Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Narrative and evidence. How can case studies from the history of science support claims in the philosophy of science?Katherina Kinzel - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 49 (C):48-57.
    A common method for warranting the historical adequacy of philosophical claims is that of relying on historical case studies. This paper addresses the question as to what evidential support historical case studies can provide to philosophical claims and doctrines. It argues that in order to assess the evidential functions of historical case studies, we first need to understand the methodology involved in producing them. To this end, an account of historical reconstruction that emphasizes the narrative character of historical accounts and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • Background independence and the causation of observations.Robert G. Hudson - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (4):595-612.
  • Bibliography of structuralism II (1989–1994 and additions).Andoni Ibarra, Thomas Mormann & Werner Diederich - 1994 - Erkenntnis 41 (3):403-418.
  • Why worry about theory‐dependence? Circularity, minimal empiricality and reliability.Matthias Adam - 2004 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18 (2 & 3):117 – 132.
    It is a widely shared view among philosophers of science that the theory-dependence (or theory-ladenness) of observations is worrying, because it can bias empirical tests in favour of the tested theories. These doubts are taken to be dispelled if an observation is influenced by a theory independent of the tested theory and thus circularity is avoided, while (partially) circular tests are taken to require special attention. Contrary to this consensus, it is argued that the epistemic value of theory-dependent tests has (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations