In Henk W. de Regt (ed.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. Springer. pp. 329--340 (2010)

Authors
Juha Saatsi
University of Leeds
Abstract
This paper discusses three shortcomings of the current state of the debate regarding historical evidence against scientific realism. Attending to these issues will direct the debate away from over-generalising wholesale arguments.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2012
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,979
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Explaining the Brain.Carl F. Craver - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
A Confutation of Convergent Realism.Larry Laudan - 1981 - Philosophy of Science 48 (1):19-49.
Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.William Bechtel - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Biol and Biomed Sci 36 (2):421--441.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Replacing Recipe Realism.Juha Saatsi - 2017 - Synthese 194 (9):3233-3244.
Explanation and Explanationism in Science and Metaphysics.Juha Saatsi - forthcoming - In Matthew Slater & Zanja Yudell (eds.), Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science: New Essays. Oxford University Press.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-03-31

Total views
136 ( #85,716 of 2,504,870 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,030 of 2,504,870 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes