On explanatory practice and disciplinary identity

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 988, Issue , 2003, Pages 22-29

  Woody, Andrea I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Disciplinarity; Exemplar; Kuhn; Scientific explanation; Scientific practice

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CONFERENCE PAPER; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE; PHILOSOPHY; SCIENCE; SEMANTICS; SKILL; SOLID STATE; THEORY; TRAINING;

EID: 0038129391     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb06082.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (9)

1. NAGEL, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. Harcourt, Brace, and World. New York.
2. VAN FRAASSEN, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Clarendon Press. Oxford, UK.
3. HEMPEL, C. 1965. Studies in the logic of explanation. In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays. The Free Press. New York.
4. FRIEDMAN, M. 1974. Explanation and scientific understanding. J. Philos. 71: 5-19.
5. SALMON, W. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
6. KUHN, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
7. KITCHER, P. 1989. Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon, Eds. Scientific Explanation. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.
8. DUHEM, P. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
9. KUHN, T. 1977. The essential tension. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.