Demonstrative induction and the skeleton of inference

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 303-315

  Magnus, P D ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61149335753     PISSN: 02698595     EISSN: 14699281     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02698590802567373     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Arnauld, A., and P. Nicole. 1996 [1683]. Logic or the art of thinking: The Port-Royal logic. Translated and edited by Jill Vance Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
2. Bain, J. 1999. Weinberg on QFT: Demonstrative induction and underdetermination. Synthese 117: 1-30
3. Bird, A. 2006. Abductive knowledge and Holmesian inference. In Oxford studies in epistemology, edited by T. S. Gendler and J. Hawthorne, 1: 1-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press
4. Bonk, T. 1997. Newtonian gravity, quantum discontinuity and the determination of theory by evidence. Synthese 112: 53-73
5. Carroll, L. 1895. What the tortoise said to Achilles. Mind 4(14): 278-280
6. Conan Doyle, A. 1905. The adventure of the Bruce-Partington plans. In A. Conan Doyle, The complete Sherlock Holmes, 2: 913-931. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co
7. Dorling, J. 1973. Demonstrative induction: Its significant role in the history of physics. Philosophy of Science 40: 360-372
8. -. 1995. Einstein's method of discovery was Newtonian deduction from the phenomena. In Leplin 1995, 91-111
9. Glymour, C. 1980. Theory and evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
10. Kelley, K. 1996. The logic of reliable enquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press
11. Kitcher, P. 1993. The advancement of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press
12. Laudan, L. 1990. Demystifying underdetermination. In Scientific theories, edited by C. W. Savage, 267-297. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
13. Leplin, J., ed. 1995. The creation of ideas in physics. Dordrecht: Kluwer
14. Lipton, P. 2004. Inference to the best explanation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge
15. Magnus, P. 2005. Background theories and total science. Philosophy of Science 75: 1064-1075
16. Massimi, M. 2004. What demonstrative induction can do against the threat of underdetermination: Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli on spectroscopic anomalies (1921-24). Synthese 140: 243-277
17. Norton, J. D. 1993. The determination of theory by evidence: The case for quantum discontinuity, 1900-1915. Synthese 97: 1-31
18. -. 1994. Science and certainty. Synthese 99: 3-22
19. -. 1995. Eliminative induction as a method of discovery: How Einstein discovered general relativity. In Leplin 1995, 29-69
20. -. 2003. A material theory of induction. Philosophy of Science 70: 647-670
21. Pinch, T. 1985. Towards an analysis of scientific observation: The externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics. Social Studies of Science 15: 3-36
22. Schell, L., and P. Magnus. 2007. Is there an elephant in the room? Addressing rival approaches to the interpretation of growth perturbations and small size. American Journal of Human Biology 19: 606-614
23. Stroud, B. 1979. Inference, belief, and understanding. Mind 88: 179-196
24. van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press
25. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan
26. Worrall, J. 1989. Fresnel, Poisson, and the white spot: The role of successful predictions in the acceptance of scientific theories. In The uses of experiment, edited by David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Simon Schaffer, 135-157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
27. -. 2000. The scope, limits, and distinctiveness of the method of 'deduction from the phenomena': Some lessons from Newton's 'demonstrations' in optics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51: 45-80
28. -. 2002. New evidence for old. In In the scope of logic, methodology and philosophy of science, edited by P. Gärdenfors, J. Woleński, and K. Kijania-Placek, 1: 191-209. Dordrecht: Kluwer