Bibliography

• Aristotle(a), Generation of Animals in Complete Works of Aristotle (Volume 1), J. Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 774-993

• Aristotle(b), History of Animals in Complete Works of Aristotle (Volume 1), J.

• Azzouni, J., 2004, “Theory, Observation, and Scientific Realism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55(3): 371-92.

• Bacon, Francis, 1620, Novum Organum with other parts of the Great Instauration, P. Urbach and J. Gibson (eds. and trans.), La Salle: Open Court, 1994.

• Bogen, J., 2016, “Empiricism and After,”in P. Humphreys (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 779-795.

• Bogen, J, and Woodward, J., 1988, “Saving the Phenomena,” Philosophical Review, XCVII (3): 303-352.

• Boyle, R., 1661, The Sceptical Chymist, Montana: Kessinger (reprint of 1661 edition).

• Bridgman, P., 1927, The Logic of Modern Physics, New York: Macmillan.

• Chang, H., 2005, “A Case for Old-fashioned Observability, and a Reconstructive Empiricism,” Philosophy of Science, 72(5): 876-887.

• Collins, H. M., 1985 Changing Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Conant, J.B., 1957, (ed.) “The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775-1789,” in J.B.Conant and L.K. Nash (eds.), Harvard Studies in Experimental Science, Volume I, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 65-116).

• Duhem, P., 1906, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, P. Wiener (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.

• Earman, J., 1992, Bayes or Bust?, Cambridge: MIT Press.

• Feest, U., 2005, “Operationism in psychology: what the debate is about, what the debate should be about,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2): 131-149.

• Feyerabend, P.K., 1959, “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Expeience,” in P.K.

• Feyerabend, P.K., 1969, “Science Without Experience,” in P.K. Feyerabend, Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method (Philosophical Papers I), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 132-136.

• Franklin, A., 1986, The Neglect of Experiment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Galison, P., 1987, How Experiments End, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Galison, P., 1990, “Aufbau/Bauhaus: logical positivism and architectural modernism,” Critical Inquiry, 16 (4): 709-753.

• Galison, P., and Daston, L., 2007, Objectivity, Brooklyn: Zone Books.

• Glymour, C., 1980, Theory and Evidence, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• Hacking, I, 1983, Representing and Intervening, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Hanson, N.R., 1958, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

• Hempel, C.G., 1935, “On the Logical Positivists’ Theory of Truth,” Analysis, 2 (4): 50-59.

• Hempel, C.G., 1952, “Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science,” in Foundations of the Unity of Science, Volume 2, O. Neurath, R. Carnap, C. Morris (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, pp. 651-746.

• Herschel, J. F. W., 1830, Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1966.

• Hooke, R., 1705, “The Method of Improving Natural Philosophy,” in R. Waller (ed.), The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke, London: Frank Cass and Company, 1971.

• Jeffrey, R.C., 1983, The Logic of Decision, Chicago: University Press.

• Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, reprinted,1996.

• Latour, B., and Woolgar, S., 1979, Laboratory Life, The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

• Lewis, C.I., 1950, Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, La Salle: Open Court.

• Lloyd, E.A., 1993, “Pre-theoretical Assumptions In Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality,”, Philosophical Studies, 69: 139-153.

• Lupyan, G., 2015, “Cognitive Penetrability of Perception in the Age of Prediction - Predictive Systems are Penetrable Systems,” Review of Philosophical Psychology, 6(4): 547-569. doi:10.1007/s13164-015-0253-4

• Longino, H., 1979, “Evidence and Hypothesis: An Analysis of Evidential Relations,” Philosophy of Science, 46(1): 35-56.

• Morrison, M., 2015, Reconstructing Reality, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Neurath, O., 1913, “The Lost Wanderers of Descartes and the Auxilliary Motive,” in O. Neurath, Philosophical Papers, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1983, pp. 1-12.

• Olesko, K.M. and Holmes, F.L., 1994, “Experiment, Quantification and Discovery: Helmholtz’s Early Physiological Researches, 1843-50,” in D. Cahan, (ed.), Hermann Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth Century Science, Berkeley: UC Press, pp. 50-108)

• Osiander, A., 1543, “To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,” in N. Copernicus On the Revolutions, E. Rosen (tr., ed.), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. XX.

• Pearl, J., 2000, Causality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Pinch, T., 1985, “Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observation Reports in Physics,” in Social Studies of Science, 15, pp. 3­36.

• Popper, K.R.,1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, K.R. Popper (tr.), New York: Basic Books.

• Rheinberger, H. J., 1997, Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

• Roush, S., 2005, Tracking Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Schlick, M., 1935, “Facts and Propositions,” in Philosophy and Analysis, M.

Macdonald (ed.), New York: Philosophical Library, 1954, pp. 232-236.

• Spirtes, C., Glymour, C., and Scheines, R., 2000, Causation, Prediction, and Search, Cambridge: MIT Press.

• Steuer, R.H., “Artificial Distintegration and the Cambridge-Vienna Controversy,” in P. Achinstein and O. Hannaway (eds.), Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985, 239-307)

• Suppe, F., 1977, in F. Suppe (ed.)The Structure of Scientific Theories, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

• Valenstein, E.S., 2005, The War of the Soups and the Sparks, New York: Columbia University Press.

• Van Fraassen, B.C, 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

• Whewell, W., 1858, Novum OrganonRenovatum, Book II, in William Whewell Theory of ScientficMethod, R.E. Butts (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989, pp. 103-249.

James Bogen is an American science philosopher currently at University of Pittsburgh and an Elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His interests include ancient Greek Philosophy, Wittgenstein, epistemology of science, and topics in the history and philosophy of neurosciences.

Control questions

1. What are concept, judgment and inference?

2. Is absolute truth possible?

3. List steps of scientific method.

4. What is the difference between scientific theory and scientific law?

5. What are scientific revolutions?

6. What problems arise from a mismatch between resources and opportunities?

7. What challenges of modern science do you know?

8. What does it mean to be “scientifically proven”?

9. In what sciences experimentation plays a less central role: in natural or in social?

10. Do humans need imagination?

Explain the difference between absolute and relative truth.

11. What is scientific modeling?