Titlebook: Relativism Refuted; A Critique of Contem Harvey Siegel Book 1987 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1987 epistemology.philosophy of

Agitated

書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted影響因子(影響力)




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開(kāi)度學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted被引頻次




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted年度引用




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted年度引用學(xué)科排名




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted讀者反饋




書(shū)目名稱Relativism Refuted讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

口訣法

anticipate

The Kuhniansexamine two of these defenses/extensions of the Kuhnian position. The first centers on the objectivity of science, in which Jack W. Meiland seeks to interpret Kuhn as a proponent of objectivity, contrary to the standard critical interpretation of Kuhn as discussed in Chapter 3. The second is a reint

打折

變形詞

劇毒

債務(wù)

吹氣

The Kuhniansdiscussion also concerns itself, in part, with relativism.) In the case of each of these authors I will try to show that their discussions fail to support a Kuhnian conception of science in general, or of relativism in particular. I begin with Meiland.

GAVEL

Kuhn and Relativism: Is He or Isn’t He? of charge and counter-charge between Kuhn and his critics, and to assess the power of the broad Kuhnian picture of science, especially regarding relativism, the objectivity of scientific knowledge, and the rationality of scientific methodology. We begin with an exposition of Kuhn’s book.

值得