Greece

Abstract

1. I have argued in my (1999, chapter 4) that the no-miracles argument (NMA) should be seen as a grand IBE. The way I read it, NMA is a philosophical argument which aims to defend the reliability of scientific methodology in producing approximately true theories. More specifically, I took it that NMA is a two-part (or two-stage) argument. Here is its structure.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

No new miracles, same old tricks.Jacob Busch - 2008 - Theoria 74 (2):102-114.
Why the ultimate argument for scientific realism ultimately fails.Moti Mizrahi - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):132-138.
Levin and Ghins on the “no miracle” argument and naturalism.Mario Alai - 2012 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2 (1):85-110.
The Scope and Limits of the No Miracles Argument1.Stathis Psillos - 2011 - In Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao Gonzalo, Thomas Uebel, Stephan Hartmann & Marcel Weber (eds.), Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation. Springer. pp. 23--35.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-04-16

Downloads
32 (#485,568)

6 months
2 (#1,263,261)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stathis Psillos
University of Athens

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references