Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. To Envision a New Particle or Change an Existing Law? Hypothesis Formation and Anomaly Resolution for the Curious Case of the Β Decay Spectrum.Tjerk Gauderis - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 45:27-45.
    This paper addresses the question of how scientists determine which type of hypothesis is most suitable for tackling a particular problem by examining the historical case of the anomalous β spectrum in early nuclear physics, a puzzle that occasioned the most diverse hypotheses amongst physicists at the time. It is shown that such determinations are most often implicitly informed by scientists' individual perspectives on the structural relations between the various elements of the theory and the problem at hand. In addition (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • How to Endorse Conciliationism.Will Fleisher - forthcoming - Synthese:1-27.
    I argue that recognizing a distinct doxastic attitude called endorsement, along with the epistemic norms governing it, solves the self-undermining problem for conciliationism about disagreement. I provide a novel account of how the self-undermining problem works by pointing out the auxiliary assumptions the objection relies on. These assumptions include commitment to certain epistemic principles linking belief in a theory to following prescriptions of that theory. I then argue that we have independent reason to recognize the attitude of endorsement. Endorsement is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Introduction: Cognitive Attitudes and Values in Science.Daniel J. McKaughan & Kevin C. Elliott - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 53:57-61.
  • Rational Endorsement.Will Fleisher - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (10):2649-2675.
    It is valuable for inquiry to have researchers who are committed advocates of their own theories. However, in light of pervasive disagreement, such a commitment is not well explained by the idea that researchers believe their theories. Instead, this commitment, the rational attitude to take toward one’s favored theory during the course of inquiry, is what I call endorsement. Endorsement is a doxastic attitude, but one which is governed by a different type of epistemic rationality. This inclusive epistemic rationality is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Of Water Drops and Atomic Nuclei: Analogies and Pursuit Worthiness in Science.Rune Nyrup - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
  • Scientific Pluralism and Inconsistency Toleration.Dunja Šešelja - 2017 - Humana Mente 10 (32):1-29.
    In this paper I examine the problem of inconsistency toleration in the context of scientific pluralism. I argue that, first of all, the notion of inconsistency toleration has to be qualified with respect to the evaluative attitude that one takes towards a given scientific theory or theories. Second, I show which types of inconsistency toleration are compatible with two major approaches to scientific pluralism, the so-called modest and the radical one. In view of this I suggest some points of demarcation (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • String Theory, Non-Empirical Theory Assessment, and the Context of Pursuit.Frank Cabrera - 2018 - Synthese:1-29.
    In this paper, I offer an analysis of the radical disagreement over the adequacy of string theory. The prominence of string theory despite its notorious lack of empirical support is sometimes explained as a troubling case of science gone awry, driven largely by sociological mechanisms such as groupthink (e.g. Smolin 2006). Others, such as Dawid (2013), explain the controversy by positing a methodological revolution of sorts, according to which string theorists have quietly turned to nonempirical methods of theory assessment given (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Rationality of Scientific Reasoning in the Context of Pursuit: Drawing Appropriate Distinctions.Dunja Seselja, Laszlo Kosolosky & Christian Strasser - 2012 - Philosophica 86:51-82.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A Pursuit Worthiness Account of Analogies in Science.Rune Nyrup - unknown
    Analogies often provide reasons for pursuing hypotheses or models. This is illustrated with a case study on the liquid drop model of the atomic nucleus. I criticise accounts in which analogies provide reasons for pursuit through epistemic support, proposing instead that analogies increase the value of learning the truth. I consider two accounts of this type: first, that analogies indicate potentials for theoretical unification; second, that analogies facilitate the transfer of already well-understood modelling frameworks to new domains. While the first (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Strategies in Abduction: Generating and Selecting Diagnostic Hypotheses.Donald E. Stanley & Rune Nyrup - 2020 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 45 (2):159-178.
    We distinguish three aspects of medical diagnosis: generating new diagnostic hypotheses, selecting hypotheses for further pursuit, and evaluating their probability in light of the available evidence. Drawing on Peirce’s account of abduction, we argue that hypothesis generation is amenable to normative analysis: physicians need to make good decisions about when and how to generate new diagnostic hypothesis as well as when to stop. The intertwining relationship between the generation and selection of diagnostic hypotheses is illustrated through the analysis of a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Inference to the Best Explanation, Coherence and Other Explanatory Virtues.Adolfas Mackonis - 2013 - Synthese 190 (6):975-995.
    This article generalizes the explanationist account of inference to the best explanation. It draws a clear distinction between IBE and abduction and presents abduction as the first step of IBE. The second step amounts to the evaluation of explanatory power, which consist in the degree of explanatory virtues that a hypothesis exhibits. Moreover, even though coherence is the most often cited explanatory virtue, on pain of circularity, it should not be treated as one of the explanatory virtues. Rather, coherence should (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • “Theoric Transformations” and a New Classification of Abductive Inferences. Hoffmann - 2010 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46 (4):570.
    Among the many problems posed by Peirce's concept of abduction is how to determine the scope of this form of inference, and how to distinguish different types of abduction. This problem can be illustrated by taking a look at one of his best known definitions of the term:Abduction is the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It is the only logical operation which introduces any new idea; for induction does nothing but determine a value, and deduction merely evolves the necessary (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Epistemological Depth in a GM Crops Controversy.Daniel Hicks - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 50:1-12.
    This paper examines the scientific controversy over the yields of genetically modified [GM] crops as a case study in epistemologically deep disagreements. Appeals to “the evidence” are inadequate to resolve such disagreements; not because the interlocutors have radically different metaphysical views (as in cases of incommensurability), but instead because they assume rival epistemological frameworks and so have incompatible views about what kinds of research methods and claims count as evidence. Specifically, I show that, in the yield debate, proponents and opponents (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations