Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. There is No Such Thing as a Social Science: In Defence of Peter Winch.Phil Hutchinson, Rupert Read & Wes Sharrock - 2008 - Aldershot, UK & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
    The death of Peter Winch in 1997 sparked a revived interest in his work with this book arguing his work suffered misrepresentation in both recent literature and in contemporary critiques of his writing. Debates in philosophy and sociology about foundational questions of social ontology and methodology often claim to have adequately incorporated and moved beyond Winch's concerns. Re-establishing a Winchian voice, the authors examine how such contentions involve a failure to understand central themes in Winch's writings and that the issues (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Wittgenstein among the sciences: Wittgensteinian investigations into the "scientific method".Rupert J. Read - 2011 - Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Edited by Simon Summers.
    Engaging with the question of the extent to which the so-called human, economic or social sciences are actually sciences, this book moves away from the search for a criterion or definition that will allow us to sharply distinguish the scientific from the non-scientific. Instead, the book favours the pursuit of clarity with regard to the various enterprises undertaken by human beings, with a view to dissolving the felt need for such a demarcation. In other words, Read pursues a ‘therapeutic’ approach (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • On Reinstating “Part I” and “Part II” to Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.Hugh A. Knott - 2017 - Philosophical Investigations 40 (4):329-349.
    The Editors’ Preface to the fourth edition of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is disparaging of the earlier editorial efforts of G. E. M. Anscombe and Rush Rhees and in particular of their inclusion and titling of the material in “Part II”. I argue, on both historical and philosophical grounds, that the Editors have failed to refute the editorial decisions of Rhees and Anscombe – a failure born both of a neglect of the historical circumstances and Wittgenstein's own expressed hopes and intentions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations