How should we describe scientific change? or : a neo-Popperian reads Friedman

In Michael Friedman, Mary Domski & Michael Dickson (eds.), Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. Open Court (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,497

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

Similar books and articles

Theory change, structural realism, and the relativised a priori.Dan McArthur - 2008 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (1):5 – 20.
The Challenge of Scientific Revolutions: Van Fraassen's and Friedman's Responses.Vasso Kindi - 2011 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4):327-349.
Friedman’s Relativised A Priori and Structural Realism: In Search of Compatibility.Milena Ivanova - 2011 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (1):23-37.
A plea for Popperian significance testing.Zeno G. Swijtink - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):220-221.
Evolution and continuity in scientific change.Dudley Shapere - 1989 - Philosophy of Science 56 (3):419-437.
Multivariate Models of Scientific Change.Miriam Solomon - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:287 - 297.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-09-15

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Noretta Koertge
Indiana University, Bloomington

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references