- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Comments on Michael Strevens’s Depth [Book Review]
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (2):474-482 (2012)
Abstract
This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)Author's Profile
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Précis of Depth. [REVIEW]Michael Strevens - 2012 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (2):447-460.
Michael Strevens. Depth: An Account of Scientific Explanation.Anthony Kulic - 2010 - Spontaneous Generations 4 (1):292-299.
Bigger than Chaos: Understanding Complexity through Probability.Michael Strevens - 2003 - Harvard University Press.
Replies to Weatherson, Hall, and Lange. [REVIEW]Michael Strevens - 2012 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (2):492-505.
Explanation, Idealisation and the Goldilocks Problem.Brian Weatherson - 2012 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84 (2):461-473.
Bayesian confirmation and auxiliary hypotheses revisited: A reply to Strevens.Branden Fitelson & Andrew Waterman - 2005 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):293-302.
A closer look at the 'new' principle.Michael Strevens - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):545-561.
The bayesian treatment of auxiliary hypotheses: Reply to Fitelson and Waterman.Michael Strevens - 2005 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):913-918.
Analytics
Added to PP
2012-03-22
Downloads
127 (#140,113)
6 months
13 (#184,769)
2012-03-22
Downloads
127 (#140,113)
6 months
13 (#184,769)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7c76586df8-pp8v9 uwo