Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T09:23:58.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2018

K. Brad Wray
Affiliation:
Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alai, M. 2014. “Novel Predictions and the No Miracles Argument,” Erkenntnis, 79, 297326.Google Scholar
Alvarez, S., Sales, J., and Seco, M.. 2008. “On Books and Chemical Elements,” Foundations of Chemistry, 10, 79100.Google Scholar
Barker, P. 2001. “Incommensurability and Conceptual Change during the Copernican Revolution,” in Hoyningen-Huene, P. and Sankey, H. (eds.), Incommensurability and Related Matters. Dordrecht: Springer, pages 241273.Google Scholar
Barker, P., and Goldstein, B. R.. 1998. “Realism and Instrumentalism in Sixteenth Century Astronomy: A Reappraisal,” Perspectives on Science, 6: 3, 232258.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., and Bloor, D.. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge,” in Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pages 2147.Google Scholar
Ben David, J. 1971. The Scientist’s Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Biddle, J. 2013. “State of the Field: Transient Underdetermination and Values in Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44: 1, 124133.Google Scholar
Bird, A. 2000. Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, M. 2003. “The Pessimistic Induction, the Flight to Reference and the Metaphysical Zoo,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17: 2, 161178.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. 2005. Truth: A Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. N. 1980. “Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 2: Symposia and Invited Papers (1980), 613662.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. N. 1983. “On the Current Status of the Issue of Scientific Realism,” Erkenntnis, 19: 1–3, 4590.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. N. 1985. “Lex orandi est lex credendi,” in Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A. (eds.), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 334.Google Scholar
Brahe, T. 1598/1946. Tycho Brahe’s Description of His Instruments and Scientific Work as given in Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica, translated and edited by Ræder, H., Strömgren, E., and Strömgren, B.. København: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab.Google Scholar
Brahe, T. 1588/1970. On the Most Recent Phoenomena of the Aetherial World, excerpted in Hall, M. B. (ed.), Nature and Nature’s Law: Documents of the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper and Row, pages 5866.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R. 1985. “Explaining the Success of Science,” Ratio, XXVII: 1, 49–66.Google Scholar
Brush, S. G. 1994. “Dynamics of Theory Change: The Role of Predictions,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1994, Vol. 2: Symposia and Invited Papers, 133–145.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. 1977. “Comments on ‘The Natural Selection Model of Conceptual Evolution,’” Philosophy of Science, 44, 502507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, A. K. 1996. “Lead Isotope Analysis of Human Bone for Addressing Cultural Affinity: A Case Study from Rocky Mountain House, Alberta,” Journal of Archaeological Science, 23, 557567.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. 1950. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 2040.Google Scholar
Carrier, M. 1991. “What Is Wrong with the Miracle Argument?,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 22: 1, 2336.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cedarbaum, D. G. 1983. “Paradigms,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 14: 3, 173213.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2008. “What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You: Realism and the Unconceived,” Philosophical Studies, 137, 149158.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, A. F. 2013. What Is This Thing Called Science?, 4th edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H2O?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Cherniak, C. 1986. Minimal Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, J. R. 2000. On Tycho’s Island: Tycho Brahe and His Assistants, 1570–1601. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Copernicus, N. 1543/1995. On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, translated by Wallis, C. G.. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Creath, R. 2007. “Vienna, the City of Quine’s Dreams,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 332345.Google Scholar
Cutnell, J. D., and Johnson, K. W.. 2001. Physics, 5th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859/2003. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, edited by Carroll, J.. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, Ltd.Google Scholar
Dear, P. 2001. Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500–1700. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dellsén, F. Forthcoming. “Realism and the Absence of Rivals,” Synthese. DOI: 10.1007/s11229–016–1059–3Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 2014. “Realism/Anti-realism,” in Curd, M. and Psillos, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, pages 256267.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 2011. “Are Unconceived Alternatives a Problem for Scientific Realism?,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 42: 2, 285293.Google Scholar
Di Bono, M. 1995. “Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and the Tūsī Device: Observations on the Use and Transmission of a Model,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, 26, 133154.Google Scholar
Dicken, P. 2016. A Critical Introduction to Scientific Realism. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Donovan, A., Laudan, L., and Laudan, R. (eds.). 1988. Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change. Synthese Library (Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science), Vol. 193. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Doppelt, G. 2005. “Empirical Success or Explanatory Success: What Does Current Scientific Realism Need to Explain?,” Philosophy of Science, 72, 10761087.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J. L. E. 1906/1953. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, 2nd edition. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. 1908/1969. To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Concept of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo, translated by Doland, E. and Mascher, C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. 1906/1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, translated by Wiener, P. P.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. 1993. “Underdetermination, Realism, and Reason,” in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 18: 1, 1938.Google Scholar
Edge, D. O. and Mulkay, M. J.. 1976. Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Evans, J. 1998. The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Everts, S. 2010. “When Science Went International: Looking back 150 years at the conference that led to the assembly of the periodic table,” Chemical & Engineering News (September 3, 2010). https://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/88/8836sci1.html (accessed December 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Fahrbach, L. 2017. “Scientific Revolutions and the Explosion of Scientific Evidence,” Synthese, 194, 50395072.Google Scholar
Fahrbach, L. 2011. “How the Growth of Science Ends Theory Change,” Synthese, 180: 2, 139155.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1988. Against Method, revised edition. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Fine, A. 1984. “The Natural Ontological Attitude,” in Leplin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pages 83107.Google Scholar
Fisch, M. 2017. Creatively Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., and Lepore, E.. 1992. Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Forster, M., and Sober, E.. 1994. “How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45: 1, 135.Google Scholar
Frost-Arnold, G. 2011. “From the Pessimistic Induction to Semantic Anti-realism,” Philosophy of Science, 78: 5, 11311142.Google Scholar
Frost-Arnold, G. 2010. “The No-Miracles Argument for Realism: Inference to an Unacceptable Explanation,” Philosophy of Science, 77: 1, 3558.Google Scholar
Gade, J. A. 1947. The Life and Times of Tycho Brahe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. 1632/2001. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, translated and with revised notes by Drake, S.. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. 1615/2008. Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, in Finocchiaro, M. (ed.), The Essential Galileo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, pages 109145.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. 1612/2010. “Galileo’s First Letter on Sunspots,” in Reeves, E. and van Helden, A. (eds.), Galileo Galilei and Christoph Scheiner: On Sunspots. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 89105.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. 1610/2008. The Sidereal Messenger, in Finocchiaro, M. (ed.), The Essential Galileo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, pages 4584.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gelfert, A. 2016. How to Do Science with Models: A Philosophical Primer. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gillies, D. 1993. Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century: Four Central Themes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 2004. The Book That Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 1978/1993. “Early Copernican Ephemerides,” in Gingerich, O. (ed.), The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. New York: Academic Institute of Physics, pages 205220.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 1975a/1993. “Kepler’s Place in Astronomy,” in Gingerich, O. (ed.), The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. New York: Academic Institute of Physics, pages 331347.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 1975b/1993. “‘Crisis’ versus Aesthetic in the Copernican Revolution,” in Gingerich, O. (ed.), The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. New York: American Institute of Physics, pages 193204.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 1974/1993. “The Astronomy and Cosmology of Copernicus,” in Gingerich, O. (ed.), The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. New York: American Institute of Physics, pages 161184.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. 1971/1993. “Mercury Theory from Antiquity to Kepler,” in Gingerich, O. (ed.), The Eye of Heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler. New York: American Institute of Physics, pages 379387.Google Scholar
Goldstein, B. R. 1996. “The Pre-telescopic Treatment of the Phases and Apparent Size of Venus,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, 27, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. E., et al. 2010. “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” Science, 328, 5979 (May 7, 2010), 710722.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, C. L., and Rosenberg, A.. 1982. “In Defense of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science, 49, 604615.Google Scholar
Harker, D. 2010. “Two Arguments for Scientific Realism Unified,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41, 192202.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 2005. “Noble Gases,” in Heilbron, J. L. (ed.), The Oxford Guide to the History of Physics and Chemistry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 230231.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hendry, R. F. 2012. “Chemical Substances and the Limits of Pluralism,” Foundations of Chemistry, 14, 5568.Google Scholar
Henry, J. 2012. A Short History of Scientific Thought. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. 1976. “Truth and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 261280.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. 1963. “Review of Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Isis, 54: 2, 286287.Google Scholar
Hoskin, M. 1997a. “Astronomy in Antiquity,” in Hoskin, M. (ed.), Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 2247.Google Scholar
Hoskin, M. 1997b. “From Geometry to Physics: Astronomy Transformed,” in Hoskin, M. (ed.), Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 98143.Google Scholar
Howson, C. 2000. Hume’s Problem: Induction and the Justification of Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. 2008. “Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution,” Foundations of Chemistry, 10: 2, 101115.Google Scholar
Hudson, J. 1992. The History of Chemistry. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 2001. “Why Scientists Behave Scientifically,” in Hull, D. L. (ed.), Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 135138.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Idhe, A. J. 1961. “The Karlsruhe Congress: A Centennial Retrospect,” Journal of Chemical Education, 38: 2, 8386.Google Scholar
Inquisition, . 1633/2008. “Inquisition’s Sentence (22 June 1633),” in Finocchiaro, M. A. (ed.), The Essential Galileo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, pages 288293.Google Scholar
Ivanona, M. 2015. “Conventionalism about What?: Where Duhem and Poincaré Part Ways,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 54, 8089.Google Scholar
James, W. 1907/1949. “Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking”, in James, W. (ed.), Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking together with Four Related Essays Selected from The Meaning of Truth. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Kaji, M. 2002. “D. I. Mendeleev’s Concept of Chemical Elements and The Principles of Chemistry,” Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, 27: 1, 416.Google Scholar
Keas, M. N. Forthcoming. “Systematizing the Theoretical Virtues,” Synthese. DOI: 10.1007/s11229–017–1355–6Google Scholar
Kepler, J. 1618–1621/1995. “Epitome of Copernican Astronomy”, in Kepler, J. (ed.), Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and Harmonies of the World, translated by Wallis, C. G.. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1993. Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. 1959/1964. Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 2000. “A Discussion with Thomas S. Kuhn,” in Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 255323.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1992/2000. “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science,” in Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 105120.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1991/2000. “The Road since Structure,” in Kuhn, T. S.’s Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 90104.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1987/2000. “What Are Scientific Revolutions?,” in Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 1332.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 320339.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1977b. “Preface,” in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages ixxxiii.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1976/1977. “The Relations between the History and the Philosophy of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 320.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1968/1977. “The History and the Philosophy of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pages 320.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962/2012. Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th edition, with an introductory essay by Hacking, Ian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kukla, A. 1996a. “Antirealist Explanations of the Success of Science,” Philosophy of Science, 63 (Proceedings), S298S305.Google Scholar
Kukla, A. 1996b. “Does Every Theory Have Empirically Equivalent Rivals?,” Erkenntnis, 44: 2, 137166.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. 2015. “Scientific Pluralism and the Chemical Revolution,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 49, 6979.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. 2002. Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lange, M. 2002. “Baseball, Pessimistic Inductions, and the Turnover Fallacy,” Analysis, 62: 4, 281285.Google Scholar
Lattis, J. M. 1994. Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the Collapse of Ptolemaic Cosmology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 2004. “The Epistemic, the Cognitive, and the Social,” in Machamer, P. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Science, Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pages 1423.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1990. “Demystifying Underdetermination,” in Savage, C. W. (ed.), Scientific Theories, Vol. 14, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pages 267297.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984a. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984b. “Explaining the Success of Science,” in in Cushing, J. T., Delaney, C. F., and Gutting, G. (eds.), Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 83105.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science, 48: 1949.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L, and Leplin, J.. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination,” Journal of Philosophy, 88: 9, 449472.Google Scholar
Law, J. 1976. “The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography,” in Lemaine, G., MacLeod, R., Mulkay, M., and Weingart, P. (eds.), Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, pages 123.Google Scholar
Leplin, J. 1997. A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. 2001. “Why the Pessimistic Induction Is a Fallacy,” Synthese, 129: 3, 371380.Google Scholar
Lindberg, D. C. 2007. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450, 2nd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. 1993/1996. “Is the Best Good Enough?,” in Papineau, D. (ed.), The Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 93106.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. 2001. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. 1995. “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues,” Synthese, 104, 383397.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, T. D. Forthcoming. “Epistemic Selectivity, Historical Threats, and the Non-epistemic Tenets of Scientific Realism,” Synthese. DOI:10.1007/s11229–016–1103–3Google Scholar
Lyons, T. D. 2013. “A Historically Informed Modus Ponens against Scientific Realism: Articulation, Critique, and Restoration,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27: 4, 369392.Google Scholar
Lyons, T. D. 2012. “Axiological Scientific Realism and Methodological Prescription,” in Regt, H. W., Hartmann, S., and Okasha, S. (eds.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009. The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lyons, T. D. 2006. “Scientific Realism and the Strategema de Divide et Impera,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57, 537560.Google Scholar
Lyons, T. D. 2002. “Scientific Realism and the Pessimistic Meta-Modus Tollens,” in Clarke, S. and Lyons, T. D. (eds.), Recent Themes in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pages 6390.Google Scholar
Mach, E. 1911. History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, translated and annotated by Jourdain, P. E. B.. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Mach, E. 1897/1984. The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical, translated by Williams, C. M.. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Mach, E. 1892. “Facts and Mental Symbols,” The Monist, 2: 2, 198208.Google Scholar
Magnus, P. D. 2006. “What’s New About the New Induction?,” Synthese, 148, 295301.Google Scholar
Magnus, P. D., and Callender, C.. 2004. “Realist Ennui and the Base Rate Fallacy,” Philosophy of Science, 71: 3, 320338.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. 1970. “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 5989.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 2008. “The Virtues of a Good Theory,” in Psillos, S. and Curd, M. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, pages 498508.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 1993. “Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science,” in Horwich, P. (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pages 5578.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. 2016. “The History of Science as a Graveyard of Theories: A Philosophers’ Myth,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 30: 3, 263278.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. 2013. “The Pessimistic Induction: A Bad Argument Gone too Far,” Synthese, 190: 15, 32093226.Google Scholar
Montaigne, M. 1580/1948. “Apology for Raymond Sebond,” in The Complete Essays of Montaigne, translated by Frame, D. M.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pages 318457.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. 1988. “The Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism,” in Nola, R. (ed.), Relativism and Realism in Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pages 229252.Google Scholar
Newton-Smith, W. H. 2000. “Underdetermination of Theory by Data,” in Newton-Smith, W. H. (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pages 532536.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Critical Scientific Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nola, R. 2008. “The Optimistic Meta-induction and Ontological Continuity: The Case of the Electron,” in Soler, L., Sankey, H., and Hoyningen-Huene, P. (eds.), Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison: Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities. Dordrecht: Springer, pages 159202.Google Scholar
Osiander, A. 1543/1995. “Introduction: To the Reader Concerning the Hypotheses of this Work,” in Copernicus, N., On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, translated by Wallis, C. G.. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, pages 34.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 1996. “Introduction,” in Papineau, D. (ed.), The Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 120.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. 1905/2001. “Science and Hypothesis,” in The Value of Science: Essential Writings of Henri Poincaré. New York: Dover Publications, pages 1178.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. 1913/2001. “The Value of Science,” in The Value of Science: Essential Writings of Henri Poincaré. New York: Dover Publications, pages 181353.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1971. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1970. “Normal Science and Its Dangers,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965, Vol. 4, reprinted with corrections (1972). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 5158.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1963a. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1963b/1963a. “Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Knowledge,” in Popper, K. R. (1963a) (ed.), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge, pages 291338.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1957/1963a. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations,” in Popper, K. R. (1963a) (ed.), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge, pages 4386.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1956/1963a. “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge,” in Popper, K. R. (1963a) (ed.), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge, pages 130160.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1952/1963a. “The Nature of Philosophical Problems and their Roots in Science,” in Popper, K. R. (1963a) (ed.), Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge, pages 88129.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1935/2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, English edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Price, D. de Solla. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. 1996. “Scientific Realism and the ‘Pessimistic Induction,’” Philosophy of Science, 63 (Proceedings), S306S314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ptolemy, C. 1952. The Almagest. London: Encyclopedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1978. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pyle, A. 2000. “The Rationality of the Chemical Revolution,” in Nola, R. and Sankey, H. (eds.), After Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pages 99124.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1969. “Epistemology Naturalized,” in Quine, W. V. (ed.), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, pages 6990.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1951/1953. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” in Quine, W. V. (ed.), From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pages 2046.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” Philosophical Review, 60: 1, 2043.Google Scholar
Reeves, E., and van Helden, A.. 2010. On Sunspots: Galileo Galilei and Christoph Scheiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1978. Scientific Progress: A Philosophical Essay on the Economics of Research in Natural Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1987. Scientific Realism: A Critical Reappraisal. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
Restrepo, G., and Pachón, L.. 2007. “Mathematical Aspects of the Periodic Law,” Foundations of Chemistry, 9, 189214.Google Scholar
Rohland, N., Reich, D., Mallick, S., Meyer, M., Green, R. E., Georgiadis, N. J., Roca, A. L., and Hofreiter, M.. 2010. “Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savannah Elephants,” PLOS Biology (December 21, 2010).Google Scholar
Rolin, K. 2006. “The Bias Paradox in Feminist Standpoint Epistemology,” Episteme, 3: 1–2, 125136.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. 1994. “What Is Constructive Empiricism?,” Philosophical Studies, 74: 2, 143178.Google Scholar
Rosen, E. 1939/1959. “Introduction,” in Rosen, E. (ed.), Three Copernican Treatises, 2nd edition, translated with introduction and notes by Rosen, E.. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, pages 353.Google Scholar
Roush, S. 2010. “Optimism about the Pessimistic Induction,” in Magnus, P. D. and Busch, J. (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Science. Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pages 2958.Google Scholar
Rowbottom, D. P. 2014. “Aimless Science,” Synthese, 191, 12111221.Google Scholar
Ruhmkorff, S. 2013. “Global and Local Pessimistic Meta-Inductions,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27: 4, 409428.Google Scholar
Saatsi, J. T. 2005. “On the Pessimistic Induction and Two Fallacies,” Philosophy of Science, 72, 10881098.Google Scholar
Sankararaman, S., Patterson, N., Li, H., Pääbo, S., and Reich, D.. 2012. “The Date of Interbreeding Between Neandertals and Modern Humans,” PLOS Genetics, 8: 10, e1002947. DOI:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002947Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. 2016. A Tale of Seven Scientists and a New Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. 2013. A Tale of Seven Elements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. 2012. “A Critique of Weisberg’s View on the Periodic Table and Some Speculations on the Nature of Classifications,” Foundations of Chemistry, 14: 3, 275284.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. 2011. The Periodic Table: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. 2007. The Periodic Table: Its Story and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R., and Worrall, J.. 2001. “Prediction and the Periodic Table,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32: 3, 407452.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. 1967. Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Shank, M. H. 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, 179207.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. 1964/1980. “Review of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” in Gutting, G. (ed.), Paradigms and Revolutions: Applications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pages 2738.Google Scholar
Shea, W. R. 1998. “Galileo’s Copernicanism: The Science and the Rhetoric,” in Machamer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 211243.Google Scholar
Shea, W. R., and Artigas, M.. 2003. Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. 1975. “Methodological Conservativism,” Philosophical Review, 84: 3, 374400.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. 1963/2009. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Soddy, F. 1913. “Intra-atomic Charge,” Nature, 2301: 92 (December 4, 1913), 399400.Google Scholar
Special Commission. 1632/2008. “Special Commission’s Report on the Dialogue (September 1632),” in Finocchiaro, M. A. (ed.), The Essential Galileo. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, pages 272276.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. 2003. “Pyrrhic Victories for Scientific Realism,” Journal of Philosophy, C: 11, 553572.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. 2001. “Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?,” Philosophy of Science, 68: 3 (Proceedings), S1-S12.Google Scholar
Steel, D. 2010. “The Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk,” Philosophy of Science, 77, 1434.Google Scholar
Suárez, M. 2009. “Fictions in Scientific Practice,” in Suárez, M. (ed.), Fictions in Science: Philosophical Essays on Modeling and Idealization. London: Routledge, pages 315.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. 2004. “An Essay on Thomas Kuhn’s First Scientific Revolution, The Copernican Revolution,” in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 148: 1, 64120.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. 1998. “Galileo’s Discoveries with the Telescope and Their Evidence for the Copernican Theory,” Machamer, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 244270.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. 1999. How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. 1990. “The Conceptual Structure of the Chemical Revolution,” Philosophy of Science, 57, 183209.Google Scholar
Thoren, V. E. 1967. “An Early Instance of Deductive Discovery: Tycho Brahe’s Lunar Theory,” Isis, 58: 1, 1936.Google Scholar
Thoren, V. E. 1990. The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe, with contributions by Christianson, J. R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, B. F., and Burdette, S. C.. 2010. “Finding Eka-iodine: Discovery Priority in Modern Times,” Bulletin for the History of Chemistry, 35: 2, 8696.Google Scholar
Tichý, P. 1974. “On Popper’s Definition of Verisimilitude,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 25: 2, 155160.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1981. “Evolution, Adaptation, and Human Understanding,” in Brewer, M. B. and Collins, B. E. (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pages 1836.Google Scholar
Tredwell, K. A., and Barker, P.. 2004. “Copernicus’ First Friends: Physical Copernicanism from 1543 to 1610,” Filozofski Vestnik, XXV: 2, 143166.Google Scholar
Treiman, A. H., Gleason, J. D., and Bogard, D. D.. 2000. “The SNC Meteorites Are from Mars,” Planetary and Space Science, 48: 12–14, 12131230.Google Scholar
Trout, J. D. 2016. Wondrous Truths: The Improbable Triumph of Modern Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 2007. “From a View of Science to a New Empiricism,” in Monton, B. (ed.), Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pages 337383.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 1994. “Gideon Rosen on Constructive Empiricism,” Philosophical Studies, 74: 2, 179192.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Van Spronsen, J. W. 1969. The Periodic System of Chemical Elements: A History of the First Hundred Years. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vernot, B., and Akey, J. M.. 2014. “Resurrecting Surviving Neandertal Lineages from Modern Human Genomes,” Science, 343: 6174 (February 28, 2014), 10171021.Google Scholar
Vickers, P. 2013. “A Confrontation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science, 80, 189211.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. 2011. The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. 1986/2003. “The Copernicans and the Churches,” in Hellyer, M. (ed.), The Scientific Revolution. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pages 4671.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. 1975. “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory,” Isis, 66: 2, 164193.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 2012. “Miracles and Structural Realism,” in Landry, E. and Rickles, D. (eds.), Structural Realism: Structure, Object, and Causality. Dordrecht: Springer, pages 7795.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 2007. “Miracles and Models: Why Reports of the Death of Structural Realism May Be Exaggerated,” in O’Hear, A. (ed.), Philosophy of Science, Supplement to Philosophy, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement: 61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pages 125154.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?,” Dialectica, 43: 1–2, 99124.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2017. “Kuhn’s Influence on the Social Sciences,” in Rosenberg, A. and McIntyre, L. (eds.), Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science. New York: Routledge, pages 6575.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2015. “Pessimistic Inductions: Four Varieties,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 29: 1, 6173.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2015b. “The Methodological Defense of Realism Scrutinized,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 54, 7479.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2013. “Success and Truth in the Realism/Anti-realism Debate,” Synthese, 190: 9, 17191729.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2011. Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2007. “Who Has Scientific Knowledge?,” Social Epistemology, 21: 3, 337347.Google Scholar
Wright, J. 2013. Explaining Science’s Success: Understanding How Scientific Knowledge Works. Durham: Acumen.Google Scholar
Wrightsman, B. 1975. “Andreas Osiander’s Contribution to the Copernican Achievement,” in Westman, R. S. (ed.), The Copernican Achievement. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pages 213243.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • K. Brad Wray
  • Book: Resisting Scientific Realism
  • Online publication: 12 October 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108231633.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • K. Brad Wray
  • Book: Resisting Scientific Realism
  • Online publication: 12 October 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108231633.017
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • K. Brad Wray
  • Book: Resisting Scientific Realism
  • Online publication: 12 October 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108231633.017
Available formats
×