Search results for 'counterfactual difference-making' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Peter Menzies & Christian List (2010). The Causal Autonomy of the Special Sciences. In Cynthia Mcdonald & Graham Mcdonald (eds.), Emergence in Mind. Oxford University Press.score: 237.0
    The systems studied in the special sciences are often said to be causally autonomous, in the sense that their higher-level properties have causal powers that are independent of those of their more basic physical properties. This view was espoused by the British emergentists, who claimed that systems achieving a certain level of organizational complexity have distinctive causal powers that emerge from their constituent elements but do not derive from them.2 More recently, non-reductive physicalists have espoused a similar view about the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Alex Broadbent (2012). Causes of Causes. Philosophical Studies 158 (3):457-476.score: 192.0
    When is a cause of a cause of an effect also a cause of that effect? The right answer is either Sometimes or Always . In favour of Always , transitivity is considered by some to be necessary for distinguishing causes from redundant non-causal events. Moreover transitivity may be motivated by an interest in an unselective notion of causation, untroubled by principles of invidious discrimination. And causal relations appear to add up like transitive relations, so that the obtaining of the (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Brad Weslake (forthcoming). Difference-Making, Closure and Exclusion. In Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock & Huw Price (eds.), Making a Difference. Oxford University Press.score: 192.0
    Consider the following causal exclusion principle: For all distinct properties F and F* such that F* supervenes on F, F and F* do not both cause a property G. Peter Menzies and Christian List have proven that it follows from a natural conception of causation as difference-making that this exclusion principle is not generally true. Rather, it turns out that whether the principle is true is a contingent matter. In addition, they have shown that in a wide range of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Peter Menzies (2004). Difference-Making in Context. In J. Collins, N. Hall & L. Paul (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals. Mit Press.score: 180.0
    Several different approaches to the conceptual analysis of causation are guided by the idea that a cause is something that makes a difference to its effects. These approaches seek to elucidate the concept of causation by explicating the concept of a difference-maker in terms of better-understood concepts. There is no better example of such an approach than David Lewis’ analysis of causation, in which he seeks to explain the concept of a difference-maker in counterfactual terms. Lewis introduced his (...) theory of causation with these words: 'We think of a cause as something that makes a difference, and the difference it makes must be a difference from what would have happened without it. Had it been absent, its effects—some of them, at least, and usually all—would have been absent as well.' (Lewis 1973b: pp. 160-1) According to Lewis, a cause c makes a difference to an effect e in the sense that if the cause c had not occurred, the effect e would not have occurred either. All we shall see in section 2, Lewis’ theory says there is more to the concept of causation than this counterfactual condition. Lewis is on the right track, I think, in saying that we think of a cause as something that makes a difference and that this thought is best explicated in terms of counterfactual concepts. However, I shall argue that the particular way in which Lewis spells out the concept of a cause as difference-maker is unsatisfactory. For Lewis’ articulation of this concept is distorted by a specific metaphysical assumption: specifically, that causation is an absolute relation, specifiable independently of any contextual factors. The distortion induced by this assumption is reflected in the undiscriminating manner in which his theory generates countless causes for any given effect. However, commonsense judgement is much more discriminating about causes than Lewis’ theory. Accordingly, I claim that Lewis' analysis faces the problem of profligate causes and I outline some specific problem cases in section 3.. (shrink)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Luke Glynn (2013). Causal Foundationalism, Physical Causation, and Difference-Making. Synthese 190 (6):1017-1037.score: 168.0
    An influential tradition in the philosophy of causation has it that all token causal facts are, or are reducible to, facts about difference-making. Challenges to this tradition have typically focused on pre-emption cases, in which a cause apparently fails to make a difference to its effect. However, a novel challenge to the difference-making approach has recently been issued by Alyssa Ney. Ney defends causal foundationalism, which she characterizes as the thesis that facts about difference-making depend upon facts (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Sam Baron (forthcoming). The Explanatory Dispensability of Idealizations. Synthese:1-22.score: 143.0
    Enhanced indispensability arguments seek to establish realism about mathematics based on the explanatory role that mathematics plays in science. Idealizations pose a problem for such arguments. Idealizations, in a similar way to mathematics, boost the explanatory credentials of our best scientific theories. And yet, idealizations are not the sorts of things that are supposed to attract a realist attitude. I argue that the explanatory symmetry between idealizations and mathematics can potentially be broken as follows: although idealizations contribute to the explanatory (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Karl Halvor Teigen (2005). When a Small Difference Makes a Big Difference: Counterfactual Thinking and Luck. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge.score: 142.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Mats Johansson & Linus Broström (2011). Counterfactual Reasoning in Surrogate Decision Making – Another Look. Bioethics 25 (5):244-249.score: 120.0
    Incompetent patients need to have someone else make decisions on their behalf. According to the Substituted Judgment Standard the surrogate decision maker ought to make the decision that the patient would have made, had he or she been competent. Objections have been raised against this traditional construal of the standard on the grounds that it involves flawed counterfactual reasoning, and amendments have been suggested within the framework of possible worlds semantics. The paper shows that while this approach may circumvent (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. William MacAskill (2014). Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (2):269-283.score: 120.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Alyssa Ney (2009). Physical Causation and Difference-Making. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):737-764.score: 112.0
    This paper examines the relationship between physical theories of causation and theories of difference-making. It is plausible to think that such theories are compatible with one another as they are aimed at different targets: the former, an empirical account of actual causal relations; the latter, an account that will capture the truth of most of our ordinary causal claims. The question then becomes: what is the relationship between physical causation and difference-making? Is one kind of causal fact more (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Federica Russo & Jon Williamson (2012). EnviroGenomarkers: The Interplay Between Mechanisms and Difference Making in Establishing Causal Claims. Medicine Studies 3 (4):249-262.score: 112.0
    According to Russo and Williamson (Int Stud Philos Sci 21(2):157–170, 2007, Hist Philos Life Sci 33:389–396, 2011a, Philos Sci 1(1):47–69, 2011b), in order to establish a causal claim of the form, ‘C is a cause of E’, one typically needs evidence that there is an underlying mechanism between C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This thesis has been used to argue that hierarchies of evidence, as championed by evidence-based movements, tend to give (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Win-Chiat Lee (1989). Statutory Interpretation and the Counterfactual Test for Legislative Intention. Law and Philosophy 8 (3):383 - 404.score: 108.0
    In this paper I examine the counterfactual test for legislative intention as used in Riggs v. Palmer. The distinction between the speaker's meaning approach and the constructive interpretation approach to statutory interpretation, as made by Dworkin in Law's Empire, is explained. I argue that Dworkin underestimates the potential of the counterfactual test in making the speaker's meaning approach more plausible. I also argue that Dworkin's reasons for rejecting the counterfactual test, as proposed in Law's (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Marcel Weber, Causal Selection Versus Causal Parity in Biology: Relevant Counterfactuals and Biologically Normal Interventions.score: 102.0
    Causal selection is the task of picking out, from a field of known causally relevant factors, some factors as the actual causes of an event or class of events or the causes that "make the difference". The Causal Parity Thesis in the philosophy of biology is basically the claim that there are no grounds for such a selection. The main target of this thesis is usually gene centrism, the doctrine that genes play some special role in ontogeny, which is often (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. C. Sartorio (2013). Making a Difference in a Deterministic World. Philosophical Review 122 (2):189-214.score: 100.0
    Some philosophers have claimed that causally determined agents are not morally responsible because they cannot make a difference in the world. A recent response by philosophers who defend the compatibility of determinism and responsibility has been to concede that causally determined agents are incapable of making a difference, but to argue that responsibility is not grounded in difference making. These compatibilists have rested such a claim on Frankfurt cases—cases where agents are intuitively responsible for acts that they couldn’t have failed (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Stathis Psillos (2004). A Glimpse of the Secret Connexion: Harmonizing Mechanisms with Counterfactuals. Perspectives on Science 12 (3):288-319.score: 96.0
    Among the current philosophical attempts to understand causation two seem to be the most prominent. The first is James Woodward’s counterfactual approach; the second is the mechanistic approach advocated by Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, Carl Craver, Jim Bogen and Stuart Glennan. The counterfactual approach takes it that causes make a difference to their effects, where this difference-making is cashed out in terms of actual and counterfactual interventions. The mechanistic approach takes it that two events are causally (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Joakim Sandberg (2008). The Ethics of Investing: Making Money or Making a Difference? Dissertation, University of Gothenburgscore: 96.0
    The concepts of 'ethical' and 'socially responsible' investment (SRI) have become increasingly popular in recent years and funds which offer this kind of investment have attracted many individual inve... merstors. The present book addresses the issue of 'How ought one to invest?' by critically engaging with the ideas of the proponents of this movement about what makes 'ethical' investing ethical. The standard suggestion that ethical investing simply consists in refraining from investing in certain 'morally unacceptable companies' is criticised for being (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Kevin Morrell & Chanaka Jayawardhena (2010). Fair Trade, Ethical Decision Making and the Narrative of Gender Difference. Business Ethics 19 (4):393-407.score: 96.0
    Fair trade (FT) is of growing interest to those carrying out research into ethical decision making. In this paper, we report findings from a recent survey of FT purchasing among 688 retail shoppers in the United Kingdom. We examined the relationship between individual differences, in terms of gender and age, and three outcome measures: purchasing, word of mouth (WOM) recommendation and social advocacy. Though age appeared to have no significant effects, we found evidence of gender difference in each outcome measure. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. David Halpin, Sally Power & John Fitz (1991). Grant-Maintained Schools: Making a Difference Without Being Really Different. British Journal of Educational Studies 39 (4):409 - 424.score: 96.0
    (1991). Grant‐maintained schools: Making a difference without being really different 1 . British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 409-424.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Helge Skirbekk & Per Nortvedt (2011). Making a Difference: A Qualitative Study on Care and Priority Setting in Health Care. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 19 (1):77-88.score: 96.0
    The focus of the study is the conflict between care and concern for particular patients, versus considerations that take impartial considerations of justice to be central to moral deliberations. To examine these questions we have conducted qualitative interviews with health professionals in Norwegian hospitals. We found a value norm that implicitly seemed to overrule all others, the norm of ‘making a difference for the patients’. We will examine what such a statement implies, aiming to shed some light over moral dilemmas (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. A. Baker (2003). Does the Existence of Mathematical Objects Make a Difference? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):246 – 264.score: 91.0
    In this paper I examine a strategy which aims to bypass the technicalities of the indispensability debate and to offer a direct route to nominalism. The starting-point for this alternative nominalist strategy is the claim that--according to the platonist picture--the existence of mathematical objects makes no difference to the concrete, physical world. My principal goal is to show that the 'Makes No Difference' (MND) Argument does not succeed in undermining platonism. The basic reason why not is that the makes-no-difference claim (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. David Yates (2012). Functionalism and the Metaphysics of Causal Exclusion. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (13).score: 87.0
    Given their physical realization, what causal work is left for functional properties to do? Humean solutions to the exclusion problem (e.g. overdetermination and difference-making) typically appeal to counterfactual and/or nomic relations between functional property-instances and behavioural effects, tacitly assuming that such relations suffice for causal work. Clarification of the notion of causal work, I argue, shows not only that such solutions don't work, but also reveals a novel solution to the exclusion problem based on the relations between dispositional (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Stathis Psillos (2004). A Glimpse of The. Perspectives on Science 12 (3).score: 87.0
    : Among the current philosophical accounts of causation two are the most prominent. The first is James Woodward's interventionist counterfactual approach; the second is the mechanistic approach advocated by Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden, Carl Craver, Jim Bogen and Stuart Glennan. Thecounterfactual approach takes it that causes make a difference to their effects, where this difference-making is cashed out in terms of actual and counterfactual interventions. The mechanistic approach takes it that two events are causally related if and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Dingmar van Eck (forthcoming). Validating Function-Based Design Methods: An Explanationist Perspective. Philosophy and Technology:1-21.score: 87.0
    Analysis of the adequacy of engineering design methods, as well as analysis of the utility of concepts of function often invoked in these methods, is a neglected topic in both philosophy of technology and in engineering proper. In this paper, I present an approach—dubbed an explanationist perspective—for assessing the adequacy of function-based design methods. Engineering design is often intertwined with explanation, for instance, in reverse engineering and subsequent redesign, knowledge base-assisted designing, and diagnostic reasoning. I argue that the presented approach (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. David Lewis (2001). Truthmaking and Difference-Making. Noûs 35 (4):602–615.score: 84.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Pamela Hieronymi (2011). Making a Difference. Social Theory and Practice 37 (1):81-94.score: 84.0
    I suggest that Fischer concedes too much to the consequence argument when he grants that we may not make a difference. I provide a broad sketch of (my take on) the dispute between compatibilists and incompatibilists, while suggesting that some of the discussion may have confused the freedom required for moral responsibility with a very different notion of autonomy. I introduce that less usual notion of autonomy and suggest that those who are autonomous, in this sense, do make a difference.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Boris Kment (2010). Causation: Determination and Difference-Making. Noûs 44 (1):80-111.score: 84.0
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. James Woodward (2011). Mechanisms Revisited. Synthese 183 (3):409-427.score: 84.0
    This paper defends an interventionist treatment of mechanisms and contrasts this with Waskan (forthcoming). Interventionism embodies a difference-making conception of causation. I contrast such conceptions with geometrical/mechanical or “actualist” conceptions, associating Waskan’s proposals with the latter. It is argued that geometrical/mechanical conceptions of causation cannot replace difference-making conceptions in characterizing the behavior of mechanisms, but that some of the intuitions behind the geometrical/mechanical approach can be captured by thinking in terms of spatio-temporally organized difference-making information.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. George Darby & Jon Williamson (2011). Imaging Technology and the Philosophy of Causality. Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):115-136.score: 84.0
    Russo and Williamson (Int Stud Philos Sci 21(2):157–170, 2007) put forward the thesis that, at least in the health sciences, to establish the claim that C is a cause of E, one normally needs evidence of an underlying mechanism linking C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This epistemological thesis poses a problem for most current analyses of causality which, in virtue of analysing causality in terms of just one of mechanisms or difference (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Juan Comesaña & Carolina Sartorio (2014). Difference‐Making in Epistemology. Noûs 48 (2):368-387.score: 84.0
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Christian List & Peter Menzies, My Brain Made Me Do It: The Exclusion Argument Against Free Will, and What’s Wrong with It.score: 84.0
    In this short paper, we offer a critical assessment of the "exclusion argument against free will". While the exclusion argument has received much attention in the literature on mental causation, it is seldom discussed in relation to free will. However, in a more informal way, the argument has become increasingly influential in neuroscientific discussions of free will, where it plausibly underlies the view that advances in neuroscience, with its mechanistic picture of how the brain generates thought and behaviour, seriously challenge (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Angela M. Smith (2006). Making a Difference, Making a Statement and Making Conversation. Philosophical Books 47 (3):213-221.score: 84.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Robert Northcott (2009). Is Actual Difference Making Robert Northcott Actually Different? Journal of Philosophy 106 (11).score: 84.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Jon Williamson (2011). Imaging Technology and the Philosophy of Causality. Philosophy and Technology 24 (2):115-136.score: 84.0
    Russo and Williamson (Int Stud Philos Sci 21(2):157–170, 2007) put forward the thesis that, at least in the health sciences, to establish the claim that C is a cause of E, one normally needs evidence of an underlying mechanism linking C and E as well as evidence that C makes a difference to E. This epistemological thesis poses a problem for most current analyses of causality which, in virtue of analysing causality in terms of just one of mechanisms or difference (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Robert Northcott (2009). Is Actual Difference Making Actually Different? Journal of Philosophy 106 (11):629-633.score: 84.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. D. J. Krieger (2011). Making a Difference. Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):33-34.score: 84.0
    Open peer commentary on the target article “From Objects to Processes: A Proposal to Rewrite Radical Constructivism” by Siegfried J. Schmidt. Upshot: The critique of Western metaphysics, the definition of the sign as an inseparable unity of signified and signifier, the insight that language is a form of life, the deconstruction of the subject, the banning of human beings from the social system, and the appearance of non-human actors have made the traditional distinctions between real/unreal, subject /object, society/nature, and thought/action (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Pietra Rivoli (2003). Making a Difference or Making a Statement? Finance Research and Socially Responsible Investment. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (3):271-287.score: 84.0
    What does socially responsible investing (SRI) accomplish for investors and for society? Proponents of SRI claim that the practiceyields competitive portfolio returns for investors, while at the same time achieving better outcomes for society at large. Skepticsview SRI as ineffective at best and ill-conceived marketing hype at worst. My objective in this paper is to apply mainstream finance research findings to the question of whether SRI may be expected to lead to superior social outcomes. I conclude that under the perfectmarkets (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Max Kistler, Interventionism, Epiphenomenalism, and Difference-Making.score: 84.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Frank Veltman (2005). Making Counterfactual Assumptions. Journal of Semantics 22 (2):159-180.score: 78.0
    This paper provides an update semantics for counterfactual conditionals. It does so by giving a dynamic twist to the ‘Premise Semantics’ for counterfactuals developed in Veltman (1976) and Kratzer (1981). It also offers an alternative solution to the problems with naive Premise Semantics discussed by Angelika Kratzer in ‘Lumps of Thought’ (Kratzer, 1989). Such an alternative is called for given the triviality results presented in Kanazawa et al. (2005, this issue).
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Gill Valentine (1997). Making Space: Separatism and Difference. In John Paul Jones, Heidi J. Nast & Susan M. Roberts (eds.), Thresholds in Feminist Geography: Difference, Methodology, and Representation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 65--76.score: 78.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. D. Galinsky Adam, A. Liljenquist Katie, L. Kray Laura & J. Roese Neal (2005). Finding Meaning From Mutability: Making Sense and Deriving Significance Through Counterfactual Thinking. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge.score: 78.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. A. D. Galinsky, K. A. Liljenquist, L. J. Kray & N. R. Roese (2005). Finding Meaning From Mutability: Making Sense and Deriving Meaning From Counterfactual Thinking. In David R. Mandel, Denis J. Hilton & Patrizia Catellani (eds.), The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Routledge.score: 78.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Jeppe Sinding Jensen (2008). On How Making Differences Makes a Difference. In Jonathan Z. Smith, Willi Braun & Russell T. McCutcheon (eds.), Introducing Religion: Essays in Honor of Jonathan Z. Smith. Equinox Pub..score: 76.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Thomas A. Regelski (2005). Music and Music Education: Theory and Praxis for 'Making a Difference'. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37 (1):7–27.score: 72.0
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Peter Lipton (1993). Making a Difference. Philosophica 51.score: 72.0
    An effect is typically explained by citing a cause, but not any cause will do. The oxygen and the spark were both causes of the fire, but normally only the spark explains it. What then distinguishes explanatory from unexplanatory causes? One might attempt to characterise this distinction in terms of intrinsic features of the causes. For example, some causes are changes while others are standing conditions, and one might claim that only the changes explain. Both the spark and the oxygen (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. C. Delany (2008). Making a Difference: Incorporating Theories of Autonomy Into Models of Informed Consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):e3-e3.score: 72.0
  46. Steven Dellaportas (2006). Making a Difference with a Discrete Course on Accounting Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 65 (4):391 - 404.score: 72.0
    Calls for the expansion of ethics education in the business and accounting curricula have resulted in a variety of interventions including additional material on ethical cases, the code of conduct, and the development of new courses devoted to ethical development [Lampe, J.: 1996]. The issue of whether ethics should be taught has been addressed by many authors [see for example: Hanson, K. O.: 1987; Huss, H. F. and D. M. Patterson: 1993; Jones, T. M.: 1988–1989; Kerr, D. S. and L. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. William B. Starr, On Making Counterfactual Assumptions: Veltman (2005) and Beyond.score: 72.0
    (1) a. Invariably, if it is raining, Jones wears his hat b. If it is not raining, Jones wears his hat at random c. Today, it is raining and so Jones is wearing his hat d. But, even if it had not been raining, Jones would have been wearing his hat..
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Sarah Schwarzkopf, Leonhard Schilbach, Kai Vogeley & Bert Timmermans (2014). “Making It Explicit” Makes a Difference: Evidence for a Dissociation of Spontaneous and Intentional Level 1 Perspective Taking in High-Functioning Autism. Cognition 131 (3):345-354.score: 72.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Timothy D. Amos (2013). Embodying Difference: The Making of Burakumin in Modern Japan. Philosophy East and West 63 (2).score: 72.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Malcolm Coulthard (2011). Making a Difference: Critical Linguistic Analysis in a Legal Context. Pragmatics and Society 2 (2):171-186.score: 72.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000