Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (1 other version)Reasoning from Imagery and Analogy in Scientific Concept Formation.Nancy J. Nersessian - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:41 - 47.
    Concept formation in science is a reasoned process, commensurate with ordinary problem-solving processes. An account of how analogical reasoning and reasoning from imagistic representations generate new scientific concepts is presented. The account derives from case studies of concept formation in science and from computational theories of analogical problem solving in cognitive science. Concept formation by analogy is seen to be a process of increasing abstraction from existing conceptual structures.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • (1 other version)Bas C. Van Fraassen: Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective,. [REVIEW]Ronald N. Giere - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (1):101-111.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • (2 other versions)Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description.Bertrand Russell - 1911 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11:108--28.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   400 citations  
  • Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.Jan Faye - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    As the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory in the history of science. It enables physicists, chemists, and technicians to calculate and predict the outcome of a vast number of experiments and to create new and advanced technology based on the insight into the behavior of atomic objects. But it is also a theory that challenges our imagination. It seems to violate some fundamental principles of classical physics, principles that eventually have become a part (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   66 citations  
  • What is structural empiricism? Scientific change in an empiricist setting.Otávio Bueno - 1999 - Erkenntnis 50 (1):55-81.
    In this paper a constructive empiricist account of scientific change is put forward. Based on da Costa's and French's partial structures approach, two notions of empirical adequacy are initially advanced (with particular emphasis on the introduction of degrees of empirical adequacy). Using these notions, it is shown how both the informativeness and the empirical adequacy requirements of an empiricist theory of scientific change can then be met. Finally, some philosophical consequences with regard to the role of structures in this context (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   48 citations  
  • (1 other version)Proper names.John R. Searle - 1958 - Mind 67 (266):166-173.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   228 citations  
  • (3 other versions)Précis of Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (4):921-928.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   414 citations  
  • What is structural realism?James Ladyman - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29 (3):409-424.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   441 citations  
  • A case for scientific realism.Ernan McMullin - 1984 - In Jarrett Leplin (ed.), Scientific Realism. University of California Press. pp. 8--40.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   96 citations  
  • Essay review-Bas C. Van Fraassen: Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. [REVIEW]Ronald N. Giere - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (1):101.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.Dedre Gentner - 1983 - Cognitive Science 7 (2):155-170.
    A theory of analogy must describe how the meaning of an analogy is derived from the meanings of its parts. In the structure‐mapping theory, the interpretation rules are characterized as implicit rules for mapping knowledge about a base domain into a target domain. Two important features of the theory are (a) the rules depend only on syntactic properties of the knowledge representation, and not on the specific content of the domains; and (b) the theoretical framework allows analogies to be distinguished (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   538 citations  
  • Mach and atomism.Stephen G. Brush - 1968 - Synthese 18 (2-3):192 - 215.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • (1 other version)Essay Review: Scientific Representation and Empiricist Structuralism*Bas C. van Fraassen, Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 408 pp., $50.00. [REVIEW]Ronald N. Giere - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (1):101-111.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • (2 other versions)The Science of Mechanics. [REVIEW]Ernst Mach - 1893 - Ancient Philosophy (Misc) 4:152.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   114 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Empirical Stance.Bas C. Van Fraassen - 2002 - New York: Yale University Press.
    What is empiricism and what could it be? Bas . van Fraassen, one of the world’s foremost contributors to philosophical logic and the philosophy of science, here undertakes a fresh consideration of these questions and offers a program for renewal of the empiricist tradition. The empiricist tradition is not and could not be defined by common doctrines, but embodies a certain stance in philosophy, van Fraassen says. This stance is displayed first of all in a searing, recurrent critique of metaphysics, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   265 citations  
  • The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science.Nancy J. Nersessian - 2002 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen P. Stich & Michael Siegal (eds.), The Cognitive Basis of Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 133--153.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations