Coherence of structural and functional descriptions of technical artefacts

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 137-151

  Kroes, Peter A ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Coherence relation; Functional description; Practical inference; Structural description; Technical artefact

Indexed keywords

EID: 32444435735     PISSN: 00393681     EISSN: 18792510     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.015     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. ASM International Handbook Committee ASM handbook, Vol. 20. Materials selection and design 1997 ASM International Materials Park, OH
2. L. Bonjour The structure of empirical knowledge 1985 Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA
3. Bovens, L., & Hartmann, S. (2000). Coherence, belief expansion and Bayesian networks. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR'2000. Breckenridge, Colorado, USA, April 9-11, 2000. http://www.cs.engr.uky.edu/nmr2000/proceedings.html.
4. D.C. Dennett The intentional stance 1998 MIT Press Cambridge, MA (First published 1987)
5. Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, this issue. DOI:10.1016/ j.shpsa.2005.12.006.
6. S.O. Hansson E.J. Olsson Providing foundations for coherentism Erkenntnis 51 1999 243-265
7. Houkes, W., & Meijers, A. (2006). The ontology artefacts: The hard problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, this issue. DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.013.
8. W. Houkes P.E. Vermaas Actions versus functions: A plea for an alternative metaphysics of artefacts The Monist 78 2004 52-71
9. P.A. Kroes Technological explanations: The relation between structure and function of technological objects Techné 3 3 1998 18-34 http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v3n3/KROES.html.
10. P.A. Kroes Physics, experiments, and the concept of nature H. Radder The philosophy of scientific experimentation 2003 The University of Pittsburgh Press Pittsburgh 68-86
11. Kroes, P. A., & Meijers, A. W. M. (2006). Introduction: The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, this issue. DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.001.
12. G.L. Murphy D.L. Medin The role of theories in conceptual coherence Psychological Review 92 3 1985 289-316
13. Ridder, J. de (2006). Mechanistic artefact explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, this issue. DOI:10.1016/ j.shpsa.2005.12.009.
14. Scheele, M. (2006). Function and use of technical artefacts: Social conditions of function ascription. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, this issue. DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.004.
15. Thagard, P., Eliasmith, C., Rusnock, P., & Shelley, C. P. (2002). Knowledge and coherence. In R. Elio (Ed.), Common sense, reasoning, and rationality, Vol. 11 (pp. 104-131). New York: Oxford University Press. (Available at http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/epistemic.html).
16. Thagard, P., & Verbeurgt, K. (1998). Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 22, 1-24. (Available at http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Cohere.Constrain.html).
17. D.G. Ullman The mechanical design process 1992 McGraw-Hill New York
18. G.H.von. Wright Practical inference Philosophical Review 72 1963 159-179