23andMe. 2018. “DNA Reports List.” Online www.23andme.com/dna-reports-list/. Accessed date: September 3, 2019.Google Scholar

Achinstein, P. 1993. “How to Defend a Theory without Testing It: Niels Bohr and the ‘Logic of Pursuit’.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13: 90–120.Google Scholar

Agassi, J. 2014. Popper and His Popular Critics: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Ambrosio, C. 2015. “Objectivity and Representative Practices across Artistic and Scientific Visualisation.” In Visualisation in the Age of Computerisation, Carusi, A., Hoel, A., Webmoor, T., and Woolgar, S. (eds.), New York: Routledge, 118–144.Google Scholar

Anderson, E. 1995. “Knowledge, Human Interests, and Objectivity in Feminist Epistemology.” Philosophical Topics 23: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristotle, and Halliwell, S. 1987. The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Bailin, S. 1990. “Creativity, Discovery, and Science Education: Kuhn and Feyerabend Revisited.” Interchange 21(3): 34–44.Google Scholar

Barseghyan, H. 2015. The Laws of Scientific Change. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Barseghyan, H. 2018. “Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.” Scientonomy 2: 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barseghyan, H. and Mirkin, M. 2019. “The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change.” In Héder, M. and Nádasi, E. (eds.), Essays in Post-Critical Philosophy of Technology. Wilmington: Vernon Press, 5–17.Google Scholar

Barseghyan, H. and Shaw, J. 2017. “How Can a Taxonomy of Stances Help Clarify Classical Debates on Scientific Change?” Philosophies 2(4): 24.Google Scholar

Becker-Klein, R., Peterman, K., and Stylinski, C. 2016. “Embedded Assessment as an Essential Method for Understanding Public Engagement in Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(1): 1–6.Google Scholar

Bell, J. 1964. “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” Physics 1(3): 195–290.Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. 2011. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Betz, G. 2013. “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3(2): 207–220.Google Scholar

Biagioli, M. 1993. Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Biagioli., M. 2006. Galileo’s Instruments of Credit: Telescopes, Images, Secrecy. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bickle, J. 1998. Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Biological Conservation Newsletter. 2015. “Rare Rusty-Patched Bumblebee Discovered in Virginia Survey.” Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, 361. Retrieved from https://insider.si.edu/2014/10/rusty-patched-bumble-bee-discovered-smithsonian-researchers-find-rare-bee-thought-headed-extinction/. Last date accessed: November 18, 2020.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Boghossian, P. 2011. “Three Kinds of Relativism.” In A Companion to Relativism, Hales, S. D. (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohm, D. 1952. “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables. I.” Physical Review 85(2): 166–179, 180–193.Google Scholar

Bohm, D. 1953. “Proof That Probability Density Approaches |ψ|² in Causal Interpretation of the Quantum Theory.” Physical Review 89(2): 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohm, D. 1957a. “A Proposed Explanation of Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables at a Sub-Quantum-Mechanical Level.” In Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists, Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society, Körner, S. and Pryce, M. (eds.), London and New York: Butterworths Scientific Publications, 33–40.Google Scholar

Bohm, D. 1957b. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Bohm, D. and Vigier, J.. 1954. “Model of the Causal Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Terms of a Fluid with Irregular Fluctuations.” Physical Review 96(1): 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohm, D. and Aharonov, Y.. 1957. “Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky.” Physical Review 108(4): 1070–1076.Google Scholar

Bohman, J. 1999. “Democracy as Inquiry, Inquiry as Democratic: Pragmatism, Social Science, and the Cognitive Division of Labour.” American Journal of Political Science 43(2): 590–607.Google Scholar

Bois, S., SilanderJr., J. , and Mehrhoff, L. 2011. “Invasive Plant Atlas of New England: the Role of Citizens in the Science of Invasive Alien Species Detection.” BioScience 61(10): 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonney, R., Shirk, J., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., and Ballard, H. 2014. “Next Steps for Citizen Science.” Science 343: 1436–1437.Google Scholar

Brahe, T. 1598/1946. Tycho Brahe’s Description of His Instruments and Scientific Work as given in Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica, Ræder, H., Strömgren, E., and Strömgren, B. (eds.) (trans.), København: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.Google Scholar

Brannigan, A. 1981. The Social Basis of Scientific Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bray, G. and SchrammJr., H. 2001. “Evaluation of Statewide Volunteer Angler Diary Programme for Use of a Fishery Assessment Tool.” North American Journal of Fishing Management 21: 606–615.Google Scholar

Brentano, M. 1991. “Letter to an Anti-Liberal Liberal.” In Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munévar, G. (ed.), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 199–212.Google Scholar

Bright, L. 2018. “Du Bois’ Democratic Defence of the Value Free Ideal.” Synthese 195(5): 2227–2245.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 2001. Who Rules in Science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 2002. “Funding, Objectivity and the Socialization of Medical Research.” Science and Engineering Ethics 8(3): 295–308.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 2008a. “Politics, Method, and Medical Research.” Philosophy of Science 75(5): 756–766.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 2008b. “The Community of Science.” In The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, Carrier, Martin, Howard, Don, and Kourany, Janet A. (eds.), Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 189–216.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 2016. “Patents and Progress.” Perspectives on Science 24(5): 505–528.Google Scholar

Brown, M. B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brown, M. J. 2009. “Models and Perspectives on Stage: Remarks on Giere’s Scientific Perspectivism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A) 40: 213–220.Google Scholar

Brown, M. J. 2013. “The Democratic Control of the Scientific Control of Democracy.” In EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science, Karakostas, V. and Dieks, D. (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, 479–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, M. J. 2016. “The Abundant World: Paul Feyerabend’s Metaphysics of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 142–154.Google Scholar

Brown, M. J. 2020. Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Brown, M. J. and Kidd, I. J. 2016. “Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bschir, K. 2015. “Feyerabend and Popper on Theory Proliferation and Anomaly Import: On the Compatibility of Theoretical Pluralism and Critical Rationalism.” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 5(1): 24–55.Google Scholar

Bunge, M. (ed.) 1967. Quantum Theory and Reality: Studies in the Foundations, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Burian, R. 1971. Scientific Realism, Commensurability, and Conceptual Change: A Critique of Paul Feyerabend’s Philosophy of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

Busch, A. 2013. The Incidental Steward: Reflections on Citizen Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Cariaso, M and Lennon, G.. 2012. “SNPedia: a Wiki Supporting Personal Genome Annotation, Interpretation, and Analysis.” Nucleic Acids Research 40: D1308–D1312.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1935. Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1950. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4(11): 20–40.Google Scholar

Carter, B. 1971. “Causal Structure in Spacetime.” General Relativity and Gravitation 1: 349–391.Google Scholar

Case, N., MacDonald, E. A., McCloat, S., Lalone, N. and Tapia, A. 2016. “Determining the Accuracy of Crowdsourced Tweet Verification for Auroral Research.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(2): 1–9.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 1995. “Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 2(3): 200–219.Google Scholar

Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H₂O?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Chang, H. 2016. “Pragmatic Realism.” Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso 4(2): 107–122.Google Scholar

Chang, H. 2018. “Is Pluralism Compatible with Scientific Realism?” In The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, Saatsi, J. (ed.), Abingdon: Routledge, 176–186.Google Scholar

Chapman, A. 1989. “Tycho Brahe – Instrument Designer, Observer and Mechanician.” Journal of the British Astronomical Association 99(2): 70–77.Google Scholar

Christianson, J. 2000. On Tycho’s Island: Tycho Brahe and His Assistants, 1570–1601. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. M. 1981. “Eliminative Materialism and Propositional Attitudes.” The Journal of Philosophy 78(2): 67–90.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. M. 1992. “A Deeper Unity: Some Feyerabendian Themes in Neurocomputational Form.” In Connectionism: Theory and Practice, Davis, S. (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 30–68.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. M. 1997. “To Transform the Phenomena: Feyerabend, Proliferation, and Recurrent Neural Networks.” Philosophy of Science 64: S408–S420.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. S. 1988. “The Significance of Neuroscience for Philosophy.” Trends in Neurosciences 11(7): 304–307.Google Scholar

Churchland, P. S. 2002. Brain-Wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clark, S. 2002. “Feyerabend’s Conquest of Abundance.” Inquiry 45(2): 249–267.Google Scholar

Clarke, C. 1976. “Space-Time Singularities.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 49: 17–23.Google Scholar

Clarke, C. 1993. The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cohn, J. 2008. “Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research?.” BioScience 58(3): 192–197.Google Scholar

Collodel, M. 2016. “Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological Issues in the History of the Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 27–56.Google Scholar

Copernicus, N. 1543/1995. On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres. Amherst NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Couvalis, G. 1987. “Feyerabend’s Epistemology and Brecht’s Theory of the Drama.” Philosophy and Literature 11(1): 117–123.Google Scholar

Couvalis, G. 1989. Feyerabend’s Critique of Foundationalism. Aldershot UK: Avebury.Google Scholar

Crombie, A. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition: The History of Argument and Explanation Especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Curiel, E. 2017. “A Primer on Energy Conditions.” In Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories, Lehmkuhl, D., Schiemann, G., and Scholz, E. (eds.), Boston: Birkhäuser, 43–104.Google Scholar

Curran, A. 2001. “Brecht’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Aesthetics of Tragedy.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59(2): 167–184.Google Scholar

Danto, A. 1986. Philosophy and the Disenfranchisement of Art. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Danto, A. 1997. After the End of Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Daston, L. 2008. “On Scientific Observation.” ISIS, 99(1): 97–110.Google Scholar

Dawson, G., Lintott, C. and Shuttleworth, S. 2015. “Constructing Scientific Communities: Citizen Science in the Nineteenth and Twenty-First Centuries”. Journal of Victorian Culture 20(2): 246–254.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. 2006. “Two Steps Closer on Consciousness.” In Paul Churchland, Keeley, B. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 193–210.Google Scholar

Dennhardt, A., Duerr, A., Brandes, D. and Katzner, T. 2015. “Integrating Citizen-Science Data with Movement Models to Estimate the Size of a Migratory Golden Eagle Population”. Biological Conservation 184: 68–78.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

Dickinson, J. and Bonney, R.. 2012. Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing.Google Scholar

Disch, L. 1996. Hannah Arendt and the Limits of Philosophy: With a New Preface. Ithaca: Cornell Press.Google Scholar

Douglas, H. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67(4): 559–79.Google Scholar

Douglas, H. 2005. “Inserting the Public into Science.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, 153–169.Google Scholar

Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal, Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Duhem, P. 1914/1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Dupré, J. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations for the Disunity of Science. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J. 1995. Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Earman, J., Wüthrich, C., and Manchak, J. 2016. “Time Machines.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. (ed.), eBird. 2018. “About eBird”. Retrieved online https://ebird.org/about.Google Scholar

Edenhofer, O. and Kowarsch, M.. 2015. “Cartography of Pathways: A New Model for Environmental Policy Assessments.” Environmental Science & Policy 51: 56–64.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. 1934. “On the Method of Theoretical Physics.” Philosophy of Science 1: 163–169.Google Scholar

Eitzel, M., Cappadonna, J., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R., Virapongse, A., West, S., Kyba, C., Bowser, A., Cooper, C., Sforzi, A., Metcalf, A, Harris, E., Theil, M., Haklay, M., Ponciano, L., Ceccaroni, L., Shilling, F., Dorler, D., Heigle, F. Kiessling, T. , Davis, B. and Jiang, Q. 2017. “Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2(1): 1–20.Google Scholar

Elliott, K. 2012. “Epistemic and Methodological Iteration in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43: 376–382.Google Scholar

Elliott, K. and Rosenberg, J.. 2019. “Philosophical Foundations for Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4(1): 9.Google Scholar

Ellwood, E., Bart, Jr., H. , Doosey, M., Jue, D., Mann, J., Nelson, G., Rios, N. and Mast, A. 2016. “Mapping Life – Quality Assessment of Novice vs. Expert Georeferencers.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(1): 1–12.Google Scholar

Elsner, J. 2006. “From Empirical Evidence to the Big Picture: Some Reflections on Riegl’s Concept of Kunstwollen.” Critical Inquiry 32(4): 741–766.Google Scholar

Emmerson, R. 2013. Key Figures in Medieval Europe, An Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Ens, E., Petina, P., Clarke, P., Budden, M., Clubb, L., Doran, B., Douras, C., Gaikwad, J., Gott, B., Leonard, S., Locke, J., Packer, J., Turpin, G. and Wason, S. 2015. “Indigenous Biocultural Knowledge in Ecosystem Science and Management: Review and Insight from Australia.” Biological Conservation 181: 133–149.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. 1996. Impure Science: Aids, activism and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Farrell, R. 2000. “Will the Popperian Feyerabend Please Step Forward: Pluralistic, Popperian Themes in the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14(3): 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrell, R. 2003. Feyerabend and Scientific Values: Tightrope-Walking Rationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Fehr, C. and Plaisance, K. 2010. “Socially Relevant Philosophy of Science: An Introduction.” Synthese 177(3): 301–316.Google Scholar

Feigl, H. 1950. “The Mind-Body Problem in the Development of Logical Empiricism.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 11: 64–83.Google Scholar

Feigl, H. 1968/1981. “The Wiener Kreis in America.” In Inquiries and Provocations, Cohen, R. (ed.), Dordrecht: Springer, 57–94.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1948/2016. “The Concept of Intelligibility in Modern Physics (1948).” Translated by Daniel Kuby and Eric Oberheim. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57: 64–66.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1951. “Zur Theorie der Basissätze.” Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorgrades an der philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Wien, Wien: Universität Wien.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1954a. “Determinismus und Quantenmechanik.” Wiener Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Psychologie, Pädagogik 5(2): 89–111.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1954b. “Physik und Ontologie.” Wissenschaft und Weltbild: Monatsschrift für alle Gebiete der Forschung 7(11/12): 464–480.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1954a/2015. “Determinism and Quantum Mechanics.” In Physics and Philosophy, Gattei, S. and Agassi, J. (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 25–45.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1954b/2015. “Physics and Ontology.” In Physics and Philosophy, Gattei, S. and Agassi, J. (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 9–24.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1955. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations.” The Philosophical Review 64(3), 449–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1956a. “A Note on the Paradox of Analysis.” Philosophical Studies 7(6): 92–96.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1956b. “Eine Bemerkung zum Neumannschen Beweis.” Zeitschrift für Physik 145(4): 421–423.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1957a. “On the Quantum-Theory of Measurement.” In Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists, Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society, Körner, S. and Pryce, M. (eds.), London and New York: Butterworths Scientific Pub, 121–130.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1957b. “Review of Foundations of Quantum-Mechanics: A Study in Continuity and Symmetry, Alfred Landé.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 7(28): 354–357.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1957c. “Zur Quantentheorie der Messung.” Zeitschrift für Physik 148(5): 551–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1958a. “Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, R. T. Beyer (Trans.), Princeton University Press: Princeton (NJ) 1955.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8(32): 343–347.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1958b. “Reichenbach’s Interpretation of Quantum-Mechanics.” Philosophical Studies 9(4): 49–59.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1958c. “Complementarity.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 32: 75–122.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1958/1981. “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience.” In Feyerabend, P., Philosophical Papers Volume 1: Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–36.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1960a. “On the Interpretation of Scientific Theories.” In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Philosophy, Venice, 12–18 September 1958, Logic, Theory of Knowledge, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language 5. Florence: Sansoni, 151–159.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1960b. “Professor Landé on the Reduction of the Wave Packet.” American Journal of Physics 28(5): 507.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1960c. “Professor Bohm’s Philosophy of Nature.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10(40): 321–338.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1960/1981. “On the Interpretation of Scientific Theories.” In Philosophical Papers Volume 1: Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Feyerabend, P. (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–43.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1961. “Niels Bohr’s Interpretation of the Quantum Theory.” In Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science: Symposia of Scientists and Philosophers, Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Proceedings of Section L of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 371–390.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1961/1981. “Knowledge Without Foundations.” In Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Feyerabend, P. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50–78.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1962a. “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism.” In Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), 3. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 28–97.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1962b. “Problems of Microphysics.” In Frontiers of Science and Philosophy, Colodny, R. (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science 1. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 189–283.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1963a. “Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem.” The Review of Metaphysics, 17(1): 49–66.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1963b. “Über konservative Züge in den Wissenschaften und insbesondere in der Quantentheorie und ihre Beseitigung.” Club Voltaire. Jahrbuch Für Kritische Aufklärung 1: 280–93.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1964. “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments of the Logic of Factual Support.” In The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy: In Honour of Karl R. Popper, Bunge, Mario (ed.), London and New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 280–308.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1964/1981. “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments on the Logic of Factual Support.” In Philosophical Papers Volume 1: Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Feyerabend, P. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 176–202.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1965a. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, Colodny, R. (ed.), 2. University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 145–260.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1965b. “Reply to Criticism: Comments on Smart, Sellars and Putnam.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol 2. New York: Humanities Press, 223–261.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1965/1981. “Reply to Criticism: Comments on Smart, Sellars, and Putnam.” In Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, Feyerabend, P. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104–131.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1966. “The Structure of Science.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17(3): 237–249.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1967a. “On the Improvement of the Sciences and the Arts, and the Possible Identity of the Two.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 3, Cohen, R. and Wartofsky, M. (eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel, 387–415.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1967b. “The Theatre as an Instrument of the Criticism of Ideologies: Notes on Ionesco.” Inquiry 10: 298–312.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1968a. “On a Recent Critique of Complementarity: Part I.” Philosophy of Science 35(4): 309–331.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1968b. “Science, Freedom, and the Good Life.” The Philosophical Forum 1(2): 127–135.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1968/1999. “Outline of a Pluralistic Theory of Knowledge and Action.” In Knowledge, Science and Relativism. Philosophical Papers Volume 3, Preston, J. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 104–111.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1969a. “Linguistic Arguments and Scientific Method.” Telos 3: 43–63.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1969b. “On a Recent Critique of Complementarity: Part II.” Philosophy of Science 36(1): 82–105.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1969c. “Science without Experience.” The Journal of Philosophy 66(22): 791–794.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1970a. “Consolations for the Specialist.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 197–230.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1970b. “Experts in a Free Society.” The Critic 29(2): 58–69.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1970c. “Problems of Empiricism, Part II.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, Colodny, R. (ed.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 275–353.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1970d. “Classical Empiricism.” In The Methodological Heritage of Newton, Butts, R. (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Press, 150–166.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1970e. “Philosophy of Science: A Subject with a Great Past.” Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science 5: 173–182.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1972. “On the Limited Validity of Methodological Rules.” In Philosophical Papers. Vol. 3, Knowledge, Science and Relativism, Preston, J. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138–180.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1973/1999. “Theses on Anarchism.” In For and Against Method, Motterlini, M. (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 113–118.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975a. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1st Edition). London: New Left Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975b. “Let’s Make More Movies.” In The Owl of Minerva: Philosophers on Philosophy, Bontempo, J. and Odell, S. (eds.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 201–210.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975c. “How to Defend Society Against Science.” Radical Philosophy 11: 3–8.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975d. “‘Science.’ The Myth and its Role in Society.” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 18(2): 167–181.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975/1988. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (2nd Edition). London: Verso Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975/1993. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (3rd Edition). London: Verso Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1975/2010. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (4th Edition). London: Verso.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1976. “On the Critique of Scientific Reason.” In Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800–1905, Howson, C. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 309–339.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1977. “Changing Patterns of Reconstruction.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 28: 351–369.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1978a. Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1978b. “From Incompetent Professionalism to Professionalized Incompetence–The Rise of a New Breed of Intellectuals.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 8(1): 37–53.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1981a. “Introduction to Volumes 1 and 2.” In Philosophical Papers Volume 1: Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Feyerabend, P. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ix–xiv.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1981b. “Introduction: Scientific Realism and Philosophical Realism.” In Philosophical Papers Volume 1: Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method, Feyerabend, P. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–16.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1981c. “Proliferation and Realism as Methodological Principles.” In Rationalism, Realism, and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Feyerabend, P. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–145.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1981d. “Review: More Clothes from the Emperor’s Bargain Basement.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32(1): 57–71.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1981e. “Historical Background: Some Observations on the Decay of the Philosophy of Science.” In Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2, Feyerabend, P., (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–33.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1984. Scienza Come Arte. Transl. Libero Sosio. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1987a. Farewell to Reason. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1987b. “Creativity: A Dangerous Myth.” Critical Inquiry 13(4): 700–711.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1988. “Knowledge and the Role of Theories”. Philosophy of the Social Science 18: 157–178.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1989/1999. “Realism and the Historicity of Knowledge.” In Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being, Feyerabend, P. and Terpstra, B. (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 131–146.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1991. “Concluding Unphilosophical Conversation.” In Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munevar, G. (ed.), London: Kluwer, 433–448.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1992. “Nature as a Work of Art.” Common Knowledge 1(3): 3–9.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1992/1999. “Historical Comments on Realism.” In Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being, Feyerabend, P. and Terpstra, B. (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 197–205.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1993. “Not a Philosopher.” In Falling in Love with Wisdom: American Philosophers Talk about Their Calling, Karnos, D. and Shoemaker, R. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16–17.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1994a. “Concerning an Appeal for Philosophy.” Common Knowledge 3: 10–13.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1994b. “Art as a Product of Nature as a Work of Art.” World Futures: Journal of General Evolution 40(1–3): 87–100.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1994/1999. “Realism.” In Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being, Feyerabend, P. and Terpstra, B. (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 178–196.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1995. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1995/1999. “What Reality?” In Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being, Feyerabend, P. and Terpstra, B. (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 206–216.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1996. “Theoreticians, Artists Artisans.” Leonardo 29(1): 23–28.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1999. Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 2011. The Tyranny of Science. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 2015. Philosophical Papers. Vol. 4, Physics and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 2016. Philosophy of Nature. Oberheim, E. and Heit, H. (eds.), Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 2020. Feyerabend’s Formative Years. Volume 1. Feyerabend and Popper: Correspondences and Unpublished Papers. Collodel, Matteo and Oberheim, Eric (eds.), Vienna Circle Institute Library. Vienna-Berlin-Münster: Springer.Google Scholar

Field, J. 2004. Piero Della Francesca, A Mathematician’s Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Field, J. 2016. “The Unhelpful Notion of Renaissance Man.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 25(2): 188–201.Google Scholar

Finocchiaro, M. 2001. “Science, Religion, and the Historiography of the Galileo Affair: On the Undesirability of Oversimplication.” Osiris 16: 114–132.Google Scholar

Fleck, L. 1935/1981. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Franklin, A. 1993. The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force: Discovery, Pursuit, and Justification in Modern Physics. New York: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar

Freitag, A., Meyer, R. and Whiteman, L. 2016. “Strategies Employed by Citizen Science Programs to Increase the Credibility of Their Data.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(1): 1–11.Google Scholar

Frensley, T., Crall, A., Stern, M., Jordan, R., Gray, S., Prysby, M., Newman, G., Hmelo-Silver, C., Mellor, D. and Huang, J. 2017. “Bridging the Benefits of Online and Community Supported Citizen Science: A Case Study on Motivation and Retention with Conservation-Oriented Volunteers.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2(1): 1–14.Google Scholar

Gade, J. A. 1947. The Life and Times of Tycho Brahe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Galaxy Zoo: Clump Scout. 2019. Zooniverse. Accessed Online on August 10, 2019. www.zooniverse.org/projects/hughdickinson/galaxy-zoo-clump-scoutGoogle Scholar

Galilei, G. 1632/2001. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar

Galison, P. and Stump, D. J. (eds.) 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Context, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Galloway, G. and Ling, E. 2017. “Some Remarks on the C°-(In)Extendibility of Spacetimes.” Annales Henri Poincaré 18: 3427–3447.Google Scholar

Geelan, D. 2001. “Feyerabend Revisited: Epistemological Anarchy and Disciplines Eclecticism in Educational Research.” Australian Educational Researcher 28(1): 129–146.Google Scholar

Genet, K. and Sargent, L. 2003. “Evaluation of Methods and Data Quality from a Volunteer-Based Amphibian Call Survey.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(3): 703–714.Google Scholar

Geroch, R. 1970. “Singularities.” In Relativity Carmeli, M., Fickler, S. and Witten, L. (eds.), New York: Plenum Press, 259–291.Google Scholar

Geroch, R. 1977. “Prediction in General Relativity.” In Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. VIII, Earman, J., Glymour, C. and Stachel, J. (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 81–93.Google Scholar

Geroch, R. and Horowitz, G. 1979. “Global Structure of Spacetimes.” In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, Hawking, S. and Israel, W. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 212–293.Google Scholar

Giere, R. 2006. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gillies, D. 2019. “Lakatos, Popper, and Feyerabend: Some Personal Reminiscences.” Dilemata 29: 93–108.Google Scholar

Gingerich, O. and Voelkel, J.. 1998. “Tycho Brahe’s Copernican Campaign.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 29 (1): 1–34.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, C. 1998. “Style as Inclusion, Style as Exclusion.” In Picturing Art, Producing Science, Galison, P. and Jones, C. (eds.), New York: Routledge, 27–54.Google Scholar

Glymour, C. 1977. “Indistinguishable Space-Times and the Fundamental Group.” In Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. VIII, Earman, J., Glymour, C. and Stachel, J. (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 50–60.Google Scholar

Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Golumbic, Y., Orr, D., Baram-Tsabari, A. and Fishbain, B. 2017. “Between Vision and Reality: A Study of Scientists’ Views on Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2(1): 1–13.Google Scholar

Gombrich, E. 1960/2002. Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon.Google Scholar

Gombrich, E. 1972. “The ‘What’ and the ‘How’: Perspective Representation and the Phenomenal World.” In Logic and Art: Essays in Honour of Nelson Goodman, Rudner, R and Scheffler, I. (eds.), Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 129–149.Google Scholar

Gombrich, E. 1975. The Sense of Order. London: Phaidon.Google Scholar

Gombrich, E. H. 1993. A Lifelong Interest. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar

Goodman, N. 1976. Languages of Art. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

Gutting, G. (ed.) 2005. Continental Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Haack, S. 2007. Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1982. “Language, Truth and Reason.” In Rationality and Relativism, Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Cambridge: MIT Press, 48–66.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1991. “Speculation, Calculation and the Creation of Phenomena.” In Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul K. Feyerabend, Munévar, G. (ed.), London: Kluwer, 131–158.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1992. “Style for the Historian and the Philosopher.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23(1): 1–20.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1996. “The Disunities of the Sciences.” In The Disunity of Science, Galison, P. and Stump, D. (eds.), Stanford: Stanford University Press, 37–74.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 2012. “‘Language, Truth and Reason’ Thirty Years Later.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43(4): 599–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halliwell, S. 1998. Aristotle’s Poetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. 2002. The Aesthetics of Mimesis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Havstad, J. and Brown, M. J.. 2017. “Inductive Risk, Deferred Decisions, and Climate Science Advising.” In Exploring Inductive Risk, Elliott, K. and Richards, T. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 101–123.Google Scholar

Hawking, S. 1969. “The Existence of Cosmic Time Functions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 308: 433–435.Google Scholar

Hawking, S. and Ellis, G. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought, Hofstadter, A. (ed.), New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Heidegger, M. 1977. The Question Concerning Technology (and other Essays). Lovitt, W. (trans.), New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Heilbron, J. 1992. “Creativity and Big Science.” Physics Today 45: 42–47.Google Scholar

Heller, L. 2016. “Between Relativism and Pluralism: Philosophical and Political Relativism in Feyerabend’s Late Work.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 96–105.Google Scholar

Hemingway, A. 2009. “E.H. Gombrich in 1968: Methodological Individualism and the Contradictions of Conservatism.” Human Affairs: A Postdisciplinary Journal for Humanities & Social Sciences 19(3): 297–303.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. 1950. “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Révue Internationale de Philosophie 4, 41–63.Google Scholar

Hempel, C., 1952. “Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science.” In Foundations of the Unity of Science, Volume 2, Neurath, O., Carnap, R., and Morris, C. (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 651–746.Google Scholar

Henderson, H. 1974. “Information and the New Movements for Citizen Participation.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 412: 34–43.Google Scholar

Henderson, S. 2012. “Citizen Science Comes of Age.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 283.Google Scholar

Hertz, H. 1894/1899. The Principles of Mechanics, Presented in a New Form, Jones, D. and Walley, J. (trans.), London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hirsh, E. 2016. “Three Degrees of Carnapian Tolerance.” In Ontology After Carnap, Blatti, S. and Lapointe, S. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–122.Google Scholar

Howard, D. 2004. “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’? A Study in Mythology.” Philosophy of Science 71(5): 669–682.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1987. “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18(4): 501–515.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. 2002. “Paul Feyerabend und Thomas Kuhn.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33(1): 61–83.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2006. “More Letters by Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kuhn on Proto-Structure.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(4): 610–32.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, Carr, D. (trans.), Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Invasive Plant Atlas of New England. 2018. “Distribution Maps”. Retrieved Online www.eddmaps.org/about. Last date accessed: November 18, 2020.Google Scholar

Ioannidis, J. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2(8): e124.Google Scholar

Iversen, M. 1993. Alois Riegl: Art History and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jackson, M., Gergel, S. and Martin, K. 2015. “Citizen Science and Field Survey Observations Provide Comparable Results for Mapping Vancouver Island White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus saxatilis) Distributions”. Biological Conservation 181: 162–172.Google Scholar

Jacobs, S. 2003. “Misunderstanding John Stuart Mill on Science: Paul Feyerabend’s Bad Influence.” The Social Science Journal 40(2): 201–212.Google Scholar

James, W. 1956. “The Will to Believe.” In The Will to Believe and Human Immortality, James, W. (ed.), New York: Dover Publications, 1–31.Google Scholar

James, W. 1907/1978. Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, R. 1956. “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 23(3): 237–246.Google Scholar

Jordan, R., Gray, S., Howe, D. and Brooks, W. 2011. “Knowledge Gain and Behavioural Change in Citizen-Science Programs.” Conservation Biology 25(6): 1148–1154.Google Scholar

Keegan, J. 1976. The Face of Battle. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar

Keeley, B. 2006. “Introduction: Becoming Paul M. Churchland (1942–).” In Paul Churchland, Keeley, B. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–32.Google Scholar

Kellert, S., Longino, H and Waters, K. 2006. Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Kelty, C. and Panofsky, A.. 2014. “Disentangling Public Participation in Science and Biomedicine.” Genome Medicine 6(8): 1–14.Google Scholar

Kepler, J. 1609/2004. Selections from Kepler’s Astronomia Nova: A Science Classics Module for Humanities Studies, selected, translated, and annotated by W. Donahue. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. (unpublished manuscript). “Reassessing Epistemological Dadaism: Feyerabend on Theory and Practice in Art and Science”. Available at: www.academia.edu/1665818/Reassessing_Epistemological_Dadaism_Feyerabend_on_Theory_and_Practice_in_Art_and_Science, last accessed August 16, 2018.Google Scholar

Kidd, I. J. 2010. Pluralism and the ‘Problem of Reality’ in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Durham thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2011a. “Objectivity, Abstraction, and the Individual: The Influence of Søren Kierkegaard on Paul Feyerabend.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42(1): 125–134.Google Scholar

Kidd, I. J. 2011b. “Rethinking Feyerabend: The ‘Worst Enemy of Science’?.” PLoS Biology 9(10).Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2012. “Feyerabend, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Ineffability of Reality.” Philosophia 40: 365–377.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2013a. “Feyerabend on Science and Education.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 47(3): 407–422.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2013b. “A Pluralist Challenge to ‘Integrative Medicine’: Feyerabend and Popper on the Cognitive Value of Alternative Medicine.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 44(3): 392–400.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2016a. “Why Did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science.” Social Epistemology 30(4): 464–482.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2016b. “Was Feyerabend a Postmodernist?” International Studies in Philosophy of Science 30(1): 1–14.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2016c. “’What’s So Great about Science?’ Feyerabend on Science, Ideology, and the Cold War.” In Science Studies During the Cold War and Beyond, Aronova, E. and Turchetti, S. (eds.), Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 55–76.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2016d. “Inevitability, Contingency, and Epistemic Humility.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 55: 12–19.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2017a. “Reawakening to Wonder: Wittgenstein and Feyerabend on Scientism.” In Wittgenstein on Scientism, Beale, J. and Kidd, I.J (eds.), London: Routledge, 101–115.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2017b. “Other Histories, Other Sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 61: 57–60.Google Scholar

Kidd, I.J. 2018. “Feyerabend, Pluralism, and Parapsychology.” Bulletin of the Parapsychology Association 10(1): 5–9.Google Scholar

Kim, J. 1998. “The Mind–Body Problem After Fifty Years.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 43: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitcher, P. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. 2019. “So … Who is Your Audience?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9(1): 1–15.Google Scholar

Kolok, A., Schoenfuss, H., Propper, C. and Vail, T. 2011. “Empowering Citizen Scientists: The Strength of Many in Monitoring Biologically Active Environmental Contaminants.” BioScience 61(8): 626–630.Google Scholar

Körner, S (ed). 1957. Observation and Interpretation: A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists, Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society. New York: Butterworths Scientific Pub.Google Scholar

Kožnjak, B. 2017. “The Missing History of Bohm’s Hidden Variables Theory: The Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society, Bristol, 1957.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 62: 85–97.Google Scholar

Kresge, S. 1996. “Feyerabend Unbound.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 26(2): 293–303.Google Scholar

Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. 1972. “Naming and Necessity.” In Semantics of Natural Language, Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, 253–355.Google Scholar

Kuby, D. 2010. “Paul Feyerabend in Wien 1946–1955: Das Österreichische College und der Kraft-Kreis.” In Auf der Suche nach authentischem Philosophieren. Philosophie in Österreich 1951–2000. Verdrängter Humanismus-verzögerte Aufklärung, Benedikt, M., Knoll, R., Schwediauer, F., and Zehetner, C. (eds.), 1041–1056. Verdrängter Humanismus – verzögerte Aufklärung: Philosophie in Österreich von 1400 bis heute 6. Wien: WUV.Google Scholar

Kuby, D. 2015, “Feyerabend, Paul (1924–94)”, International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences (2nd Edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 117–123.Google Scholar

Kuby, D. 2016. “Feyerabend’s ‘The Concept of Intelligibility in Modern Physics’ (1948).” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57: 57–63.Google Scholar

Kuby, D. 2018. “Carnap, Feyerabend, and the Pragmatic Theory of Observation.” HOPOS 8: 432–470.Google Scholar

Kuby, D. 2019a. “Against the Historical Turn in Philosophy of Science: The Case of Feyerabend’s Early Critique of Kuhn.” (In preparation).Google Scholar

Kuby, D. (2020). “Decision-Based Epistemology: sketching a systematic framework of Feyerabend’s metaphilosophy.” Synthese, 1–29.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension, Kuhn, T. (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 320–339.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. 1962/2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4th Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. 1963. “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research.” In Scientific Change, Crombie, A. (ed.), London: Heinemann, 347–69.Google Scholar

Kulka, T. 1977. “How Far Does Anything Go?: Comments on Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 7: 277–287.Google Scholar

Kusch, M. 2016. “Relativism in Feyerabend’s Later Writings.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A57: 106–113.Google Scholar

Kwa, C. 2012. “An ‘Ecological’ View of Styles of Science and Of Art: Alois Riegl’s Explorations of the Style Concept.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43: 610–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakatos, I. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Philosophical Papers: Volume 1. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 8–101.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. 1971. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In Philosophical Papers: Volume 1. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 102–138.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre and Zahar, Elie. 1976. Why Did Copernicus’s Research Programme Supersede Ptolemy’s? In Lakatos, Imre. (1978) Philosophical Papers: Volume 1. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press, 168–192.Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, L. 1989. “The Rational Weight of the Scientific Past: Forging Fundamental Change in a Conservative Discipline.” In What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Ruse, M. (ed.), Nijhoff International Philosophy Series 32. Springer Netherlands, 209–20.Google Scholar

Laudan, L. 1990. “Normative Naturalism.” Philosophy of Science 57(1): 44–59.Google Scholar

Link, W. and Sauer, J.. 2007. “Seasonal Components of Avian Population Change: Joint Analysis of Two Large-Scale Monitoring Programs”. Ecology 88: 49–55.Google Scholar

Lipton, P. 2004. “Epistemic Options.” Philosophical Studies 121: 147–158.Google Scholar

Lloyd, E. 1996. “The Anachronistic Anarchist.” Philosophical Studies 81(2–3): 247–261.Google Scholar

Lloyd, E. 1997. “Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism.” Philosophy of Science 64: S396–S407.Google Scholar

Louisiana Bucket Brigade Press Release. 2000. “Troubled Orion Refinery Violates State Air Standards: Citizen Air Sample Exposes Release of Carcinogen.” Retrieved online at www.labucketbrigade.org. Last date accessed: November 18, 2020.Google Scholar

Low, R. 2012. “Time Machines, Maximal Extensions and Zorn’s Lemma.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 29: 097001.Google Scholar

Lugg, A. 1984. “Review: Changing Fortunes of the Method of Hypothesis.” Erkenntnis 21: 433–438.Google Scholar

Mach, E. 1911. History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, Jourdain, P. (trans.). Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar

Magee, P. 2018. Faulty Instruments, the Sea and the Stars: A Digital Fine Art Practice. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar

Maia Neto, J. 1991. “Feyerabend’s Scepticism.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 22(4): 543–555.Google Scholar

Malament, D. 1977. “Observationally Indistinguishable Space-Times.” In Foundations of Space-Time Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. VIII, Earman, J., Glymour, C., and Stachel, J. (eds.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 61–80.Google Scholar

Malament, D. 2012. Topics in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Manchak, J. 2009. “Can We Know the Global Structure of Spacetime?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 40: 53–56.Google Scholar

Manchak, J. 2011. “What is a Physically Reasonable Spacetime?” Philosophy of Science 78: 410–420.Google Scholar

Manchak, J. 2013. “Global Spacetime Structure.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, Batterman, R. (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 587–606.Google Scholar

Manchak, J. 2016. “Is the Universe As Large as It Can Be?” Erkenntnis 81: 1341–1344.Google Scholar

Manchak, J. 2017. “On the Inextendibility of Space-Time.” Philosophy of Science 84: 1215–1225.Google Scholar

Martin, E. 2016. “Late Feyerabend on Materialism, Mysticism, and Religion.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57: 129–136.Google Scholar

Martin, R. 1991. Pierre Duhem: Philosophy and History in the Work of a Believing Physicist. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar

McMullin, E. 2007. “Taking an Empirical Stance,” In Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, Monton, B. (ed.), Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 167–182.Google Scholar

Mendelovici, A. 2018. The Phenomenal Basis of Intentionality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyer, A. 2011. “On the Nature of Scientific Progress: Anarchistic Theory Says ‘Anything Goes’–But I Don’t Think So.” PLoS Biology 9(10): 1–4.Google Scholar

Meynell, H. 1978. “Feyerabend’s Method.” The Philosophical Quarterly 28(112): 242–252.Google Scholar

Mill, J. 1859/1956. On Liberty. New York: The Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar

Miller-Rushing, A, Primack, R. and Bonney, R. 2012. “The History of Public Participation in Ecological Research.” Ecology and Environment 10:285–290.Google Scholar

Misak, C. 2018. Cambridge Pragmatism: From Peirce and James to Ramsey and Wittgenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mitchell, S. 2004. “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy.” In Science, Values, and Objectivity, Machamer, P. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mosley, A. 2007. Bearing the Heavens: Tycho Brahe and the Astronomical Community of the Late Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Motion, A. 2019. “What Can Citizen Science Do For Us?” Chemistry World. Accessed online October 12, 2019. www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/what-can-citizen-science-do-for-us/3010269.article.Google Scholar

Motterlini, M. (ed.). 1999. For and Against Method, Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method, and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Motterlini, M. 2002. “Reconstructing Lakatos: A Reassessment of Lakatos’ Epistemological Project in the Light of the Lakatos Archive.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 33: 487–509.Google Scholar

Mount, H. 2014. “Gombrich and the Fathers of Art History.” In Meditations on a Heritage, Taylor, P. (ed.), London: The Warburg Institute and Paul Holberton Publishing, 22–35.Google Scholar

Mueller, M., Tippins, D. and Bryan, L. 2012. “The Future of Citizen Science.” Democracy & Education 20(1): 1–12.Google Scholar

Muenich, R., Peel, S., Bowling, L., Haas, M., Turco, R., Frankenberger, J. and Chaubey, I. 2016. “The Wabash Sampling Blitz: A Study on the Effectiveness of Citizen Science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(1): 1–15.Google Scholar

Munévar, G. 1991. “Science in Feyerabend’s Free Society.” In Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Munévar, G. (ed.), Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Munévar, G. 1991. Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul K. Feyerabend. London: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Munévar, G. 2000. “A Réhabilitation of Paul Feyerbend”. In The Worst Enemy of Science?: Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend, Preston, J., Munévar, G., and Lamb, D. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 58–79.Google Scholar

Næss, A. 1975. “Why Not Science for Anarchists too? A Reply to Feyerabend.” Inquiry 18: 183–194.Google Scholar

Naess, A. 1991. “Paul Feyerabend – a Green Hero?” In Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul K. Feyerabend, Munévar, G. (ed.), London: Kluwer, 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nagel, E. 1977. “Against Method Review.” The American Political Science Review 17: 1132–1134.Google Scholar

Nietzsche, F. 1968. Twilight of the Idols. Hollingdale, R. (trans.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar

O’Flaherty, W. 1979. “Sacred Cows and Profane Mares in Indian Mythology.” History of Religions 19(1): 1–26.Google Scholar

O’Neill, O. 1992. “Vindicating Reason.” In The Cambridge Companion to Kant, Guyer, P., Nelson, J. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 280–308.Google Scholar

Oberheim, E. 2005. “On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend’s Assault on Conceptual Conservativism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 363–390.Google Scholar

Oberheim, E. 2006. Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Oberheim, E. and Hoyningen-Huene, P.. 2000. “Feyerabend’s Early Philosophy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31(2): 363–375.Google Scholar

Olin, M. 1992. Forms of Representation in Alois Riegl’s Theory of Art. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Ottinger, G. 2010. “Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35(2): 244–270.Google Scholar

Overdevest, C. and Mayer, B.. 2008. “Harnessing the Power of Information through Community Monitoring: Insights from Social Science.” Texas Law Review (86)7: 1493–1526.Google Scholar

Papineau, D. 2014. “The Poverty of Conceptual Analysis.” In Philosophical Methodology: The Armchair or the Labouratory, Batterman, R. (ed.), Abingdon: Routledge, 166–194.Google Scholar

Patton, L. 2012. “Experiment and Theory Building.” Synthese 184(3): 235–246.Google Scholar

Patton, P., Overgaard, N. and Barseghyan, H. 2017. “Reformulating the Second Law.” Scientonomy 1: 29–39.Google Scholar

Peels, R. 2018. “A Conceptual Map of Scientism.” In Scientism: Problems and Prospects, de Ridder, J., Peels, R., and van Woudenberg, R. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 28–56.Google Scholar

Penrose, R. 1979. “Singularities and Time-Asymmery.” In General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, Hawking, S. and Israel, W. (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 581–638.Google Scholar

Pielke, R. Jr. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pinto de Oliveira, J. 2017. “Image of Art: The First Manuscript of Structure.” Perspectives on Science 25(6): 746–765.Google Scholar

Place, U. T. 1970. “Is Consciousness a Brain Process?” In The Mind-Brain Identity Theory, Armstrong, D. (ed.), Palgrave: London, 42–51.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1949. “Naturgesetze und theoretische Systeme.” In Gesetz und Wirklichkeit. Internationale Hochschulwochen des Österreichischen College Alpbach, Tirol, 21. 8.-9.9.1948, Moser, S. (ed.), II. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 43–60.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1956. “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge.” In Contemporary British Philosophy, Lewis, H. (ed.), 357–88. Third Series. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science. London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar

Prainsack, B. 2011. “Voting with their Mice: Personal Genome Testing and the ‘Participatory Turn’ in Disease Research.” Accountability in Research Policies and Quality Assurance 18(3): 132–147.Google Scholar

Preston, J. 1997a. Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society. Polity Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar

Preston, J. 1997b. “Feyerabend’s Retreat from Realism.” Philosophy of Science 64: S421–31.Google Scholar

Preston, J. 2000. “Science as Supermarket: ‘Postmodern’ Themes in Paul Feyerabend’s Later Philosophy of Science.” In The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in memory of Paul Feyerabend, Preston, J., Munévar, G. and Lamb, D. (eds.), New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Preston, J. 2016. “The Rise of Western Rationalism: Paul Feyerabend’s Story.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 79–86.Google Scholar

Preston, J. 2017. “Paul Feyerabend and the Debate Over the Philosophy of Science.” Oxford University Press Blogs. https://blog.oup.com/2017/03/paul-feyerabend-philosophy-science/. Last date accessed: November 18, 2020.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2005. Doubt Truth to be a Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1967. “Psychological Predicates.” In Art, Mind, and Religion, In Armstrong, D. (ed.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 37–48.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1987. The Many Faces of Realism. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1992. Realism with a Human Face, ed. by Conant, James. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. 1951. “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.” Philosophical Studies, 2(5): 65–72.Google Scholar

Quine, W. 1992. Pursuit of Truth, Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Rampley, M. 2013. The Vienna School of Art History. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Ravetz, J. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rawleigh, W. 2018. “The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change.” Scientonomy 2: 1–12.Google Scholar

Reisch, G. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Riegl, A. 1893/1992. Problems of Style: Foundations for a History of Ornament. Evelyn Kain (trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Riegl, A. 1901/1985. Late Roman Art Industry, R. Winkes (trans.). Rome: Giorgio Bretschneider Editore.Google Scholar

Roe, S. 2009. “The Attenuated Ramblings of a Mad Man: Feyerabend’s Anarchy Examined.” Polish Journal of Philosophy 3(2): 67–85.Google Scholar

Rookmaaker, L. C. 1976. “An Early Engraving of the Black Rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis (L.)) Made by Jan Wandelaar.” Journal of the Linnean Society 8: 87–90.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. 1965. “Mind-Body Identity, Privacy, and Categories.” The Review of Metaphysics, 19(1): 24–54.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. 1982. “Contemporary Philosophy of Mind.” Synthese, 53(2): 323–348.Google Scholar

Rudner, R. 1953. “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20(1): 1–6.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sankey, H. 1994. “Relativism and Epistemological Anarchism.” Cogito 8(2): 158–164.Google Scholar

Sarewitz,. 2016. “Saving Science.” The New Atlantis 49: 4–40.Google Scholar

Sbierski, J. 2018. “On the Proof of the C°-Inextendibility of the Schwarzschild Spacetime.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 968: 012012.Google Scholar

Scheffler, I. 1999. “A Plea for Plurealism.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 35: 425–36.Google Scholar

Schneider, N. 2009. “Form of Thought and Representational Gesture in Karl Popper and E.H Gombrich.” Human Affairs: A Postdisciplinary Journal for Humanities & Social Sciences 19(3): 251–258.Google Scholar

Schofield, C. 1981. Tychonic and Semi-Tychonic World Systems. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar

Sebastien, Z. 2016. “The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change.” Scientonomy 1: 1–9.Google Scholar

Selinger, E. 2003. “Feyerabend’s Democratic Critique of Expertise.” Critical Review 15(3–4): 359–373.Google Scholar

Seymour, V. and Haklay, M. 2017. “Exploring Engagement Characteristics and Behaviours of Environmental Volunteers.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2(1): 1–13.Google Scholar

Shank, M. 2002. “Regiomontanus on Ptolemy, Physical Orbs, and Astronomical Fictionalism: Goldsteinian Themes in the ‘Defense of Theon against George of Trebizond’.” Perspectives on Science 10(2): 179–207.Google Scholar

Shapin, S. 1989. “The Invisible Technician.” American Scientist 77(6): 554–563.Google Scholar

Shapiro, L. 2008. “How to Test for Multiple Realization.” Philosophy of Science 75(5): 514–525.Google Scholar

Shaw, J. 2017. “Was Feyerabend an Anarchist?: The Structure(s) of ‘Anything Goes’.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 64: 11–21.Google Scholar

Shaw, J. 2018a. A Pluralism Worth Having: Feyerabend’s Well-Ordered Science. Doctoral dissertation: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar

Shaw, J. 2018b. “Feyerabend’s Well-Ordered Science: How an Anarchist Distributes Funds.” Synthese 1–31.Google Scholar

Shaw, J. 2020. “The Revolt Against Rationalism: Feyerabend’s Critical Philosophy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 80: 110–122.Google Scholar

Shaw, J. and Barseghyan, H. 2019. “Problems and Prospects with the Scientonomic Workflow.” Scientonomy 3: 1–14.Google Scholar

Sismondo, S. 2005. “Boundary Work and the Science Wars: James Robert Brown’s Who Rules in Science?” Episteme, 1(3): 235–248.Google Scholar

Smaldino, P. and McElreath, R.. 2016. “The Natural Selection of Bad Science.” Royal Society Open Science 3(9).Google Scholar

Smith, P. 2004. The Body of the Artisan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smolin, L. 2006. The Trouble With Physics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar

Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.Google Scholar

Solovey, M. 2013. Shaky Foundations: The Politics-Patronage-Social Science Nexus in Cold War America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar

Sorgner, H. 2016. “Challenging Expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on Democracy, Public Participation and Scientific Authority: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on Scientific Authority and Public Participation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57: 114–120.Google Scholar

Stadler, F. 2010. “Paul Feyerabend and the Forgotten “Third Vienna Circle”.” In Vertreibung, Transformation and Ruckkehr der Wissenschatfstheorie: Am Beispiel von Rudolf Carnap und Wolfgang Stegmuller, Stadler, F. (ed.). Mit einem Manuskript von Paul Feyerabend uber “Die Dogmen des Logischen Empirismus” aus dem Nachlass. Wien-Berlin-Munster: LIT Verlag, 169–187.Google Scholar

Stadler, F. and Fischer, K. (eds.). 2006. Paul Feyerabend: Ein Philosoph aus Wien, Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar

Staley, K. 1999. “Logic, Liberty, and Anarchy: Mill and Feyerabend on Scientific Method.” The Social Science Journal 36(4): 603–14.Google Scholar

Stanford, P. 2006. Exceeding our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Steel, D. 2016. “Climate Change and Second-Order Uncertainty: Defending a Generalized, Normative, and Structural Argument from Inductive Risk.” Perspectives on Science 24(6): 696–721.Google Scholar

Stegenga, J. 2018. Medical Nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stenmark, M. 2001. Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Storksdieck, M., Shirk, J., Cappadonna, J., Domroese, M., Göbel, C., Haklay, M., Miller-Rushing, A., Roetman, P., Sbrocchi, C and Vohland, K. 2016. “Associations for Citizen Science: Regional Knowledge, Global Collaboration.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(2): 1–10.Google Scholar

Stove, D. 1982. Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. 1992. Analysis and Metaphysics: An Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stuart, M. forthcoming in 2020. “The Productive Anarchy of Scientific Imagination.” Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar

Tambolo, L. 2014. “Pliability and Resistance: Feyerabendian Insights into Sophisticated Realism.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 4: 197–213.Google Scholar

Terry, S. and Boyd, C.. 2001. “Researching the Biology of PXE: Partnering in the Process.” American Journal of Medical Genetics 106: 117–184.Google Scholar

Theobald, E., Ettinger, E., Burgess, H., DeBay, L., Schmidt, N., Froehlich, H., Wagner, C., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., Harsch, M. and Parrish, J. 2015. “Global Change and Local Solutions: Tapping the Unrealized Potential of Citizen Science for Biodiversity Research.” Biological Conservation 181: 236–244.Google Scholar

Theocharis, T. and Psimopoulos, M.. 1987. “Where Science Has Gone Wrong.” Nature 329: 595–598.Google Scholar

Thoren, V. 1990. The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tibbetts, P. 1977. “Feyerabend’s ’Against Method’: The Case for Methodological Pluralism.” Philosophy of the Social Science 7: 265–275.Google Scholar

Tibbetts, P. 1978. “A Response to Feyerabend on Science and Magic.” Philosophy of the Social Science 8: 55–57Google Scholar

Torretti, R. 2000. “‘Scientific Realism’ and Scientific Practice.” In The Reality of the Unobservable, Agazzi, E. and Pauri, M. (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer, 113–22.Google Scholar

Trumbull, D., Bonney, R., Bascom, D. and Cabral, A. 2000. “Thinking Scientifically During Participation in a Citizen-Science Project.” Science Education 84: 265–275.Google Scholar

Trumbull, D., Bonney, R. and Grudens-Schuck, N. 2005. “Developing Materials to Promote Inquiry.” Science Education 89: 879–900.Google Scholar

Tsou, J. Y. 2003. “Reconsidering Feyerabend’s ‘Anarchism’.” Perspectives on Science 11(2): 208–235.Google Scholar

Tsueng, G., Nanis, S., Fouquier, J., Good, B. and Su, A. 2016. “Citizen Science for Mining the Biomedical Literature.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(2): 1–11.Google Scholar

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Handbook for Citizen Science: Quality Assurance and Documentation. Accessed online on October 15, 2019. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019–03/documents/508_csqapphandbook_3_5_19_mmedits.pdf.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, B. 2000. “Review of Paul Feyerabend, Conquest of Abundance.” Times Literary Supplement 5073: 23 June 2000 5073: 10–11.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, B. 2002. The Empirical Stance, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, B. 2004a. “Replies.” Philosophical Studies 121: 171–192.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, B. 2004b. “Reply to Chakravartty, Jauernig, and McMullin,” unpublished typescript. Accessed last on September 13, 2018, from www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/ReplyAPA-04.pdfGoogle Scholar

van Fraassen, B. 2011. “On Stance and Rationality.” Synthese 178: 155–169.Google Scholar

van Strien, M. 2020. “Pluralism and Anarchism in Quantum Physics: Paul Feyerabend’s Writings on Quantum Physics in Relation to his General Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 80: 72–81.Google Scholar

Vasari, G. 1550/1979. Lives of the Artists, G. Bull (trans.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Viola, T. 2012. “Pregmatism, Bistable Images and the Serpentine Line: A Chapter in the Prehistory of the Duck-Rabbit.” In Das Bildnerische Denken: Charles S. Peirce, Engel, F., Queisner, M. and Viola, T. (eds.), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 115–134.Google Scholar

von Neumann, J. 1932/1955. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, R. Beyer (trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Wald, R. 1984. General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

West, S. and Pateman, R. 2016. “Recruiting and Retaining Participants in Citizen Science: What Can Be Learned from the Volunteering Literature?” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1(2): 1–10.Google Scholar

Westfall, R. 1971. The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Westman, R. 1975. “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory.” Isis, 66 (2): 164–193.Google Scholar

Westman, R. 1986/2003. “The Copernicans and the Church.” In The Scientific Revolution, Hellyer, M., (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 46–71.Google Scholar

Whitt, L. 1990. “Theory Pursuit: Between Discovery and Acceptance.” In Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the PSA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 467–483.Google Scholar

Wikipedia. 2018. “Carl von Clausewitz.” in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, retrieved 15:30, September 18, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_ClausewitzGoogle Scholar