Response to Shankman

Philosophy of the Social Sciences 48 (5):501-504 (2018)


This response to Shankman’s 2018 concedes some points, corrects others, and emphasizes the importance of error to the progress of science.

Download options


    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,856

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

12 (#817,014)

6 months
1 (#386,040)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Out of Error: Further Essays on Critical Rationalism.David Miller - 2009 - In Zuzana Parusniková & R. S. Cohen (eds.), Rethinking Popper. Springer. pp. 417--423.
Mead and the Trajectory of Anthropology in the United States.Ian Jarvie - 2017 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 47 (4-5):359-369.
The Mead–Freeman Controversy Continues: A Reply to Ian Jarvie.Paul Shankman - 2018 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 48 (3):309-332.

Add more references

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Comment On Shankman.Leon Holmes - 2001 - Catholic Social Science Review 6:147-149.
Book Review: In Search of the Classic. [REVIEW]Steven Shankman - 1996 - Philosophy and Literature 20 (1).
Who, Exactly, is the Other ?: Western and Transcultural Perspectives: A Collection of Essays.Steven Shankman & Massimo Lollini (eds.) - 2002 - University of Oregon Books/University of Oregon Humanities Center.