Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Defining Science
- 3 Learning Science
- 4 Development of the Scientific Method: From Papyrus to Petaflops
- 5 Science in Practice
- 6 Science as a Social Endeavor
- 7 Epilogue
- Appendix A: A Simple Question with Profound Implications
- Appendix B: Chaos in the Brickyard
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 September 2023
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Dedication
- Contents
- Foreword
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Defining Science
- 3 Learning Science
- 4 Development of the Scientific Method: From Papyrus to Petaflops
- 5 Science in Practice
- 6 Science as a Social Endeavor
- 7 Epilogue
- Appendix A: A Simple Question with Profound Implications
- Appendix B: Chaos in the Brickyard
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Philosophy and Practice of Science , pp. 353 - 386Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Purcell, EM, Pound RV: A Nuclear Spin System at Negative Temperature. Physical Review 1951, 81:279–280.Google Scholar
Needham, P: Determining Sameness of Substance. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2017, 68(4):953–979, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv050.Google Scholar
Sills, J: Why Science? Scientists Share Their Stories. Science 2017, 356(6338): 590–592.Google Scholar
How Our Dictionaries Are Created. In Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press 2014.Google Scholar
Markie, P, Folescu, M: Rationalism vs. Empiricism. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#1.2.Google Scholar
Shapiro, AE: Newton’s “Experimental Philosophy.” Early Science and Medicine 2004, 9(3):185–217.Google Scholar
Pasnau, R: After Certainty. A History of Our Epistemic Ideals and Illusions. Oxford University Press 2017.Google Scholar
Science. In Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press 2014, www.oed.com/view/Entry/172672?redirectedFrom=science#eid.Google Scholar
Smart, JJC: Between Science and Philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Random House 1968.Google Scholar
Nagel, E: The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World 1961.Google Scholar
Elliott, K, McKaughan, D: Non-Epistemic Values and the Multiple Goals of Science. Philosophy of Science 2014, 81:1–21.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc. 1922.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P: Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Philosophia 2008, 36:167–180.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P: Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford University Press 2013.Google Scholar
Schindler, S: Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory. Cambridge University Press 2018, www.cambridge.org/core/books/theoretical-virtues-in-science/BEECC887D80F03C8FFAC1EDBA0D30B05.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M, Boudry, M: Why the Demarcation Problem Matters. University of Chicago Press 2013:1–6.Google Scholar
Alters, BJ: Whose Nature of Science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1997, 34:39–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P.Google Scholar
Bormann, K: The Interpretation of Parmenides by the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The Monist 1979, 62:30–42.Google Scholar
Preus, A: Historical Dictionary of Ancient Greek Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd edition 2015.Google Scholar
Mulligan, K, Correia, F: Facts. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2013 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2013.Google Scholar
Eliot, TS: Fragment of the Agon, in Sweeney Agonistes. In The Complete Poems and Plays, 1909–1950, Harcourt Brace & Company 1952: 80–81. [Unfinished poem].Google Scholar
Sargent, RM: The Dissident Naturalist. Robert Boyle and the Philosophy of Experiment. University of Chicago Press 1995.Google Scholar
Franklin, A: Review Essay: Experimental Questions. Perspectives on Science 1993, 1:127–146.Google Scholar
Bauer, HH: Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method. University of Illinois Press 1992.Google Scholar
Sparkes, A, et al. Towards Robot Scientists for Autonomous Scientific Discovery. Automated Experimentation 2010, 2:1–1, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20119518.Google Scholar
Chang, H: Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford University Press 2004.Google Scholar
Ireland, J: “Udana” and the “Itivuttaka”: Two Classics from the Pali Canon. Buddhist Publication Society 1997.Google Scholar
Asquith, PD, Kyburg, HE (Eds): Research in Philosophy of Science Bearing on Science Education. Philosophy of Science Association 1979.Google Scholar
Matthews, MR: Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. Routledge 1994.Google Scholar
Santayana, G: Reasons in Common Sense. In The Life of Reason or The Phases of Human Progress, Volume 1, Charles Scribner’s Sons 1917.Google Scholar
Boyle, R: The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle. In Six Volumes. To Which Is Prefixed the Life of the Author. J. and F. Rivington 1772.Google Scholar
Bauerle, C, et al.: Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
Chang, H: Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. In Boston Series in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 293. Edited by Cohen RS, Renn, J, Gavroglu, K, Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2012.Google Scholar
Cavendish, H, et al. XXXVII. The Report of the Committee Appointed by the Royal Society to Consider of the Best Method of Adjusting the Fixed Points of Thermometers; and of the Precautions Necessary to Be Used in Making Experiments with Those Instruments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1777, 67:816–857, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstl.1777.0038.Google Scholar
Chang, H: The Myth of the Boiling Point. Science Progress 2008, 91(3):219–240, www.jstor.org/stable/43423228.Google Scholar
Kenrick, FB, Gilbert, CS, Wismer, KL: The Superheating of Liquids. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 1923, 28(12):1297–1307, https://doi.org/10.1021/j150246a009.Google Scholar
Soffar, H: What Are the Importance of Atomic Clocks and How Do They Work 2018, www.online-sciences.com/technology/what-are-the-importance-of-the-atomic-clocks-and-how-do-they-work/.Google Scholar
Grebing, C, et al. Realization of a Timescale with an Accurate Optical Lattice Clock. Optica 2016, 3(6):563–569, www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica-3-6-563.Google Scholar
Starr, M: We Now Have Atomic Clocks so Precise, They Could Detect Space-Time Distortion 2018, www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-developed-atomic-clocks-so-precise-they-could-detect-gravitational-waves.Google Scholar
Blokker, E, et al. The Chemical Bond: When Atom Size Instead of Electronegativity Difference Determines Trend in Bond Strength. Chemistry – A European Journal 2021, 27(63):15616–15622, https://doi.org/10.1002/chem.202103544.Google Scholar
Judson, HF: The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology. Simon and Shuster 1979.Google Scholar
Delbrück, M: Light and Life III. Carlsberg Research Communications 1976, 41(6):299–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02906138.Google Scholar
Bohr, N: Light and Life. Nature 1933, 131(3308):421–423, https://doi.org/10.1038/131421a0.Google Scholar
McKaughan, DJ: The Influence of Niels Bohr on Max Delbruck: Revisiting the Hopes Inspired by “Light and Life”. Isis 2005, 96(4):507–529, https://doi.org/10.1086/498591.Google Scholar
Fischer, EP, Lipson C: Thinking About Science: Max Delbrück and the Origins of Molecular Biology. W.W. Norton & Company 1988.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E: What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press 1967.Google Scholar
Timoféeff-Ressovsky, NW, Zimmer, KG, Delbrück, M: Über die Natur der Genmutation und der Genstruktur. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: mathematisch-physische Klasse, Fachgruppe VI: Biologie 1 1935, 6(13):189–245.Google Scholar
Abir-Am, P: The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s: A Reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Policy” in Molecular Biology. Social Studies of Science 1982, 12(3):341–382, www.jstor.org/stable/284665.Google Scholar
Harding, C: Max Delbrück (1906–1981), http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechOH:OH_Delbruck_M.Google Scholar
Ellis, EL, Delbrück M: The Growth of Bacteriophage. The Journal of General Physiology 1939, 22(3):365–384.Google Scholar
Luria, SE, Delbrück M: Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance. Genetics 1943, 28(6):491–511, www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.Google Scholar
Kendrew, JC: How Molecular Biology Started. Scientific American 1967, 216(3):141–144, www.jstor.org/stable/24931441.Google Scholar
Timmerman, LD: Hood: Trailblazer of the Genomics Age. Bandera Press LLC 2017, https://books.google.com/books?id=bjOHDAEACAAJ.Google Scholar
Hood, LE: My Life and Adventures Integrating Biology and Technology 2002, www.kyotoprize.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/18kA_lct_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Willyard, C: New Human Gene Tally Reignites Debate. Nature 2018, 558(7710):354, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05462-w.Google Scholar
Salzberg, SL: Open Questions: How Many Genes Do We Have? BMC Biology 2018, 16:94–94, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30124169.Google Scholar
Dreyer, WJ, Bennett JC: The Molecular Basis of Antibody Formation: A Paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1965, 54(3):864–869, www.pnas.org/content/54/3/864.Google Scholar
Dr. Henry, Huang, Plaintiff v. California Institute of Technology, et al. Defendant Case No. CV 03-1140 MRP 2004.Google Scholar
Department of Molecular Biotechnology 2001, http://nick-lab.gs.washington.edu/mbt-web/.Google Scholar
Ideker, T, Galitski, T, Hood L: A New Approach to Decoding Life: Systems Biology. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 2001, 2:343–372, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.2.1.343. [PMID: 11701654].Google Scholar
Clough, M: Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science: How to Effectively Incorporate the Nature of Science in Your Classroom. The Science Teacher 2011, 78:56–60.Google Scholar
Clough, MP: History and Nature of Science in Science Education. SensePublishers 2017:39–51, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_3.Google Scholar
Thomas, L: The Wonderful Mistake: Notes of a Biology Watcher: Incorporating the Lives of a Cell, and, the Medusa and the Snail. Oxford University Press 1988.Google Scholar
Angli, GH: Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus. Charles C. Thomas 1928.Google Scholar
Brewster, D: Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, Volume 2. Thomas Constable and Co. 1855.Google Scholar
Department of Defense News Briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636.Google Scholar
de, Magalhães JP, Wang J: The Fog of Genetics: Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns in the Genetics of Complex Traits and Diseases. bioRxiv 2019, www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2019/02/18/553685.Google Scholar
Johnson, S: Farsighted. How We Make the Decisions That Matter the Most. Riverhead Books 2018.Google Scholar
Valentin, J (Ed): The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annals of the ICRP 2007, 37(2–4):1–332.Google Scholar
Žižek, S: Philosophy, the “Unknown Knowns,” and the Public Use of Reason. Topoi 2006, 25:137–142, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-006-0021-2.Google Scholar
Gross, M, McGoey L: Introduction. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Edited by Gross M, McGoey L, Routledge 2015:1–14.Google Scholar
Duncan, R, Weston-Smith M (Eds): The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Unknown. Pergamon Press 1977.Google Scholar
Little, B: From the Editor. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 1985, 2(3):131–133.Google Scholar
Smithson, M: Ignorance and Science: Dilemmas, Perspectives, and Prospects. Knowledge 1993, 15(2):133–156, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500202.Google Scholar
Smithson, M: Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms. Cognitive Science. Springer-Verlag Publishing 1989.Google Scholar
Kassar, NE: What Ignorance Really Is. Examining the Foundations of Epistemology of Ignorance. Social Epistemology 2018, 32(5):300–310, https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1518498.Google Scholar
LeMorvan, P: On Ignorance: A Reply to Peels. Philosophia 2011, 39(2):335–344, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-010-9292-3.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, MJ: Living with Uncertainty: The Moral Significance of Ignorance. Cambridge University Press 2008.Google Scholar
Alcoff, LM: Epistemologies of Ignorance. Three Types. State University of New York Press 2007.Google Scholar
Tuana, N: The Speculum of Ignorance: The Women’s Health Movement and Epistemologies of Ignorance. Hypatia 2006, 21(3):1–19.Google Scholar
Proctor, RN, Schiebinger L (Eds): Agnotology. The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press 2008.Google Scholar
Peels, R: What Is Ignorance? Philosophia 2010, 38:57–67, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9202-8.Google Scholar
Goldman, AI, Olsso EJ: Epistemic Value. In Reliabilism and the Value of Knowledge, Handbook of Stuff I Care About. Edited by Pritchard D, Haddock, A, Millar, A, Oxford University Press 2009:19–41.Google Scholar
DeNicola, DR: Understanding Ignorance: The Surprising Impact of What We Don’t Know. MIT Press 2017.Google Scholar
Haas, J, Vogt KM: Ignorance and Investigation. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Edited by Gross M, McGoey L, Routledge 2015: 17–25.Google Scholar
Kinsey, A, Pomeroy, W, Martin C: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Indiana University Press 1998, https://books.google.com/books?id=pfMKrY3VvigC.Google Scholar
Kinsey, A, for Sex Research I: Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Indiana University Press 1998, https://books.google.com/books?id=9GpBB61LV14C.Google Scholar
Masters, W, Johnson V: Human Sexual Inadequacy. Little, Brown 1970, https://books.google.com/books?id=W-JrAAAAMAAJ.Google Scholar
Descartes, R: Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, M. Walter Dunne 1901.Google Scholar
Ravetz, JR: The Sin of Science: Ignorance of Ignorance. Knowledge 1993, 15(2):157–165, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500203.Google Scholar
Burrow, GN: The Body of Medical Knowledge Required Today Far Exceeds What Students Can Learn in 4 Years. The Chronicle of Higher Education 1990.Google Scholar
Witte, MH, Crown, P, Bernas, M, Garcia, FA: “Ignoramics” in Medical and Premedical Education. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2008, 56(7):897–901.Google Scholar
Kerwin, A: None Too Solid: Medical Ignorance. Knowledge 1993, 15(2):166–185, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709301500204.Google Scholar
Keniston, AH, Peden BF: Infusing Critical Thinking into College Courses. Issue in Teaching and Learning 1992, 4:7–12.Google Scholar
Peden, BF, Keniston A: Methods for Critical Thinking. Wisconsin Dialogue 1991, 11:12–34.Google Scholar
Stocking, SH: Ignorance-Based Instruction in Higher Education. The Journalism Educator 1992, 47(3):43–53, https://doi.org/10.1177/107769589204700306.Google Scholar
Witte, M, Kerwin, A, Witte CL: The Curriculum on Medical Ignorance: Coursebook & Resource Manuals for Instructors and Students. The University of Arizona College of Medicine.Google Scholar
Schwartz, MA: The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research. Journal of Cell Science 2008, 121(11):1771–1771, http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.Google Scholar
Popper, K: Logik Der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. Springer-Verlag 1935.Google Scholar
Nola, R: After Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method. Springer Science + Business Media 2000.Google Scholar
Tattersall, I: What’s So Special about Science? Evolution: Education and Outreach 2008, 1:36–41.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S: The Methods of Science … and Those by Which We Live. Academic Questions 1995, 8(2):7–13.Google Scholar
Stuart, MT, Fehige, Y: Motivating the History of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2021, 11:212–221.Google Scholar
Fehige, Y: The Annus Mirabilis of 1986: Thought Experiments and Scientific Pluralism. Hopos: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2021, 11:222–240.Google Scholar
Einstein, A: Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Verlag der königlichen akademie der wissenschaften 1915.Google Scholar
Dyson, F, Eddington, A, Davidson C: A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 220:291–333.Google Scholar
Abbott, BP: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters 2016, 116:061102.Google Scholar
Einstein, A, et al.: On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It. Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik 1907, 4:411–462.Google Scholar
Touboul, P, et al. MICROSCOPE Mission: First Results of a Space Test of the Equivalence Principle. Physical Review Letters 2017, 119:231101.Google Scholar
Suter, R: Aristotle and the Scientific Method. The Scientific Monthly 1939, 49(5):468–472.Google Scholar
Shuttleworth, M: History of the Scientific Method. Explorable 2009, https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method.Google Scholar
Koyré, A: The Origins of Modern Science: A New Interpretation. Diogenes 1956, 4(16):1–22.Google Scholar
van Middendorp, Joost J, Sanchez, GM, Burridge AL: The Edwin Smith Papyrus: A Clinical Reappraisal of the Oldest Known Document on Spinal Injuries. European Spine Journal 2010, 19(11):1815–1823, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989268/.Google Scholar
Breasted, JH: The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus Published in Facsimile and Hieroglyphic Transliteration. University of Chicago Press 1930.Google Scholar
Gordetsky, J, O’Brien J: Urology and the Scientific Method in Ancient Egypt. Urology 2009, 73(3):476–479.Google Scholar
Brawanski, A: On the Myth of the Edwin Smith Papyrus: Is It Magic or Science? Acta Neurochirurgica 2012, 154(12):2285–2291.Google Scholar
Gomperz, T: Greek Thinkers: A History of Ancient Philosophy, Volume 4. John Murray 1912.Google Scholar
Shields, C: Aristotle. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN 2015, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/.Google Scholar
Kattsoff, LO: Ptolemy and Scientific Method: A Note on the History of an Idea. Isis 1947, 38(1/2):18–22.Google Scholar
Kuhn, TS: The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, Volume 16. Harvard University Press 1957.Google Scholar
Ahmad, I: Islamic Contributions to Modern Scientific Methods. Journal of Faith and Science Exchange 2012:27–36, http://hdl.handle.net/2144/3968.Google Scholar
Gorini, R: Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision. Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine 2003, 2(4):53–55.Google Scholar
Daneshfard, B, Dalfardi, B, Nezhad GSM: Ibn al-Haytham (965–1039 AD), the Original Portrayal of the Modern Theory of Vision. Journal of Medical Biography 2016, 24(2):227–231.Google Scholar
Bsoul, LA: Classical Muslim Scholars’ Development of the Experimental Scientific Method: ‘Iml al-Istiqrā’/induction Approach and Methodology. Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies R & D 2017, 2(4):1–33.Google Scholar
Dales, RC: Richard Grosseteste and Scientific Method, Volume 57. University of Pennsylvania Press 1973.Google Scholar
Weisheipl, JA: Life and Works of St. Albert. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1980 chap. 1:13–51.Google Scholar
Lindberg, DC: The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to AD 1450. University of Chicago Press 1992.Google Scholar
Hume, D: A TREATISE of Human Nature: BEING An Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning INTO MORAL SUBJECTS. John Noon 1739.Google Scholar
Wallace, WA: Albertus Magnus on Suppositional Necessity in the Natural Sciences. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 1980 chap. 4:103–128.Google Scholar
Thorndike, L: A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Volume II. Columbia University Press 1923.Google Scholar
Hackett, J: Roger Bacon and the Sciences: Commemorative Essays 1996, Volume 57. Brill 1997.Google Scholar
The Center for Islamic Studies: Scientific Method. https://islamic-study.org/scientific-method/.Google Scholar
Beale, S: Four Things You Need to Know about John Duns Scotus. Catholic Exchange 2014, https://catholicexchange.com/four-things-need-know-john-dunsscotus.Google Scholar
Losee, J: A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press, 4th edition 2001.Google Scholar
Crombie, AC: The Significance of Medieval Discussions of Scientific Method for the Scientific Revolution, University of Wisconsin Press 1959 chap. 3:79–101.Google Scholar
Occam’s, Razor 2018, www.oed.com/view/Entry/234636?redirectedFrom=Ockham%27s+razor#eid.Google Scholar
Pacer, M, Lombrozo, T: Ockham’s Razor Cuts to the Root: Simplicity in Causal Explanation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2017, 146(12):1761– 1780.Google Scholar
Hübener, W: Occam’s Razor Not Mysterious. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 1983, 27:73–92, www.jstor.org/stable/24362877.Google Scholar
Scientific, Method. In Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press 2014.Google Scholar
Rees, G, Wakely, M: The Instauratio magna Part II: Novum organum and Associated Texts. Clarendon Press 2004.Google Scholar
Malherbe, M: Bacon’s Method of Science. Cambridge University Press 1996 chap. 3:75–98.Google Scholar
Snyder, LJ: Renovating the Novum Organum: Bacon, Whewell and Induction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 1999, 30(4):531–557.Google Scholar
Einstein, A: Ideas and Opinions. Bonanza Books 1954, https://books.google.com/books?id=FFcNAQAAMAAJ.Google Scholar
Hawking, Stephen: A Brief History of Time. Updated and Expanded Tenth Anniversary Edition. Bantam Books 1998, https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999837008202121.Google Scholar
Viviani, V: Historical Account of the Life of Galileo Galilei. In On the Life of Galileo. Edited by Gattei S, Princeton University Press 2019, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc772t2.Google Scholar
Martinez, AA: Science Secrets: the Truth About Darwin’s Finches, Einstein’s Wife, and Other Myths. University of Pittsburgh Press 2011.Google Scholar
Crombie, AC: Medieval and Early Modern Science, Volume II. Doubleday Anchor Books 1959.Google Scholar
Crombie, AC: Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science 1100– 1700. Oxford University Press 1953.Google Scholar
Galilie, G: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican. Modern Library 2001.Google Scholar
Galilie, G: Two New Sciences, Including Centers of Gravity and Force of Percussion. University of Wisconsin Press 1974.Google Scholar
Noland, A, Wiener PP: Roots of Scientific Thought: A Cultural Perspective. Basic Books 1957.Google Scholar
Flage, DE, Bonnen CA: Descartes and Method: A Search for a Method in Meditations. Routledge 1999.Google Scholar
Descartes, R: Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress. Hackett, 4th edition 1993.Google Scholar
Browne, A: Descartes’s Dreams. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 1977, 40:256–273, www.jstor.org/stable/750999.Google Scholar
Schuster, J: Whatever Should We Do with the Cartesian Method? Reclaiming Descartes for the History of Science. Oxford University Press 1993.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G: Science, Certainty, and Descartes. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, 1988:249–262, www.jstor.org/stable/192888.Google Scholar
Garber, D: Descartes and Method in 1637. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1998, 2.Google Scholar
Whewell, W: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History, Volume 2. John W. Parker 1847.Google Scholar
Shouls, PA: Reason, Method, and Science in the Philosophy of Descartes. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 1972, 50:30–39.Google Scholar
Boyle, R: New Experiments PHYSICO-MECHANICAL Touching the Air Whereunto is added A Defense of the Author’s Explication of the EXPERIMENTS, against the OBJECTIONS OF Franciscus Linus and Thomas Hobbs. H. Hall for Thomas Robinson, 3rd edition 1662.Google Scholar
Davidson, JS: Online Annotations to Robert Boyle’s Sceptical Chymist. Journal of Chemical Education 2003, 80(5):487.Google Scholar
West, JB: Robert Boyle’s Landmark Book of 1660 with the First Experiments on Rarified Air. Journal of Applied Physiology 2005, 98:31–39.Google Scholar
Boyle, R: Certain Physiological Essays and Other Tracts; Written at Distant Times, and on Several Occasions. Henry Herringman, 2nd edition 1669, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MNVAnQAACAAJ.Google Scholar
Cohen, IB: Franklin and Newton: An Inquiry into Speculative Newtonian Experimental Science and Franklin’s Work in Electricity as an Example Thereof. American Philosophical Society: Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, American Philosophical Society 1956, https://books.google.com/books?id=mbUVAAAAIAAJ.Google Scholar
Hall, LJ, Nomura Y: Evidence for the Multiverse in the Standard Model and Beyond. Physical Review D 2008, 78(3):035001–1–035001–42, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.78.035001.Google Scholar
Chaudhury, PJ: Newton and Hypothesis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1962, 22(3):344–353.Google Scholar
Cohen, IB: The Principia, the Newtonian Style, and the Newtonian Revolution. University of Delaware Press 2012.Google Scholar
Smith, GE: The Methodology of the Principia. Cambridge University Press 2002 chap. 4:138–173.Google Scholar
Motte, A: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Sir Isaac Newton, translated by Andrew Motte. Benjamin Motte 1729.Google Scholar
Cowles, HM: The Age of Methods: William Whewell, Charles Peirce, and Scientific Kinds. Isis 2016, 107(4):722–737.Google Scholar
Herschel, JFW: A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy. In The Cabinet Cyclopaedia. Edited by Lardner D. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Taylor 1831.Google Scholar
Cobb, AD: Inductivism in Practice: Experiment in John Herschel’s Philosophy of Science. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2012, 2:21–54.Google Scholar
Butts, RE: William Whewell’s Theory of Scientific Method. University of Pittsburgh Press 1968.Google Scholar
Todhunter, I: William Whewell, D.D., An Account of His Writings, with Selections from His Literary and Scientific Correspondence, in Two Volumes, Volume II. Macmillan and Co. 1876.Google Scholar
Yeo, RR: Scientific Method and the Rhetoric of Science in Britain, 1830–1917, D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986:259–297.Google Scholar
Whewell, W: History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Times, Volume 1. John W. Parker 1837.Google Scholar
Putnam, H: Mathematics, Matter, and Method, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition 1975.Google Scholar
Macleod, C: John Stuart Mill 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/mill/.Google Scholar
Mill, JS: A system of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. Longmans, Green and Company 1884.Google Scholar
Mill, JS: The Earlier Letters of John Stuart Mill 1812–1848. University of Toronto Press, Volume 12 1963.Google Scholar
Snyder, LJ: Reforming Philosophy – A Victorian Debate on Science and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Edition 2006.Google Scholar
LaFollette, H, Shanks N: Animal Experimentation: The Legacy of Claude Bernard. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1994, 8(3):195–210.Google Scholar
Roll-Hansen, N: Critical Teleology: Immanuel Kant and Claude Bernard on the Limitations of Experimental Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 1976, 9:59–91.Google Scholar
Grmek, MD: Raisonnement Experiméntal et Rechereches Toxicologiques Chez Claude Bernard. Droz 1973.Google Scholar
Medawar, P: Pluto’s Republic: Incorporating The Art of the Soluble & Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. Oxford University Press 1982.Google Scholar
Hoefer, C: Causal Determinism. In Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN 2016 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int.Google Scholar
Bernard, C: An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine: Transl. by Henry Copley Greene. Henry Schuman 1949.Google Scholar
Schaffner, KF: Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine. University of Chicago Press 1993.Google Scholar
Daston, L: Scientific Error and the Ethos of Belief. Social Research 2005, 72:1–28, www.jstor.org/stable/40972000.Google Scholar
Jensen, MB, Janik, EL, Waclawik AJ: The Early Use of Blinding in Therapeutic Clinical Research of Neurological Disorders. Journal of Neurological Research and Therapy 2016, 1(2):4–16, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27617324.Google Scholar
Stolberg, M: Inventing the Randomized Double-Blind Trial: The Nürenberg Salt Test of 1835. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006, 99(12):642–643.Google Scholar
Samuelson, PA, Koopmans, TC, Stone JRN: Report of the Evaluative Committee for Econometrica. Econometrica 1954, 22(2):141–146, www.jstor.org/stable/1907538.Google Scholar
Morgan, AD: Formal Logic or, the Calculus of Inference, Necessary and Probable. Taylor and Walton 1847.Google Scholar
Jevons, WS: The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method. Macmillan 1913.Google Scholar
Schabas, M: A World Ruled by Number: William Stanley Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics. Princeton University Press 1990, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7zv0hj.Google Scholar
Laudan, LL: Induction and Probability in the Nineteenth Century, Volume 74. North Holland 1973.Google Scholar
Boole, G: An Investigation of the Laws of Thought: On Which Are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. Project Gutenberg 2017, www.gutenberg.org/files/15114/15114-pdf.pdf.Google Scholar
Mill, JS: Letter to John Elliot Cairnes. University of Toronto Press and Routledge & Kegan Paul 1871.Google Scholar
Carnap, R: The Two Concepts of Probability: The Problem of Probability. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1945, 5(4):513–532, www.jstor.org/stable/2102817.Google Scholar
Savvatimskiy, A: Measurements of the Melting Point of Graphite and the Properties of Liquid Carbon (A Review for 1963–2003). Carbon 2005, 43(6):1115–1142, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008622305000291.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B: Choice and Chance: An Introduction to Inductive Logic. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning 2000.Google Scholar
Hempel, CG: Studies in the Logic of Confirmation. Mind 1945, 54(213):1–26, www.jstor.org/stable/2250886.Google Scholar
Hempel, CG, Oppenheim P: Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science 1948, 15(2):135–175, www.jstor.org/stable/185169.Google Scholar
Hempel, CG: Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation. In Scientific Explanation, Space & Time, Volume III of Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Feigl H, Maxwell G. University of Minnesota Press 1962:98–169.Google Scholar
Balashov, Y, Rosenberg A (Eds): Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. Routledge 2001.Google Scholar
Thornton, R: Karl Popper 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/popper/.Google Scholar
Blumberg, AE, Feigl H: Logical Positivism. Journal of Philosophy 1931, 28(11):281–296.Google Scholar
Uebel, T: “Logical Positivism”-“Logical Empiricism”: What’s in a Name? Perspectives on Science 2013, 21:58–99.Google Scholar
Richardson, A, Uebel T: The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge University Press 2007.Google Scholar
Stadler, F: Vienna Circle: Logical Empiricism, Volume 25. 2nd edition. Elsevier 2015:87–94.Google Scholar
Sahu, KC, et al.: Relativistic Deflection of Background Starlight Measures the Mass of a Nearby White Dwarf Star. Science 2017, 356(6342):1046–1050, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/1046.Google Scholar
Weinberg, JR: Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der Modernen Naturwissenschaft. Von KARL POPPER. The Philosophical Review 1936, 45(5):511–514, www.jstor.org/stable/2180508.Google Scholar
Popper, K: Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Routledge, Taylor and Francis e-Library 2005.Google Scholar
Newton, I: New Theory about Light and Colors. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1671:3075–3087.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, PK: Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. In Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology, Volume 4. Edited by Radner M, Winokur S. University of Minnesota Press 1970:17–130.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press 1978.Google Scholar
Preston, J, Munvar, G, Lamb D: The Worst Enemy of Science?: Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend. Oxford University Press 2000.Google Scholar
Electrodynamics. In Oxford English Dictionary 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/270111?redirectedFrom=electrodynamics&.Google Scholar
Stadler, F: Paul Feyerabend and the Forgotten “Third Vienna Circle”. Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists 2014, 6:47–66.Google Scholar
Preston, J: Paul Feyerabend. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016 edition. Edited by Zalta EN. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2016.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, PK: Herbert Feigl. A Biographical Sketch. In Mind, Matter, and Method. Essays in Philosophy and Science in Honor of Herbert Feigl. Edited by Feyerabend P, Maxwell, G, University of Minnesota Press 1996:3–13.Google Scholar
Koertge, N: For and against Method. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1972, 23:274–290.Google Scholar
Nickles, T: Heuristic Appraisal: Context of Discovery or Justification? In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, Springer Netherlands 2006:159–182.Google Scholar
Horgan, J: Profile: Paul Karl Feyerabend: The Worst Enemy of Science. Scientific American 1993, 268(5):36–37, www.jstor.org/stable/24941475.Google Scholar
Des-Cartes, R: Meditationes de prima philosophia in qva dei existentia et animæ immortalitas demonstratvr 1641.Google Scholar
Kidd, IJ: Rethinking Feyerabend: The “Worst Enemy of Science”? PLOS Biology 2011, 9(10):1–3.Google Scholar
Shaw, J: Was Feyerabend an Anarchist? The Structure(s) of “Anything Goes”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2017, 64:11–21.Google Scholar
Brown, MJ, Kidd IJ: Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2016, 57:1–8.Google Scholar
Jacobson, R: 2.5 Quintillion Bytes of Data Created Every Day. How Does CPG & Retail Manage It? IBM Consumer Products Industry Blog 2013, www.ibm.com/blogs/insights-on-business/consumer-products/2-5-quintillion-bytes-of-data-created-every-day-how-does-cpg-retail-manage-it/.Google Scholar
Sybrandt, J, Shtutman, M, Safro I: Large-Scale Validation of Hypothesis Generation Systems via Candidate Ranking. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) 2018:1494–1503.Google Scholar
National, Science Board: Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in the 21st Century. National Science Foundation 2005, www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsb0540/start.htm.Google Scholar
Strasser, BJ: Data-Driven Sciences: From Wonder Cabinets to Electronic Databases. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2012, 43:85–87, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848611000859.Google Scholar
Gray, J, Szalay A: eScience – A Transformed Scientific Method. Computer Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council 2007.Google Scholar
Bell, G: Foreward. In The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Edited by Hey T, Tansley, S, Tolle, K, Microsoft Research 2009:xi.Google Scholar
Hey, T, Tansley, S, Tolle K: The Fourth Paradigm. Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft Research 2009.Google Scholar
Duman, JG, DeVries AL: Isolation, Characterization, and Physical properties of Protein Antifreezes from the Flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Comparative Biochemistry 1976, 54(3):375–380, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305049176902601.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S: Introduction: Making Sense of Data-Driven Research in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2012, 43:1–3.Google Scholar
Anderson, C: The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete. Wired 2008, 16:07.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M: The End of Theory in Science? EMBO Reports 2009, 10(6):534–534, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1038/embor.2009.111.Google Scholar
Pyysalo, S, Baker, S, Ali, I, Haselwimmer, S, Shah, T, Young, A, Guo, Y, Högberg J, Stenius, U, Narita, M, Korhonen A: LION LBD: A Literature-Based Discovery System for Cancer Biology. Bioinformatics 2018, bty845:1–9, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty845.Google Scholar
Nguyen, V, Bodenreider, O, Minning, T, Sheth A: The Knowledge Driven Exploration of Integrated Biomedical Knowledge Sources Facilitates the Generation of New Hypotheses. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Linked Science (LISC 2011) 2011.Google Scholar
Fleming, N: Computer-Calculated Compounds-Researchers Are Deploying Artificial Intelligence to Discover Drugs. Nature 2018, 557:S55–S57, www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05267-x/d41586-018-05267-x.pdf.Google Scholar
Bongard, J, Lipson H: Automated Reverse Engineering of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2007, 104(24):9943–9948, www.pnas.org/content/104/24/9943.Google Scholar
Carley, KM: On Generating Hypotheses Using Computer Simulations. Systems Engineering 1999, 2(2):69–77.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S: Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Approach. University of Chicago Press 2106.Google Scholar
King, RD, Whelan, KE, Jones, FM, Reiser PGK, Bryant, CH, Muggleton, SH, Kell, DB, Oliver SG: Functional Genomic Hypothesis Generation and Experimentation by a Robot Scientist. Nature 2004, 427:247, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02236.Google Scholar
Gutting, G: Scientific Methodology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2017:423–432, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405164481.ch63.Google Scholar
De, Regt HW: Scientific Realism in Action: Molecular Models and Boltzmann’s “Bildtheorie”. Erkenntnis 2005, 63(2):205–230, www.jstor.org/stable/20013358.Google Scholar
Acosta, ND, Golub SH: The New Federalism: State Policies Regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2016, 44(3):419–436, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27587447.Google Scholar
Dresser, R: Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy conversation. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2010, 38(2):332–341, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579255.Google Scholar
Ayala, FJ: Cloning Humans? Biological, Ethical, and Social Considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2015, 112(29):8879–8886, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26195738.Google Scholar
Varmus, H: Embryos, Cloning, Stem Cells, and the Promise of Reprogramming. W. W. Norton 2009 chap. 13:197–223.Google Scholar
Cressey, D: Controversial UK Research Reform Crosses Finish Line 2017, www.nature.com/news/controversial-uk-research-reform-crosses-finish-line-1.21919?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news% 2Frss%2Fmost_recent+%28NatureNews+-+Most+recent+articles%29.Google Scholar
Taylor, AP: Hungarian Law Wrests Control of Research from Scientific Academy-Protestors Disapprove of Putting Scientific Institutions under the Authority of a Government-Led Committee. The Scientist 2019.Google Scholar
Dunai, M: Hungarian Parliament Passes Bill Tightening State Grip over Scientists. Reuters-World News 2019.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A: Trump Restrictions on Fetal Tissue Research Unsettle Key Studies and Scientists. Washington Post 2020.Google Scholar
Hawking, SW: Chronology Protection Conjecture. Physical Review D 1992, 46:603– 611, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.46.603.Google Scholar
Teplow, DB, et al.: Elucidating Amyloid β-Protein Folding and Assembly: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Accounts of Chemical Research 2006, 39(9):635–645, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16981680.Google Scholar
Merton, RK: On Social Structure and Science. University of Chicago Press 1996, https://books.google.com/books?id=j94XiVDwAZEC.Google Scholar
Boorstein, S: Don’s Just Do Something, Sit There. A Mindfulness Retreat with Sylvia Boorstein. Harper-Collins, 1st edition 1996.Google Scholar
Schrödinger, E: Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 1935, 23(48):807–812, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491891.Google Scholar
Franklin, A: What Makes a “Good” Experiment? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1981, 32(4):367–379.Google Scholar
Knight, J: From DNA to Consciousness – Crick’s Legacy. Nature 2004, 430(7000):597–597, https://doi.org/10.1038/430597a.Google Scholar
Crick, F, Koch C: Towards a Neurobiological Theory of Consciousness. Seminars in the Neurosciences 1990, 2:263–275.Google Scholar
Crick, F, Koch C: A Framework for Consciousness. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6(2):119–126, https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0203-119.Google Scholar
Urbanc, B, et al.: Dynamics of Plaque Formation in Alzheimer’s Disease. Biophysical Journal 1999, 76(3):1330–1334.Google Scholar
Gibney, E: New Definitions of Scientific Units Are on the Horizon. Metrologists Are Poised to Change How Scientists Measure the Universe. Nature 2017, 550:312–313.Google Scholar
Tukey, JW: Analyzing Data: Sanctification or Detective Work? American Psychologist 1969, 24(2):83–91.Google Scholar
Johnson, DH: The Insignificance of Statistical Significance Testing. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 1999, 63(763–772):3.Google Scholar
Jones, SR, Carley, S, Harrison M: An Introduction to Power and Sample Size Estimation. Emergency Medicine 2003, 20:453–458.Google Scholar
Jørstad, TS, Langaas, M, Bones, AM: Understanding Sample Size: What Determines the Required Number of Microarrays for an Experiment? Trends in Plant Sciences 2007, 12(2):46–50.Google Scholar
Sullivan, LM, Weinberg, J, Keaney JF: Common Statistical Pitfalls in Basic Science Research. Journal of the American Heart Association 2016, 5:e004142.Google Scholar
Turing, AM: On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 1937, s2–42:230– 265, https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230.Google Scholar
Heesen, R: How Much Evidence Should One Collect? Philosophical Studies 2015, 172(9):2299–2313.Google Scholar
al-Haytham, I: The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I–III. On Direct Vision. The Warburg Institute 1989.Google Scholar
Whewell, W: The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon Their History. John W. Parker 1837.Google Scholar
Stegenga, J, Menon T: Robustness and Independent Evidence. Philosophy of Science 2017, 84(3):414–435, https://doi.org/10.1086/692141.Google Scholar
Vosshall, LB: Into the Mind of a Fly. Nature 2007, 450(7167):193–197, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06335.Google Scholar
Gerstein, MB, et al.: Comparative Analysis of the Transcriptome across Distant Species. Nature 2014, 512(7515):445–448, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13424.Google Scholar
Couch, J: Pliny’s Natural History. In Thirty-Seven Books. A Translation on the Basis of That by Dr. Philemon Holland, Ed. 1601. With Critical and Explanatory Notes. George Barclay 1847.Google Scholar
Crick, FH: On Protein Synthesis. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 1958, 12:138–63.Google Scholar
Crick, F: Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Nature 1970, 227(5258):561–563, https://doi.org/10.1038/227561a0.Google Scholar
Raskatov, JA: What Is the “Relevant” Amyloid β42 Concentration? ChemBioChem 2019, 20(13):1725–1726, https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.201900097.Google Scholar
Douven, I: Abduction. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2017.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, C, Weiss P (Eds): The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 1931–1935, Volume I–VI. Harvard University Press 1965.Google Scholar
Bucchianico, MED: Modelling High Temperature Superconductivity: A Philosophical Inquiry in Theory, Experiment and Dissent. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science 2009.Google Scholar
The, Peirce Edition Project (Ed): The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings (1893–1913). Indiana University Press 1998.Google Scholar
Peirce, CS: Illustrations of the Logic of Science. The Probability of Induction. Popular Science Monthly 1878, 12:705–718.Google Scholar
Anderson, DR: The Evolution of Peirce’s Concept of Abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1986, 22(2):145–164.Google Scholar
Plutynski, A: Four Problems of Abduction: A Brief History. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 2011, 1(2):227– 248.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, HG: Peirce’s Account of Inquiry. Journal of Philosophy 1958, 55(14):588–592.Google Scholar
Campos, DG: On the Distinction between Peirce’s Abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 2011, 180(3):419–442, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9709-3.Google Scholar
Minnameier, G: Peirce-Suit of Truth: Why Inference to the Best Explanation and Abduction Ought Not to Be Confused. Erkenntnis 2004, 60:75–105, www.jstor.org/stable/20013245.Google Scholar
Peirce, CS: The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press 1958.Google Scholar
Quine, WV: Word and Object. Studies in Communication, Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1960.Google Scholar
Harman, GH: The Inference to the Best Explanation. The Philosophical Review 1965, 74:88–95.Google Scholar
Mcauliffe, WHB: How did Abduction Get Confused with Inference to the Best Explanation? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2015, 51(3):300–319, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.51.3.300.Google Scholar
Burks, AW: Peirce’s Theory of Abduction. Philosophy of Science 1946, 13(4):301– 306, www.jstor.org/stable/185210.Google Scholar
Mohammadian, M: Abduction − The Context of Discovery + Underdetermination = Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 2019, 198:4205–4228Google Scholar
Hintikka, J: What Is Abduction? The Fundamental Problem of Contemporary Epistemology. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1998, 34(3):503, www.jstor.org/stable/40320712.Google Scholar
Campos, DG: On the Distinction between Peirce’s Abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the Best Explanation. Synthese 2011, 180(3):419–442, www.jstor.org/stable/41477565.Google Scholar
Paavola, S: Hansonian and Harmanian Abduction as Models of Discovery. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2006, 20:93–108, https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590600641065.Google Scholar
Mcauliffe, WHB: How did Abduction Get Confused with Inference to the Best Explanation? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2015, 51(3):300–319, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.51.3.300.Google Scholar
McKaughan, DJ: From Ugly Duckling to Swan: C. S. Peirce, Abduction, and the Pursuit of Scientific Theories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2008, 44(3):446–468, www.jstor.org/stable/40321321.Google Scholar
Paavola, S: Abduction through Grammar, Critic, and Methodeutic. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2004, 40(2):245–270, www.jstor.org/stable/40320991.Google Scholar
Hempel, CG: Aspects of Scientific Explanation: And Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Free Press 1965.Google Scholar
Barnes, E: Inference to the Loveliest Explanation. Synthese 1995, 103(2):251–277, www.jstor.org/stable/20117399.Google Scholar
Tversky, A, Kahneman D: Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 1974, 185 4157:1124–1131.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D, Slovic, P, Tversky A (Eds): Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press 1982.Google Scholar
Okasha, S: Van Fraassen’s Critique of Inference to the Best Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2000, 31:691–710.Google Scholar
Harman, GH: Knowledge, Reasons, and Causes. Journal of Philosophy 1970, 67(21):841–855.Google Scholar
Duhem, P: La théorie physique son objet et sa structure. Chevalier et Riviere, 2nd edition 1914.Google Scholar
Ariew, R: The Duhem Thesis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1984, 35(4):313–325, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/35.4.313.Google Scholar
Duhem, PMM: The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press 1954.Google Scholar
Stanford, K: Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2017.Google Scholar
Quine, WV: On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World. Erkenntnis 1975, 9(3):313–328, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178004.Google Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, PS, Bennett, JG, Higgs MD: How to Undermine Underdetermination? Foundations of Science 2015, 20(2).Google Scholar
Laudan, L, Leplin J: Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy 1991, 88(9):449–472, www.jstor.org/stable/2026601.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P: The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Springer 1996.Google Scholar
Park, S: Philosophical Responses to Underdetermination in Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 2009, 40:115–124, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-009-9080-6.Google Scholar
Stanford, PK: Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously? Philosophy of Science 2001, 68(3):S1–S12, www.jstor.org/stable/3080930.Google Scholar
Chamberlin, TC: The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. Science (Old Series) 1890, 15:92–96.Google Scholar
Elliott, LP, Brook BW: Revisiting Chamberlin: Multiple Working Hypotheses for the 21st Century. BioScience 2007, 57(7):608–614, https://doi.org/10.1641/B570708.Google Scholar
Yanco, SW, McDevitt A, Trueman, CN, Hartley, LM, Wunder MB: A Modern Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses to Improve Inference in Ecology. Royal Society Open Science 2020, 7:200231.Google Scholar
Spade, PV, Panaccio C: Simplicity. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2019 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2019.Google Scholar
Baker, A: Simplicity. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2016 https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/simplicity/.Google Scholar
Sober, E: What Is the Problem of Simplicity? In Simplicity, Inference, and Modelling. Edited by Zellner A, Keuzenkamp, HA, McAleer M, Cambridge University Press 2002:13–32.Google Scholar
Jefferys, WH, Berger JO: Ockham’s Razor and Bayesian Analysis. American Scientist 1992, 80:64–72, www.jstor.org/stable/29774559.Google Scholar
Barnes, EC: Ockham’s Razor and the Anti-Superfluity Principle. Erkenntnis (1975–) 2000, 53(3):353–374, www.jstor.org/stable/20013020.Google Scholar
Sober, E: From a Biological Point of View: Essays in Evolutionary Philosophy. Cambridge University Press 1994, www.cambridge.org/core/books/from-a-biological-point-of-view/6C0C7E57E2F2BBBCFD2056751772E70C.Google Scholar
Herrmann, DA: PAC Learning and Occam’s Razor: Probably Approximately Incorrect. Philosophy of Science 2020, 87(4):685–703, https://doi.org/10.1086/709786.Google Scholar
Valiant, LG: A Theory of the Learnable. Communications of the ACM 1984, 27(11):1134–1142, https://doi.org/10.1145/1968.1972.Google Scholar
Blumer, A, Ehrenfeucht, A, Haussler, D, Warmuth MK: Occam’s Razor. Information Processing Letters 1987, 24(6):377–380, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020019087901141.Google Scholar
Li, M, M B Vitányi P: Inductive Reasoning and Kolmogorov Complexity. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 1992, 44(2):343–384, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002200009290026F.Google Scholar
Kelly, K: Justification as Truth-Finding Efficiency: How Ockham’s Razor Works. Minds and Machines 2004, 14:485–505.Google Scholar
Douglas, H, Magnus P: State of the Field: Why Novel Prediction Matters. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2013, 44(4):580–589, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368113000198.Google Scholar
Box, GEP: Science and Statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1976, 71(356):791–799, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949.Google Scholar
Akaike, H: Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory. Edited by Petrov BN, Csaki, F, Kiado, Akademiai, 1973.Google Scholar
Akaike, H: A New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1974, AC-19(6):716–723.Google Scholar
Watanabe, S: A Widely Applicable Bayesian Information Criterion. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2013, 14:867–897.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP, van der Linde A: The Deviance Information Criterion: 12 Years On. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 2014, 76(3):485–493, https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rssb.12062.Google Scholar
Blankenship, EE, Perkins, MW, Johnson RJ: The Information-Theoretic Approach to Model Selection: Description and Case Study. Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture 2002.Google Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson DR: Basic Use of the Information-Theoretic Approach. In Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Edited by Burnham KP, Anderson, DR, Springer, 2002:98–148, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-22456-5_3.Google Scholar
Royle, JA, Dorazio RM: OCCUPANCY AND ABUNDANCE. In Hierarchical Modeling and Inference in Ecology. Edited by Royle JA, Dorazio, RM, Academic Press 2009:127–157, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123740977000065.Google Scholar
Kullback, S, Leibler RA: On Information and Sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1951, 22:79–86, www.jstor.org/stable/2236703.Google Scholar
Burnham, KP, Anderson DR: Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Springer 2004, https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644.Google Scholar
Royall, R: The Likelihood Paradigm for Statistical Evidence. In The Nature of Scientific Evidence: Statistical, Philosophical, and Empirical Considerations. Edited by Taper M, Lele, S, University of Chicago Press 2010:119–152, https://books.google.com/books?id=ivwGWFM-VssC.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, EW: The Next Fifty Years 1996, www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd12xx/EWD1243.PDF. [Circulated privately].Google Scholar
Kitcher, P: Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World. In Scientific Explanation. Edited by Kitcher P, Salmon, W, University of Minnesota Press 1989:410–505 (excerpts).Google Scholar
Friedman, M: Explanation and Scientific Understanding. The Journal of Philosophy 1974, 71:5–19, www.jstor.org/stable/2024924.Google Scholar
Salmon, WC: Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press 1984.Google Scholar
Railton, P: Probability, Explanation, and Information. Synthese 1981, 48(2):233– 256, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063889.Google Scholar
Hawking, S, Mlodinow L: The (Elusive) Theory of Everything. Scientific American 2010, 303(4):68–71, www.jstor.org/stable/26002214.Google Scholar
de, Regt HW: Wesley Salmon’s Complementarity Thesis: Causalism and Unificationism Reconciled? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2006, 20(2):129–147, https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590600814308.Google Scholar
Marder, E: Understanding Brains: Details, Intuition, and Big Data. PLOS Biology 2015, 13(5):e1002147, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002147.Google Scholar
Green, S (Ed): Philosophy of Systems Biology. Perspectives from Scientists and Philosophers, Volume 20 of History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing 2017.Google Scholar
Braillard, PA (Ed): Explanation in Biology. An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Springer 2015.Google Scholar
Strevens, M: Depth. An Account of Scientific Explanation. Harvard University Press 2008.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W, Richardson RC: Discovering Complexity. Decomposition and Localization as Strategies in Scientific Research. MIT Press, 2nd edition 2010.Google Scholar
Brigandt, I: Systems Biology and the Integration of Mechanistic Explanation and Mathematical Explanation. In The Routledge Handbook of Mechanisms and Mechanical Philosophy. Edited by Brigandt I, Green, S, O’Malley MA, Routledge 2017 www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315731544.ch27.Google Scholar
Chemero, A, Silberstein M: After the Philosophy of Mind: Replacing Scholasticism with Science. Philosophy of Science 2008, 75:1–27, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/587820.Google Scholar
Stepp, N, Chemero, A, Turvey MT: Philosophy for the Rest of Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2011, 3(2):425–437.Google Scholar
Lamb, M, Chemero A: Structure and Application of Dynamical Models in Cognitive Science. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2014, 36(36):809–814.Google Scholar
Kaplan, DM, Craver CF: The Explanatory Force of Dynamical and Mathematical Models in Neuroscience: A Mechanistic Perspective. Philosophy of Science 2011, 78(4):601–627, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/661755.Google Scholar
Weinberg, RA: The Molecules of Life. Scientific American 1985, 253(4):48–57, www.jstor.org/stable/24967808.Google Scholar
Woodward, JF: Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford University Press 2004, www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/fy043/2002192596.html.Google Scholar
Barberis, M, Klipp, E, Vanoni, M, Alberghina L: Cell Size at S Phase Initiation: An Emergent Property of the G1/S Network. PLOS Computational Biology 2007, 3(4):e64, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030064.Google Scholar
Levy, A: What Was Hodgkin and Huxley’s Achievement? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2014, 65(3):469–492.Google Scholar
Glennan, SS: Mechanisms and the Nature of Causation. Erkenntnis 1996, 44:49–71, www.jstor.org/stable/20012673.Google Scholar
Machamer, P, Darden, L, Craver CF: Thinking about Mechanisms. Philosophy of Science 2000, 67:1–25, www.jstor.org/stable/188611.Google Scholar
Woodward, J: What Is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account. Philosophy of Science 2002, 69(S3).Google Scholar
Bunge, M: A General Black Box Theory. Philosophy of Science 1963, 30(4):346– 358, www.jstor.org/stable/186066.Google Scholar
Craver, CF: Explaining the Brain. Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Clarendon Press 2007.Google Scholar
Craver, CF, Kaplan DM: Are More Details Better? On the Norms of Completeness for Mechanistic Explanations. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2020, 71:287–319, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy015.Google Scholar
Batterman, RW, Rice CC: Minimal Model Explanations. Philosophy of Science 2014, 81(3):349–376, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676677.Google Scholar
Batterman, RW: The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence. Oxford University Press 2001.Google Scholar
Seger, J, Stubblefield JW: Optimization and Adaptation. In Adaptation, 1st edition. Edited by Rose MR, Lauder, GV, Academic Press 1996:93–123.Google Scholar
Weber, E, Bouwel JV: Causation, Unification, and the Adequacy of Explanations of Facts. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 2009, 24(3):301–320, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10353/.Google Scholar
Woodward, J: Explanation, Invariance, and Intervention. Philosophy of Science 1997, 64:S26–S41, www.jstor.org/stable/188387.Google Scholar
Salmon, WC: Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. University of Pittsburgh Press 1990, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkdm7.Google Scholar
Emmert-Streib, F, De Matos Simoes, R, Mullan, P, Haibe-Kains, B, Dehmer, M: The Gene Regulatory Network for Breast Cancer: Integrated Regulatory Landscape of Cancer Hallmarks. Frontiers in Genetics 2014, 5(15):1–12, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2014.00015.Google Scholar
Ongaro, M: Explanatory Relevance. A Central Issue in the Theory of Explanation. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics 2017.Google Scholar
Salmon, WC: The Foundations of Scientific Inference. University of Pittsburgh Press 1967.Google Scholar
Lombrozo, T: Explanation and Abductive Inference. In The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, Oxford University Press 2012.Google Scholar
Salmon, MH, et al.: Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Hackett Publishing Company 1992.Google Scholar
Kyburg, HE: Discussion: Salmon’s Paper. Philosophy of Science 1965, 32(2):147– 151, https://doi.org/10.1086/288034.Google Scholar
Levin, ME, Levin MR: Flagpoles, Shadows and Deductive Explanation. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 1977, 32(3):293–299, www.jstor.org/stable/4319174.Google Scholar
Woodward, J: Scientific Explanation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter edition). Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/scientific-explanation/.Google Scholar
Halpern, JY, Pearl J: Causes and Explanations: A Structural-Model Approach. Part II: Explanations. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2005, 56(4):889– 911, www.jstor.org/stable/3541871.Google Scholar
Lewis, D: Causation. The Journal of Philosophy 1973, 70(17):556–567, www.jstor.org/stable/2025310.Google Scholar
Lewis, D: Causation as Influence. In Causation and Counterfactuals. Edited by Collins JD, Paul, LA, Hall, N, MIT Press 2004:75–106.Google Scholar
Woodward, J, Hitchcock C: Explanatory Generalizations, Part I: A Counterfactual Account. Noûs 2003, 37:1–24, www.jstor.org/stable/3506202.Google Scholar
Kuorikoski, J: There Are No Mathematical Explanations. Philosophy of Science 2021, 88(2):189–212, www.cambridge.org/core/article/there-are-no-mathematical-explanations/4FF90FDACEF2C6EA56B4859351E26E63.Google Scholar
Nerlich, G: What Can Geometry Explain? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1979, 30:69–83.Google Scholar
Haack, S: Coherence, Consistency, Cogency, Congruity, Cohesiveness, &c.: Remain Calm! Don’t Go Overboard! New Literary History 2004, 35(2):167–183, www.jstor.org/stable/20057831.Google Scholar
Thagard, P: Explanatory Coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1989, 12(3): 435–467, www.cambridge.org/core/article/explanatory-coherence/E05CB61CD64C26138E794BC601CC9D7A.Google Scholar
Haack, S: Double-Aspect Foundherentism: A New Theory of Empirical Justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1993, 53:113–128.Google Scholar
Colombo, M, Postma, M, Sprenger J: Explanatory Value and Probabilistic Reasoning: An Empirical Study. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 2016.Google Scholar
Strevens, M: The Causal and Unification Approaches to Explanation Unified. Noûs 2004, 38:154–176.Google Scholar
Salmon, WC: Statistical Explanation. In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories: Essay in Contemporary Science and Philosophy. Edited by Colodny RG, University of Pittsburgh Press 1970:173–232, www.cambridge.org/core/article/nature-and-function-of-scientific-theories-edited-by-robert-g-colodny-pittsb urgh-university-of-pittsburgh-press-1970-pp-xv-361-price-1295/84FA935D1E1A1 C6478486F9907177801.Google Scholar
Millikan, RA: The Electron and the Light-Quant from the Experimental Point of View. Les Prix Nobel en 1923 1924:1–15.Google Scholar
Lewens, T: The Meaning of Science: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Hachette UK 2016.Google Scholar
Will, CM: The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity 2014, 17:4.Google Scholar
Aaltonen, T, et al.: High-Precision Measurement of the W Boson Mass with the CDF II Detector. Science 2022, 376(6589):170–176, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk1781.Google Scholar
OPERA Collaboration and Adam, T et al.: Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam. arXiv 2011, arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex].Google Scholar
Brumfiel, G: Neutrinos Not Faster than Light. Nature 2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.10249.Google Scholar
Antonello, M, et al.: Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the ICARUS Detector at the CNGS Beam. Physics Letters B 2012, 713:17–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.05.033.Google Scholar
Bertolucci, S: Neutrino Speed: A Report on the Speed Measurements of the BOREXINO, ICARUS and LVD Experiments with the CNGS Beam. Nuclear Physics B – Proceedings Supplements 2013, 235–236:289–295, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092056321300145X. [The XXV International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics].Google Scholar
OPERA, Collaboration and Adam, T et al: Measurement of the Neutrino Velocity with the OPERA Detector in the CNGS Beam. Journal of High Energy Physics 2012, 2012(10), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)093.Google Scholar
Popper, KR: Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge 1962.Google Scholar
Collins, R: Against the Epistemic Value of Prediction over Accommodation. Noûs 1994, 28(2):210–224, www.jstor.org/stable/2216049.Google Scholar
Horwich, P: Probability and Evidence. Cambridge University Press 1982, www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1106/81018144-d.html.Google Scholar
Barnes, EC: Prediction versus Accommodation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018 edition. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2018, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/prediction-accommodation/.Google Scholar
Maher, P: Howson and Franklin on Prediction. Philosophy of Science 1993, 60(2):329–340, https://doi.org/10.1086/289736.Google Scholar
Maher, P: Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988, 1988:273–285, https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1988.1.192994.Google Scholar
Howson, C, Franklin A: Maher, Mendeleev and Bayesianism. Philosophy of Science 1991, 58(4):574–585, www.jstor.org/stable/188481.Google Scholar
Harker, D: On the Predilections for Predictions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2008, 59(3):429–453, www.jstor.org/stable/40072294.Google Scholar
Rubin, M: The Costs of HARKing. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axz050.Google Scholar
Achinstein, P: Explanation v. Prediction: Which Carries More Weight? In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Philosophy of Science Association 1994:156–164.Google Scholar
Simon, HA: Prediction and Hindsight as Confirmatory Evidence. Philosophy of Science 1955, 22(3):227–230, https://doi.org/10.1086/287427.Google Scholar
Worrall, J: Prediction and Accommodation Revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2014, 45:54–61.Google Scholar
Wang, MQ, Yan, AF, Katz RV: Researcher Requests for Inappropriate Analysis and Reporting: A U.S. Survey of Consulting Biostatisticians. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018, 169(8):554–558.Google Scholar
Kerr, NL: HARKing: Hypothesizing after the Results Are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1998, 2(3):196–217, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4. [PMID: 15647155].Google Scholar
Stanger-Hall, K: Accommodation or Prediction? Science 2005, 308(5727):1409– 1412, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1409.3.Google Scholar
Zeki, S, Romaya, J, Benincasa, D, Atiyah M: The Experience of Mathematical Beauty and Its Neural Correlates. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2014, 8, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00068.Google Scholar
Brown, S, Gao X: The Neuroscience of Beauty. Scientific American 2011, www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-beauty/.Google Scholar
Murphy, N: Another Look at Novel Facts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 1989, 20(3):385–388, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0039368189900149.Google Scholar
Lyttleton, RA: The Nature of Knowledge. In The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about the Unknown, Pergamon Press 1977:9–17.Google Scholar
Box, G: Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In Robustness in Statistics. Edited by Launer RL, Wilkinson, GN, Academic Press 1979:201–236, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124381506500182.Google Scholar
Soldner, J: Über die Ablenkung eines Lichtstrahls von seiner geradlinigen Bewegung, durch die Attraktion eines Weltkörpers, an welchem er nahe vorbei geht. Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch 1921.Google Scholar
Jaki, SL: Johann Georg von Soldner and the Gravitational Bending of Light, with an English Translation of His Essay on It Published in 1801. Foundations of Physics 1978, 8(11):927–950, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00715064.Google Scholar
Partridge, D: Further Details Concerning the Darwin-Wallace Presentation to the Linnean Society in 1858, Including Its Submission on 1 July, Not 30 June. Journal of Natural History 2016, 50(15–16):1035–1044, https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933.2015.1091102.Google Scholar
Darwin, CR, Wallace AR: On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 1858, 3(9):45–62.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K: Darwin’s Error: Implications for Insect Taxonomy. In Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting 2011.Google Scholar
van, Holstein L, Foley RA: Terrestrial Habitats Decouple the Relationship between Species and Subspecies Diversification in Mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2020, 287(1923).Google Scholar
Gee, H: Science in Culture-A Year in Pangaea. Nature 1999, 401(6753):530–530, https://doi.org/10.1038/44018.Google Scholar
Cleland, C: Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method. Geology 2001, 29:987–990.Google Scholar
Everett, H: “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics 1957, 29(3):454–462, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454.Google Scholar
Guth, AH: Inflation and Eternal Inflation. Physics Reports 2000, 333–334:555–574, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157300000375.Google Scholar
Wild, J: What Is Realism? The Journal of Philosophy 1947, 44(6):148–158, www.jstor.org/stable/2020042.Google Scholar
Alai, M: Novel Predictions and the No Miracle Argument. Erkenntnis 2014, 79(2):297–326, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9495-7.Google Scholar
Psillos, S: The Present State of the Scientific Realism Debate. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2000, 51:705–728, www.jstor.org/stable/3541614.Google Scholar
Nanay, B: Singularist Semirealism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2013, 64(2):371–394, www.jstor.org/stable/24563057.Google Scholar
Peters, D: What Elements of Successful Scientific Theories Are the Correct Targets for “Selective” Scientific Realism? Philosophy of Science 2014, 81(3):377–397, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/676537.Google Scholar
Dellsén, F: Realism and the Absence of Rivals. Synthese 2017, 194(7):2427–2446, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1059-3.Google Scholar
Morganti, M: Is There a Compelling Argument for Ontic Structural Realism? Philosophy of Science 2011, 78(5):1165–1176, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662258.Google Scholar
Fine, A: The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory. University of Chicago Press 1986.Google Scholar
Hacking, I: Experimentation and Scientific Realism. In Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press 1983:262–275, www.cambridge.org/core/books/representing-and-intervening/experimentation-and-scientific-realism/3831C794E98605154A8B CC196F97B7B7.Google Scholar
Thomson, JJ: XL. Cathode Rays. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1897, 44(269):293–316, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449708621070.Google Scholar
Stoney, GJ: LII. On the Physical Units of Nature. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1881, 11(69):381–390, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786448108627031.Google Scholar
Stoney, GJ: Of the “Electron,” or Atom of Electricity. Philosophical Magazine 1894, 38:418–420.Google Scholar
Romer, A: The Experimental History of Atomic Charges, 1895–1903. Isis 1942, 34(2):150–161, www.jstor.org/stable/226218.Google Scholar
Stoney, GJ: LIII. On Texture in Media, and on the Non-Existence of Density in the Elemental Æther. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1890, 29(181):467–478, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449008619970.Google Scholar
Slaney, K: On Empirical Realism and the Defining of Theoretical Terms. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 2001, 21:132–152.Google Scholar
Norris, SP: The Inconsistencies at the Foundation of Construct Validation Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation 1983:53–74, https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1344.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A: The “No Miracle” Argument for Scientific Realism. The Rutherford Journal 2006–2007, 2.Google Scholar
Hacking, I: Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge University Press 1983, https://books.google.com/books?id=4hIQ5fGf-_oC.Google Scholar
Hacking, I: Extragalactic Reality: The Case of Gravitational Lensing. Philosophy of Science 1989, 56(4):555–581, www.jstor.org/stable/187781.Google Scholar
McMullin, E: Explanatory Success and the Truth of Theory. In Scientific Inquiry in Philosophical Perspective. Edited by Rescher N, University Press of America 1987.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A, Van Fraassen BC: What Is Scientific Realism? Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2018, 9:12–25.Google Scholar
Shaw, JCO: Why the Realism Debate Matters for Science Policy: The Case of the Human Brain Project. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2018, 9:82–98.Google Scholar
Worrall, J: Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds? Dialectica 1989, 43(1/2):99–124, www.jstor.org/stable/42970613.Google Scholar
de, Senarmont H, Émile Verdet, Fresnel L (Eds): Oeuvres complétes d’Augustin Fresnel. Imprimer Impériale 1866.Google Scholar
Brewster, D: IX On the Laws Which Regulate the Polarisation of Light by Reflexion from Transparent Bodies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1815, 105:125–159.Google Scholar
Hågenvik, HO, Skaar J: Magnetic Permeability in Fresnel’s Equation. Journal of the Optical Society of America B 2019, 36(5):1386–1395, http://josab.osa.org/abstract.cfm?URI=josab-36-5-1386.Google Scholar
Wright, AS: Fresnel’s Laws, ceteris paribus. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 2017, 64:38–52, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368116301182.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A: Semirealism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 1998, 29(3):391–408.Google Scholar
Ralón, L: Interview with Anjan Chakravartty. Figure/Ground 2020, http://figureground.org/interview-with-anjan-chakravartty/.Google Scholar
Ghins, M: Defending Scientific Realism without Relying on Inference to the Best Explanation. Axiomathes 2017, 27(6):635–651, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516017-9356-0.Google Scholar
Ghins, M: Can Common Sense Realism Be Extended to Theoretical Physics? Logic Journal of the IGPL 2005, 13:95–111, https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzi006.Google Scholar
Pratchett, T, Briggs S: Lords and Ladies. Bloomsbury Publishing 2021, https://books.google.com/books?id=AeslEAAAQBAJ.Google Scholar
Alai, M: Scientific Realism, Metaphysical Antirealism and the No Miracle Arguments. Foundations of Science 2020, 28(2):1–24, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09691-z.Google Scholar
Putnam, H: Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press 1981, www.cambridge.org/core/books/reason-truth-and-history/17C4C420E3BFE409FD6673C262BF1446.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, S: Understanding Meaning and World: A Relook on Semantic Externalism. Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2016.Google Scholar
Massimi, M: 2017 Wilkins–Bernal–Medawar Lecture: Why Philosophy of Science Matters to Science. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 2018, 73(3):1–15.Google Scholar
Falk, D: Cosmos, Quantum and Consciousness: Is Science Doomed to Leave Some Questions Unanswered? Scientific American 2019.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, I: Optimistic Realism about Scientific Progress. Synthese 2017, 194(9):3291–3309, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0974-z.Google Scholar
Park, S: On the Evolutionary Defense of Scientific Antirealism. Axiomathes 2014, 24(2):263–273, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-013-9225-4.Google Scholar
Sankey, H: Scientific Realism: An Elaboration and a Defence. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 2001, 98:35–54, www.jstor.org/stable/41802172.Google Scholar
Laudan, L: A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science 1981, 48:19–49, www.jstor.org/stable/187066.Google Scholar
Hardy, JA, Higgins GA: Alzheimer’s Disease: The Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis. Science 1992, 256:184–185.Google Scholar
Ono, K, Condron, MM, Teplow DB: Structure-neurotoxicity Relationships of Amyloid β-protein Oligomers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2009, 106(35):14745–14750, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=19706468.Google Scholar
Saint, Anselm: Du Cacu Diaboli (The Fall of the Devil). The Arthur J. Banning Press 2000.Google Scholar
Mayo, D: P-Values on Trial: Selective Reporting of (Best Practice Guides Against) Selective Reporting. Harvard Data Science Review 2020, 2. [Https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/bd5k4gzf].Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L: The Inescapability of Gettier Problems. The Philosophical Quarterly 1994, 44(174):65–73, https://doi.org/10.2307/2220147.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, LT: Epistemic Values: Collected Papers in Epistemology. Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, FY: Methods of Statistics. Journal of the Statistical Society of London 1885:181–217, www.jstor.org/stable/25163974.Google Scholar
Boring, EG: Mathematical vs. Scientific Significance. Psychological Bulletin 1919, 16:335–338, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074554.Google Scholar
Hald, A: A History of Probability and Statistics and Their Applications before 1750. John Wiley & Sons 2003.Google Scholar
Student: The Probable Error of a Mean. Biometrika 1908, 6:1–25, www.jstor.org/stable/2331554.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA: Correlation Coefficients in Meteorology. Nature 1935, 136, https://doi.org/10.1038/136474b0.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA: Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd, 5th edition 1934.Google Scholar
McShane, BB, Gal D: Statistical Significance and the Dichotomization of Evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2017, 112(519):885–895, https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2017.1289846.Google Scholar
Hurlbert, SH, Levine, RA, Utts J: Coup de Grâce for a Tough Old Bull: “Statistically Significant” Expires. The American Statistician 2019, 73(sup1):352–357, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1543616.Google Scholar
Wasserstein, RL, Schirm, AL, Lazar NA: Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician 2019, 73(sup1):1–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913.Google Scholar
Amrhein, V, Trafimow, D, Greenland S: Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication. The American Statistician 2019, 73(sup1):262–270, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1543137.Google Scholar
Amrhein, V, Greenland, S, McShane B: Retire Statistical Significance-Supplement. Nature 2019, 567, https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-019-00857-9/16614318.Google Scholar
Wasserstein, RL, Lazar NA: The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician 2016, 70(2):129–133, https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.Google Scholar
Gelman, A: Online Discussion of the ASA Statement on Statistical Significance and P-Values. The American Statistician 2016, 70.Google Scholar
Mayo, DG: P-Value Thresholds: Forfeit at Your Peril. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2019, 49(10):e13170.Google Scholar
Mayo, D: Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get beyond the Statistics Wars. University Printing House 2018.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, JPA: The Importance of Predefined Rules and Prespecified Statistical Analyses: Do Not Abandon Significance. Journal of the American Medical Association 2019, 321(21):2067–2068, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4582.Google Scholar
Szucs, D, Ioannidis JPA: When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2017, 11:390, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390.Google Scholar
Baker, M: 1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. Nature 2016, 533(7604):452–454, https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a.Google Scholar
Localio, AR, Wong, JB, Cornell, JE, Griswold, ME, Goodman SN: Inappropriate Statistical Analysis and Reporting in Medical Research: Perverse Incentives and Institutional Solutions. Annals of Internal Medicine 2018, 169:577–578.Google Scholar
Alberts, B, Kirschner, MW, Tilghman, S, Varmus H: Rescuing US Biomedical Research from Its Systemic Flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2014, 111(16):5773–5777, www.pnas.org/content/111/16/5773.abstract.Google Scholar
Pashler, H, Wagenmakers EJ: Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(6):528–530, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612465253.Google Scholar
Makel, MC, Plucker, JA, Hegarty B: Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(6):537–542, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460688.Google Scholar
Heesen, R: Why the Reward Structure of Science Makes Reproducibility Problems Inevitable. The Journal of Philosophy 2018, 115(12):661–674.Google Scholar
Fletcher, SC: How (Not) to Measure Replication. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 2021, 11(2):1–27.Google Scholar
Randall, D, Welser C: The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science. National Association of Scholars 2018.Google Scholar
Begley, CG, Ellis LM: Raise Standards for Preclinical Cancer Research. Nature 2012, 483(7391):531–533, https://doi.org/10.1038/483531a.Google Scholar
Harris, R: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions. Basic Books 2017.Google Scholar
Stroebe, W, Postmes, T, Spears R: Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(6):670–88.Google Scholar
Stapel, DA, Lindenberg S: Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination. Science 2011, 332(6026):251–253.Google Scholar
Fiedler, S: Bad Apples and Dirty Barrels: Outliers and Systematic Institutional Failures. https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/bad-apples-and-dirty-barrels 2013, https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/bad-apples-and-dirty-barrels.Google Scholar
Nosek, B: An Open, Large-Scale, Collaborative Effort to Estimate the Reproducibility of Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7(6):657–660.Google Scholar
Yong, E: Replication Studies: Bad Copy. Nature 2012, 485(7398):298–300, https://doi.org/10.1038/485298a.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J: Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:645–654.Google Scholar
Bem, D: Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011, 100(3):407–425.Google Scholar
Rouder, JN, Morey RD: A Bayes Factor Meta-analysis of Bem’s ESP Claim. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18(4):682–689, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0088-7.Google Scholar
Simmons, JP, Nelson, LD, Simonsohn U: False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science 2011, 22(11):1359–1366.Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, EJ, Wetzels, R, Borsboom, D, van der Maas HLJ: Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011, 100(3):426–432.Google Scholar
Diaconis, P: [Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology]: Comment. In Statistical Science, Volume 6, Institute of Mathematical Statistics 1991:386–386, www.jstor.org/stable/2245731.Google Scholar
Silberzahn, R, et al.: Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2018, 1(3):337–356, https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747646.Google Scholar
Botvinik-Nezer, et al.: Variability in the Analysis of a Single Neuroimaging Dataset by Many Teams. Nature 2020, 582(7810):84–90.Google Scholar
Begley, S: Fevered Debate over Alzheimer’s Origins Causes Deep Divisions. The Wall Street Journal 2004.Google Scholar
Yong, E: Psychology’s Replication Crisis Is Running Out of Excuses. The Atlantic 2018.Google Scholar
Stupple, A, Singerman, D, Celi LA: The Reproducibility Crisis in the Age of Digital Medicine. NPJ Digital Medicine 2019, 2:2.Google Scholar
Errington, TM, et al.: Investigating the Replicability of Preclinical Cancer Biology. eLife 2021, 10:e71601, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71601.Google Scholar
Aker, M, et al.: Direct Neutrino-Mass Measurement with Subelectronvolt Sensitivity. Nature Physics 2022, 18:160–166.Google Scholar
Stanford, Linear Accelerator Center Hybrid Facility Photon Collaboration, et al.: Charm Photoproduction Cross Section at 20 GeV. Physical Review Letters 1983, 51(3):156–159, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.156.Google Scholar
Hardwig, J: The Role of Trust in Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 1991, 88(12):693–708, www.jstor.org/stable/2027007.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, JPA: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine 2005, 2(8):e124, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.Google Scholar
Chang, H: Ontological Principles and the Intelligibility of Epistemic Activities. In Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives. Edited by De Regt H, Leonelli, S, Eigner, K, University of Pittsburgh Press 2009.Google Scholar
Friedman, M: Objectivity and History: Reviewed Work(s): The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions by Philip Kitcher. Erkenntnis 1996, 44(3):379–395, www.jstor.org/stable/20012698.Google Scholar
Merton, RK: Science and the Social Order. Philosophy of Science 1938, 5(3), www.jstor.org/stable/184832.Google Scholar
Parr, D: This Is Why We Stand against GM Crops 2014, www.newscientist.com/article/dn26445-greenpeace-this-is-why-we-stand-against-gm-crops/.Google Scholar
Project, TNG: About Non-GMO Project 2017, www.nongmoproject.org/about/mission/. [Online; Stand 19. December 2012].Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, MA: The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. No. 1 in California Studies in the History of Science, University of California Press 1989.Google Scholar
Shaw, D: Medical Miracles of Misguided Media? The Los Angeles Times 2000, http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/13/news/mn-63989.Google Scholar
Institute, of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review C: Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Tech. rep., Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2004.Google Scholar
DeStefano, F, Price, CS, Weintraub ES: Increasing Exposure to AntibodyStimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism. The journal of pediatrics 2013, 163(2):561–567.Google Scholar
Irzik, G, Kurtulmus F: What Is Epistemic Public Trust in Science? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2019, 70(4):1145–1166.Google Scholar
Offit, PA: Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All. Basic Books 2011.Google Scholar
Mnookin, S: The Panic Virus: A True Story of Medicine, Science, and Fear. Simon & Shuster 2011.Google Scholar
Hou, CY: The Number of Measles Cases This Year Is Already More than All of the Cases Reported in 2018. The Scientist 2019.Google Scholar
Wadman, M: Measles Cases Have Tripled in Europe, Fueled by Ukrainian Outbreak. Science 2019.Google Scholar
Sheaffer, R: Uncritical Publicity for Supposed “Independent UFO Investigation” Demonstrates Media Gullibility. Skeptical Inquirer 1998, 22, www.csicop.org/si/show/massive_uncritical_publicity.Google Scholar
Lemonick, MD: Science on the Fringe: ESP, UFOs and Reincarnation Are Treated with Respect at the World’s Most Bizarre Scientific Conference. Time 2005, 165(22):53.Google Scholar
Avaaz:, Facebook: From Election to Insurrection. How Facebook Failed Voters and Nearly Set Democracy Aflame March 28, 2021, https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/facebook_election_insurrection/.Google Scholar
Avaaz: How Facebook Can Flatten the Curve of the Coronavirus Infodemic April 15, 2020, https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/facebook_coronavirus_misinformation/.Google Scholar
Loomba, S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek, SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ: Measuring the Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation on Vaccination Intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour 2021, 5(3):337–348, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1.Google Scholar
Millar, B: Misinformation and the Limits of Individual Responsibility. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2021, 10(12):8–21.Google Scholar
Sharma, A, Shoukry, S, Espinosa P: The Window for Climate Action Has Not Yet Closed. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2017, https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf.Google Scholar
Ogien, A: Doubt, Ignorance and Trust: On the Unwarranted Fears Raised by the Doubt-Mongers. In Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Edited by Gross M, McGoey L, Routledge 2015:199–205.Google Scholar
Levi, SC, Sela R: Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources. Indiana University Press 2010.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, HS: A New Approach to the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease: The Need for a Controlled Study. Journal of Alzheimer’s disease: JAD 2011, 25:209– 212.Google Scholar
Tobinick, E, Gross, H, Weinberger, A, Cohen H: TNF-alpha Modulation for Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease: A 6-Month Pilot Study. MedGenMed: Medscape General Medicine 2006, 8:25.Google Scholar
Novella, S: Enbrel for Stroke and Alzheimer’s. Science-Based Medicine 2013, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/enbrel-for-stroke-and-alzheimers/.Google Scholar
Leshner, AI, Landis, S, Stroud, C, Downey A: Preventing Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Way Forward. The National Academies Press 2017.Google Scholar
Fowler, JG, Reisenwitz, TH, Carlson L: Deception in Cosmetic Advertising Examining Cosmetic Advertising: Examining Cosmetics Advertising Claims in Fashion Magazine Ads. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 2015, 6:194–206.Google Scholar
Highfield, R: Baffled by the Beauty Adverts? So Is a Nobel Prizewinner. The Telegraph 2005.Google Scholar
World, Health Organization: What Are Genetically Modified (GM) Organisms and GM Foods? 2014, www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/.Google Scholar
Melo, EO, Canavessi AMO, Franco, MM, Rumpf R: Animal Transgenesis: State of the Art and Applications. Journal of Applied Genetics 2007, 48:47–61.Google Scholar
Zhang, C, Wohlhueter, R, Zhang H: Genetically Modified Foods: A Critical Review of Their Promise and Problems. Food Science and Human Wellness 2016, 5(3):116– 123, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453016300295.Google Scholar
Ammann, K: Genomic Misconception: A Fresh Look at the Biosafety of Transgenic and Conventional Crops. A Plea for a Process Agnostic Regulation. New Biotechnology 2014, 31:1–17, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678413000605.Google Scholar
Ames, BN, Profet, M, Gold LS: Dietary Pesticides (99.99% All Natural). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1990, 87(19):7777–7781, www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.abstract.Google Scholar
Gould, F: Genetically Engineered Crops Experiences and Prospects. The National Academies Press 2016.Google Scholar
Nicolia, A, Manzo, A, Veronesi, F, Rosellini D: An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically Engineered Crop Safety Research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 2014, 34:77–88.Google Scholar
Blancke, S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman, J, Van Montagu M: Fatal Attraction: The Intuitive Appeal of GMO Opposition. Trends in Plant Science 2015, 20:414–418.Google Scholar
Haack, S: Federal Philosophy of Science: A Deconstruction- and a Reconstruction. 5 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 2010, 5(2):394–435.Google Scholar
Foster, K, Huber P: Judging Science. Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts. MIT Press 1999.Google Scholar
Abboud, A: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). The Embryo Project Encyclopedia May 29, 2017, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/daubertv-merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-1993.Google Scholar
Sunstein, CR: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2003, 151(3):1003–1058, www.jstor.org/stable/3312884.Google Scholar
Scheidel, W, Meeks, E: Orbis: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World. https://orbis.stanford.edu 2021.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H, Merton RK: Patterns of Evaluation In Science: Institutionalisation, Structure and Functions of the Referee System. Minerva 1971, 9:66–100, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553188.Google Scholar
Garfield, E: Introducing Citation Classics. The Human Side of Scientific Reports. Current Comments 1977, 1:5–7.Google Scholar
Beaver, D, Rosen R: Studies in Scientific Collaboration. Scientometrics 1978, 1: 65–84.Google Scholar
Heesen, R: Communism and the Incentive to Share in Science. Philosophy of Science 2017, 84(4):698–716.Google Scholar
Samuelson, PA: Economists and the History of Ideas. The American Economic Review 1962, 52:1–18, www.jstor.org/stable/1823476.Google Scholar
Merton, RK: The Matthew Effect in Science. Science 1968, 159(3810):56–63, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56.Google Scholar
Merton, RK: The Matthew Effect in Science. 2. Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. Isis 1988, 79(299):606–623.Google Scholar
Bitan, G, Lomakin, A, Teplow DB: Amyloid β-Protein Oligomerization – Prenucleation Interactions Revealed by Photo-Induced Cross-Linking of Unmodified Proteins. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2001, 276(37):35176–35184.Google Scholar
Le, Châtelier HL: Sur un énoncé général des lois des équilibres chimiques. Comptes Rendus 1884, 99:786–789.Google Scholar
Lomakin, A, Teplow, DB, Kirschner, DA, Benedek GB: Kinetic Theory of Fibrillogenesis of Amyloid b-Protein. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 1997, 94(15):7942–7947, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9223292.Google Scholar
Einstein, A: Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. Annalen Der Physik 1905, 17(8):549–560.Google Scholar
Maddox, B: The Double Helix and the “Wronged Heroine”. Nature 2003, 421(6921):407–408, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01399.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, HA: Nobel Laureates in the United States: A Sociological Study of Scientific Collaboration. PhD thesis, Columbia University 1965.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H: Nobel Laureates in Science: Patterns of Productivity, Collaboration, and Authorship. American Sociological Review 1967, 32:391–403.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H: Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Free Press 1977.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T, Oberlin K: Science, Sociology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences 2015, 21:261–267.Google Scholar
Shapin, S: Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 1995, 21:289–321, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001445.Google Scholar
Longino, H: The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2019.Google Scholar
Hardwig, J: Epistemic Dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 1985, 82(7):335–349, www.jstor.org/stable/2026523.Google Scholar
Turnbull, HW, Hall, AR, Tilling, L, Scott JF (Eds): The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Volume 1. Cambridge University Press for the Royal Society 1959.Google Scholar
Crick, F: What Mad pursuit – A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books 1989.Google Scholar
Goldman, AI: Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 2001, 63:85–110, www.jstor.org/stable/3071090.Google Scholar
Burge, T: Content Preservation. The Philosophical Review 1993, 102(4):457–488, www.jstor.org/stable/2185680.Google Scholar
Foley, R: Egoism in Epistemology. In Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge. Edited by Schmitt FF, Rowman & Littlefield 1994.Google Scholar
Sankey, H: Kuhn’s Changing Concept of Incommensurability. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1993, 44(4):759–774, www.jstor.org/stable/688043.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P: Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism. In Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science), Volume III. Edited by Feigl H, Maxwell, G, University of Minneapolis Press 1962:28–97.Google Scholar
Oberheim, E, Hoyningen-Huene P: The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University Fall 2018.Google Scholar
Walker, TC: The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper. Perspectives on Politics 2010, 8(2):433–451, www.jstor.org/stable/25698611.Google Scholar
Gholson, B, Barker P: Kuhn, Lakatos, and Laudan. Applications in the History of Physics and Psychology. American Psychologist 1985, 40:755–769.Google Scholar
Reese, H, Overton W: Models of Development and Theories of Development. In Life-Span Developmental Psychology: Research and Theory. Edited by Goulet LR, Baltes, PB, Academic Press 1970:115–145.Google Scholar
Palermo, D: Is a Scientific Revolution Taking Place in Psychology? Social Studies of Science 1971, 1:135–155.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I, Musgrave A: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Proceedings of the 1965 International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science Cambridge: University Press 1970, www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0642/78105496-d.html.Google Scholar
Duhem, PMM: δτZEIN TA υAINOMENA: Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon àGalilée. A. Hermann et Fils 1908.Google Scholar
Duhem, PMM: To Save the Phenomena. An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo. University of Chicago Press 1969.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I, Feyerabend, PK, Motterlini M: For and against Method: Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. University of Chicago Press 1999.Google Scholar
Rescorla, M: Convention. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Zalta EN, The Metaphysics Research Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University Summer 2019.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S: Great Readings in Clinical Science: Essential Selections for Mental Health Professionals. Pearson 2012.Google Scholar
Laudan, L: From Theories to Research Traditions. In Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Edited by Brody BA, Grandy, RE, Prentice Hall 1989.Google Scholar
Aspect, A: From Huygens’ Waves to Einstein’s Photons: Weird Light. Comptes Rendus Physique 2017, 18(9):498–503, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517301032.Google Scholar
Laudan, LL: Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. University of California Press 1977, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02074137.Google Scholar
Cole, J: Wittgenstein’s Neurophenomenology. Medical Humanities 2007, 33:59–64, https://mh.bmj.com/content/33/1/59.Google Scholar
Holt, J: Suicide Squad. The New York Times 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/books/review/Holt-t.html?_r=1&ref=review.Google Scholar
Lackey, DP: What Are the Modern Classics? The Baruch Poll of Great Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. The Philosophical Forum 1999, 30(4):329–346.Google Scholar
Beaney, MA: What Is Analytic Philosophy? In The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy. Edited by Beaney MA, Oxford University Press 2013:3–29.Google Scholar
Harton, Jr MC: A Critical Examination of the Volitional Theory of Action. McMaster University 1976.Google Scholar
Frith, CD, Haggard P: Volition and the Brain – Revisiting a Classic Experimental Study. Trends in Neurosciences 2018, 41(7):405–407, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29933770.Google Scholar
Haggard, P, Libet B: Conscious Intention and Brain Activity. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2001, 8(11):47–63.Google Scholar
Libet, B, Gleason, CA, Wright, EW, Pearl DK Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential): The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 1983, 106(3):623–642, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623.Google Scholar
Trevena, J, Miller J: Brain Preparation before a Voluntary Action: Evidence against Unconscious Movement Initiation. Consciousness and Cognition 2010, 19:447–456, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810009001135.Google Scholar
Pockett, S, Purdy SC: Are Voluntary Movements Initiated Preconsciously? The Relationships between Readiness Potentials, Urges, and Decisions. In Conscious Will and Responsibility, 1st edition. Edited by Sinnott-Armstrong W, Nadel, L, Oxford University Press 2011:34–46.Google Scholar
Libet, B: Do We Have Free Will? In Conscious Will and Responsibility, 1st edition. Edited by Sinnott-Armstrong W, Nadel, L, Oxford University Press 2011:34–46.Google Scholar