- 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
Thinking Tools: You can Prove a negative
Think 4 (10):109-112 (2005)
Abstract
A demonstration that you can prove a negative.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
How can we think the complex?Carlos Gershenson & Francis Heylighen - 2004 - In [Book Chapter] (Unpublished).
Making tools for thinking.Daniel C. Dennett - 2000 - In Dan Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford University Press. pp. 17--29.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-12-23
Downloads
116 (#150,511)
6 months
20 (#125,481)
2013-12-23
Downloads
116 (#150,511)
6 months
20 (#125,481)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
A Peculiar and Perpetual Tendency: An Asymmetry in Knowledge Attributions for Affirmations and Negations.John Turri - 2022 - Erkenntnis 87 (4):1795-1808.
A Peculiar and Perpetual Tendency: An Asymmetry in Knowledge Attributions for Affirmations and Negations.John Turri - 2020 - Erkenntnis 87 (4):1795-1808.
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-hc2g5 uwo