Simple or simplistic? Scientists' views on Occam's razor

Theoria-Revista De Teoria Historia Y Fundamentos De La Ciencia

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 75-90

  Riesch, Hauke ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Occam's razor; Scientists' philosophies of science; Sociology of philosophy of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049396723     PISSN: 04954548     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Bailer-Jones, D. 2003. Scientists' Thoughts on Scientific Models. Perspectives on Science 10 pp. 275-301.
2. Baker, A. 2004. Simplicity. In: E. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2004/entries/simplicity/. [Accessed 24 Jun 2008].
3. Bauer, M & Gaskell, G. 1999. Towards a Paradigm of Research on Social Representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29(2) pp. 163-86.
4. Bauer, M. & Gaskell, G. 2008. Social Representations Theory: A Progressive Research Programme for Social Psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 38(3) pp. 335-53
5. Brush, S. G. 1989. Prediction and Theory Evaluation: The Case of Light Bending. Science 246 pp.1124-9.
6. Donovan, A. Laudan, L. & Laudan, R. eds., 1992. Scrutinizing Science. London: Johns Hopkins University Press
7. Durant, J. 1993. What Is Scientific Literacy? In: J. Durant. & J. Gregory eds., Science and Culture in Europe. London: Science Museum. pp. 129-38
8. Farr, R. 1993. Common Sense, Science and Representations. Public Understanding of Science 2 pp. 189-204
9. Gieryn, T. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Greene, B. 2000. The Elegant Universe. London: Random House.
11. Gregory, J. & Miller, S. 1998. Science in Public. London: Plenum.
12. Hawking, S. (1988) A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. London: Bantam.
13. Koponen, I. 2006. Models and Modelling in Physics Education: A Critical Re-Analysis of Philosophical Underpinnings and Suggestions for Revisions. Science & Education 16(7-8) pp.751-73.
14. Kuhn, T. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
15. Matthews, M. 1994. Science Teaching. The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge.
16. Moscovici, S. 2000. Social Representations. Editor Gerard Duveen. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17. Mulkay, M. & Gilbert, G. N. 1981. Putting Philosophy to Work: Karl Popper's Influence on Scientific Practice. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11 pp.389-407.
18. Nadelhoffer, T. & Nahmias, E. 2007. The Past and Future of Experimental Philosophy. Philosophical Explorations 10(2) pp. 123-49
19. Nieman, A. 2000. The Popularization of Physics: Boundaries of Authority and the Visual Culture of Science. Ph.D., Bristol: University of the West of England.
20. Osborne, J. Ratcliffe, M. & Duschl, R. 2003. What 'Ideas-About-Science' Should Be Taught in School Science? A Delphi Study of the Expert Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(7) pp. 692-720.
21. Pietroski, P. & Rey, G. 1995. When Other Things aren't Equal: Saving Ceteris Paribus Laws from Vacuity British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 pp. 81-110
22. Popper, K. 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
23. Riesch, H. 2008. Scientists' Views on the Philosophy of Science. Ph.D., London: University College London
24. Schiffer, S. 1991 Ceteris Paribus Laws. Mind 100 (397) pp. 1-17
25. Sober, E. 1975. Simplicity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
26. Turney, J. 2001. More Than Just Story Telling - Reflecting on Popular Science. In: S. Stocklmeyer, M. Gore & C. Bryant eds., Science Communication in Theory and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer. pp. 47-62
27. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. 2009. From the Horse's Mouth: What Scientists Say About Scientific Investigation and Scientific Knowledge. Science Education 93(1): 109-30