scientists who have no claim to genius or to discoveries of universal importance but may be typical members of the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Stephen G. Brush & H. G. Van Bueren (1997). A History of Modern Planetary Physics, 3 Vols: I, Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar System and the Core of the Earth From Laplace to Jeffreys. Annals of Science 54 (3):322.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Stephen G. Brush & H. G. Van Bueren (1997). III, Fruitful Encounters: The Origin of the Solar System and the Moon From Chamberlin to Apollo. Annals of Science 54 (3):322-324.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Stephen G. Brush & H. G. Van Bueren (1997). II, Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements From Lyell to Patterson. Annals of Science 54 (3):322.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Stephen G. Brush (1994). Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of Predictions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:133 - 145.
    The thesis that scientists give greater weight to novel predictions than to explanations of known facts is tested against historical cases in physical science. Several theories were accepted after successful novel predictions but there is little evidence that extra credit was given for novelty. Other theories were rejected despite, or accepted without, making successful novel predictions. No examples were found of theories that were accepted primarily because of successful novel predictions and would not have been accepted if those facts had (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Ludwig Boltzmann, I. M. Fasol-Boltzmann, Stephen G. Brush & Gerhard Fasol (1990). Principien der Naturfilosofi = Lectures on Natural Philosophy, 1903-1906.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Stephen G. Brush (1988). The Newton Handbook. Teaching Philosophy 11 (2):172-173.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Stephen G. Brush (1987). The Nebular Hypothesis and the Evolutionary Worldview. History of Science 25:245-278.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Stephen G. Brush (1983). The History of Modern Physics: An International Bibliography. Garland.
  19. Stephen G. Brush (1982). Book Review:Conceptions of Ether. Studies in the History of Ether Theories 1740-1900 G. N. Cantor, M. J. S. Hodge. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 49 (4):655-.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Stephen G. Brush (1981). Nietzsche's Recurrence Revisited: The French Connection. Journal of the History of Philosophy 19 (2):235-238.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Stephen G. Brush (1979). Nineteenth-Century Debates About the Inside of the Earth: Solid, Liquid or Gas? Annals of Science 36 (3):225-254.
    In the first part of the 19th century, geologists explained volcanoes, earthquakes and mountain-formation on the assumption that the earth has a large molten core underneath a very thin solid crust. This assumption was attacked on astronomical grounds by William Hopkins, who argued that the crust must be at least 800 miles thick, and on physical grounds by William Thomson, who showed that the earth as a whole behaves like a solid with high rigidity. Other participants in the debate insisted (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Stephen G. Brush (1977). The Temperature of History Phases of Science and Culture in the Nineteenth Century. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Stephen G. Brush (1976). Irreversibility and Indeterminism: Fourier to Heisenberg. Journal of the History of Ideas 37 (4):603.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Stephen G. Brush (1976). Statistical Mechanics and the Philosophy of Science: Some Historical Notes. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1976:551 - 584.
  25. Harold Issadore Sharlin, Stephen G. Brush, Harold L. Burstyn, Sandra Herbert, Michael S. Mahoney & Nathan Sivin (1975). A Study and Critique of the Teaching of the History of Science and Technology. Interim Report by the Committee on Undergraduate Education of the History of Science Society (U.S.A.). [REVIEW] Annals of Science 32 (1):55-70.
    The history of science and technology has been a scholarly discipline with little attention given to the special needs of undergraduate teaching. What needs to be done to transform a discipline to an undergraduate subject? Suggestions include using the relation between science and technology as well as the role of interpreters in formulation of the popular world view. Relations with science and history departments are considered. Curriculum materials are surveyed with some recommendations for correcting deficiencies.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation