Humphreys, Paul Professor of Philosophy, University of Virginia
Print publication date: 2004 (this edition)
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online:
Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-515870-0
doi:10.1093/0195158709.003.0005
 

Paul Humphreys
Various underdetermination arguments against selective realism are explored and rebutted. The role of abstraction and idealization in templates is explored. The fact that most computational processes are epistemically opaque is emphasized, and the effect that opacity has on scientific knowledge is explained using the Ising model as an example. Arguments are given for emphasizing mathematical form over logical form in the philosophy of science, and for emphasizing methods applicable in practice over those applicable only in principle.
Keywords: abstraction, idealization, Ising model, logical form, mathematical form, methods, realism, scientific knowledge, template, underdetermination
doi:10.1093/0195158709.003.0005
Quick Search Form
 
scroll up fast
scroll up
 
scroll down
scroll down fast