Titlebook: Embracing Scientific Realism; Seungbae Park Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer

Myofibrils

圓木可阻礙

Minerals as Advanced Materials In trigger formulational debates, but not epistemological ones. Realism is significantly different from antirealism under Putnam’s formulation, while realism does not considerably differ from empiricism under van Fraassen’s. Hence, there can be more debates under Putnam’s formulation than under van F

Endemic

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20018-2 On this account, scientific understanding requires the three ingredients of knowledge: belief, justification, and truth. Therefore, scientific understanding is attainable for realists, but not for antirealists. According to anti-epistemism, scientific understanding requires explanation and predicti

reject

colloquial

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-6638-6hematical objects exist in the abstract world. The abstract world is queer, allowing for contradictory states of affairs. The notion of a tricle undermines mathematical realists’ idea that the abstract world renders mathematical statements true. Some mathematical realists contend that mathematical o

exceptional

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5848-1in which scientists run meta-inductions and historical inductions. I point out that the meta-inductions and historical inductions are different from the pessimistic induction (PI) and the selective induction (SI), the two prominent meta-inductions and historical inductions in the realism debate. I a

社團(tuán)

皺痕

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87813-9Scientific Realism; The No-Miracles Argument; The Pessimistic Induction; Scientific Progress; Scientific