Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:39:10.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Determinism and Predictability: Reply to Dieks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

A. Kukla
A. Kukla*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 131 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dieks, D. (1979), “On the Empirical Content of Determinism.” Philosophy of Science 46: 124–130.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1961), “Some Reflections on ‘The Case for Determinism,‘ ” in Hook, S. (ed.), Determinism and Freedom in the Age of Modern Science. New York: Collier, 170–175.Google Scholar
Kukla, A. (1978), “On the Empirical Significance of Pure Determinism,” Philosophy of Science 45: 141–144.10.1086/288786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. (1966), “Fatalism and Determinism.” in Lehrer, K. (ed.), Freedom and Determinism. New York: Random House, 141–174.Google Scholar