Reply to mr fine's note

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15 (58):141 (1964)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1093/bjps/xv.58.141-a

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Reply to Lawlor’s “Varieties of coreference”.Kit Fine - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (2):496-501.
Multiple universes and the fine-tuning argument: A response to Rodney holder.Michael Rota - 2005 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):556–576.
What fine-tuning's got to do with it: a reply to Weisberg.R. White - 2011 - Analysis 71 (4):676-679.
Essentialist arguments against descriptivism.Michael Mcglone - 2010 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (4):443-462.
The fine-tuning argument.Neil A. Manson - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (1):271-286.
Beyond recovery? A reply to Tennant.Sven-ove Hansson & Hans Rott - 1998 - Erkenntnis 49 (3):387-392.
Critique of the Papers of Fine and Suppes.Abner Shimony - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:572 - 580.
A Reply to Fine, Lapavitsas and Milonakis.Tony Smith - 2000 - Historical Materialism 6 (1):139-144.
Note on Goodstein's 'the significance of incompleteness theorems'.Arthur I. Fine - 1964 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15 (58):140-141.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
138 (#131,122)

6 months
5 (#638,139)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references