排序方式： 共有3条查询结果，搜索用时 156 毫秒
1
1.
2.
Fitelson Branden; Waterman Andrew 《The British journal for the philosophy of science》2007,58(2):333-338
By and large, we think (Strevens's [2005]) is a useful replyto our original critique (Fitelson and Waterman [2005]) of hisarticle on the Quine–Duhem (QD) problem (Strevens [2001]).But, we remain unsatisfied with several aspects of his reply(and his original article). Ultimately, we do not think he properlyaddresses our most important worries. In this brief rejoinder,we explain our remaining worries, and we issue a revised challengefor Strevens's approach to QD.
- 1 Strevens's ‘clarifications’
- 2 Strevens's new-and-improved ‘negligibility arguments’
3.
Too Odd (Not) to Be True? A Reply to Olsson 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
1